Melania Trump plagiarism/rickroll megathread

[Seriously?]

A statistical analysis by college plagiarism checker TurnItIn estimates a "less than 1 in 1 trillion" chance of coincidence.

This is exactly what I was saying, Seriously?.

This is basically a non-issue to me, but that's not an excuse to be intellectually dishonest about it.

Yawns. A few tripe political cliches, which have origins in places OTHER than Michelle Obama's speech is reused in another speech and hugh and series. What's the red avatar response when actual crimes are overlooked?

"Move on."

[Alcon]

A statistical analysis by college plagiarism checker TurnItIn estimates a "less than 1 in 1 trillion" chance of coincidence.

This is exactly what I was saying, Seriously?.

This is basically a non-issue to me, but that's not an excuse to be intellectually dishonest about it.

Yawns. A few tripe political cliches, which have origins in places OTHER than Michelle Obama's speech is reused in another speech and hugh and series. What's the red avatar response when actual crimes are overlooked?

"Move on."

Here's the deal, Seriously?.

You know that my argument is not based only on the reuse of themes or simple cliches.  You know that because I've explained it to you six times.  You know, on some level, that you are knowingly ignoring, or blocking out my explanations.

You know, or should know, that your argument isn't responsive to the TurnItIn article.  You know this because any half-intelligent person who reads the article understands that TurnItIn detects the likelihood of linguistic similarities using a vast database of written works, that takes into account that it's not uncommon for similarly-phrased wording to be in similar works.  If the recurrence of themes were enough to flag a paper as a one-in-one-trillion chance to not be plagiarized, obviously TurnItIn would not work as academic plagiarism detection software.  Duh.  If you don't know that, you didn't read the article.  Either that or you're so willingly deluded that you literally shut down these thought processes before they can instill doubt in the things you want to believe.

You know that I'm a reasonably intelligent person who knows you're being obviously dishonest with my argument.

You know that I am not going to stop hounding you on this until you're honest.  If you doubt me, read my post history.

You know I've explained to you, in simple terms, why what you're saying is non-responsive to my argument.  You know how totally disrespectful it is that you're wasting my time with this wall of complete and total bullsh**t.

You know that "this isn't a big deal" is not somehow an excuse for any of this.  I agree with you, actually, and don't view Melania Trump negatively for this at all.

So, if you know this, why are you doing this?  Maybe you're so emotionally dedicated to reaching a certain conclusion that you literally can't think through dissonant information.  Or maybe you think that, by conceding this issue -- one I totally agree is insignificant and doesn't reflect negatively on the people you like -- you somehow do damage to those people.  That certainly would explain how you keep responding to strawman versions of arguments, even when it's explicitly pointed out you're doing that, and keep mixing in crap about what "the opposition does."  Because, perhaps, in your mind, this is a zero-sum war to hold faith in your talking points, and the first person who blinks, instead of defending "their side," loses.

Here's the thing, Seriously?.

It doesn't matter what the opposition does.

It doesn't matter whether this reflects poorly on candidates or causes you like, or doesn't.

It doesn't matter whether this is a big deal.

It doesn't matter whether you are so insecure that you're intellectually or emotionally unprepared to deal with dissonant information.

Nothing matters except what is a reasonable, intellectually honest read of the facts.

In failing to engage that, you're being a credulous hack, completely disrespecting my time, and repeatedly embarrassing yourself by pretending that everyone, including people who agree with your politics, including probably you, doesn't know exactly what you're doing with this repetitive and hypocritical regurgitation of vacuous talking point crap.

Listen to your own advice.  Either respond to my argument (which I've presented in patient detail) in a way that actually engages the substance, or put your tail between your legs, admit you're incapable of engaging this issue like a grown-up, and MOVE ON.

And don't worry: I'm not mad.  I just enjoy this.  And I will continue to enjoy letting you embarrass yourself until you engage the substance here or admit you're unwilling to.

[Alcon]

Also, Seriously?, before you play the "that was too long, it would take too much time to respond!!!" card:  bullsh**t.  Most of that was just calling you ridiculous.  You don't need to respond to that.  You just need to stop being ridiculous.

The only part you need to respond to is the substance of my argument.  You're the one who has wasted your own time by avoiding that until now.

[Lyin' Steve]

I will now accept my accolades

My guess would be that Trump muddles the issue similar to how Seriously? is, by going on some networks and saying "they both used some common ideas, some common phrases, they both wanted to give an inspirational and uplifting message, and I think that's something you shouldn't tear someone down for."

Wrote the entire script to the Trump campaign response within five minutes of the story breaking and nailed the entire thing, right down to the "tear down" script-flipping language.

[ProudModerate2]

I will now accept my accolades

My guess would be that Trump muddles the issue similar to how Seriously? is, by going on some networks and saying "they both used some common ideas, some common phrases, they both wanted to give an inspirational and uplifting message, and I think that's something you shouldn't tear someone down for."

Wrote the entire script to the Trump campaign response within five minutes of the story breaking and nailed the entire thing, right down to the "tear down" script-flipping language.

True that both trump and Seriously responded similarly.
But they also both failed miserably and look like fools.

[Holmes]

This random staffer who resigned because of this basically said it was Melania that fed her Michelle's lines, so Melania knew she was plagiarizing. Lying fraud family.

[jollyschwa]

The staffer saying that Melania gave her Michelle's lines because she admires her is actually making me start to believe that Trump really is a Dem plant.

[Likely Voter]

As I suggested, they needed to put out a sacrificial lamb, but they should have done this over 24 hours ago. Now there is a whole day of Manafort and others denying there was any plagiarism.

This McIver thing gives another insight into how the Trump campaign operates. Two seasoned GOP writers wrote the speech and handed it in a month ago and instead of using that the Trump team went to an old friend and ghostwriter who worked with Melania to create a new speech, and apparently no one bothered to run that through usual checks. This is just another example of how this is a shoestring operation and one not always taking advice from the seasoned pros because they think since they won the nomination they are infallible.  

Another example of that is how they have done the speaker arrangements. Many have noted how each night they seem to put the headliner at the beginning of the primetime hour and not finish big, leaving half the audience leaving while Joni Ernst is talking for example. CNN reported yesterday that again old RNC hands wanted to do it the usual way (end the night with the big speech) but the Trump people rejected that.  

[Gass3268]

Wait, isn't it illegal to use corporate resources (Trump Organization employees like McIver) in campaigns?

[Holmes]

Wait, isn't it illegal for corporate resources (Trump Organization employees like McIver) in campaigns?

Mhmm. The FEC might get involved now, and it might lead to some (un)expected discoveries.

[jollyschwa]

Wait, isn't it illegal for corporate resources (Trump Organization employees like McIver) in campaigns?

I think only if they get paid for it.  She might have been "doing them a favor."

[Gass3268]

Wait, isn't it illegal for corporate resources (Trump Organization employees like McIver) in campaigns?

I think only if they get paid for it.  She might have been "doing them a favor."

But then to make a statement identifying yourself as a Trump Organization employee with their letterhead?

[cinyc]

Another example of that is how they have done the speaker arrangements. Many have noted how each night they seem to put the headliner at the beginning of the primetime hour and not finish big, leaving half the audience leaving while Joni Ernst is talking for example. CNN reported yesterday that again old RNC hands wanted to do it the usual way (end the night with the big speech) but the Trump people rejected that.

I think Trump is right on getting the most important headliner at the beginning of the primetime hour.  The 10PM hour, when the broadcast networks join the coverage, is the least-rated of primetime because many people go to bed.  Putting your most important speakers later runs the risk of having a smaller audience, especially if the networks go with boring talking heads instead of showing the previous speakers, or the previous speakers bomb.  It also runs the risk of running late and having the networks cut away from your speech if it's too boring.  Putting your most important speakers earlier ensures a greater audience, at least on the East Coast.  And, as Muon has been telling us, it runs the risk of the main speaker speaking to an empty floor, as delegates leave for parties and get togethers.

[Illiniwek]

Melania Trump Speechwriter Takes Blame For Plagiarizing Michelle Obama’s Speech

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/melania-trump-speech-meredith-mciver_us_578fa921e4b07c722ebd4376?rq1c3bzdj5k359udi

[Crumpets]

Another example of that is how they have done the speaker arrangements. Many have noted how each night they seem to put the headliner at the beginning of the primetime hour and not finish big, leaving half the audience leaving while Joni Ernst is talking for example. CNN reported yesterday that again old RNC hands wanted to do it the usual way (end the night with the big speech) but the Trump people rejected that.

I think Trump is right on getting the most important headliner at the beginning of the primetime hour.  The 10PM hour, when the broadcast networks join the coverage, is the least-rated of primetime because many people go to bed.  Putting your most important speakers later runs the risk of having a smaller audience, especially if the networks go with boring talking heads instead of showing the previous speakers, or the previous speakers bomb.  It also runs the risk of running late and having the networks cut away from your speech if it's too boring.  Putting your most important speakers earlier ensures a greater audience, at least on the East Coast.  And, as Muon has been telling us, it runs the risk of the main speaker speaking to an empty floor, as delegates leave for parties and get togethers.

Is there some statistic on swing state voters per time zone? I imagine east has the most because of FLOHVAPA.

[Likely Voter]

Another example of that is how they have done the speaker arrangements. Many have noted how each night they seem to put the headliner at the beginning of the primetime hour and not finish big, leaving half the audience leaving while Joni Ernst is talking for example. CNN reported yesterday that again old RNC hands wanted to do it the usual way (end the night with the big speech) but the Trump people rejected that.

I think Trump is right on getting the most important headliner at the beginning of the primetime hour.  The 10PM hour, when the broadcast networks join the coverage, is the least-rated of primetime because many people go to bed.  Putting your most important speakers later runs the risk of having a smaller audience, especially if the networks go with boring talking heads instead of showing the previous speakers, or the previous speakers bomb.  It also runs the risk of running late and having the networks cut away from your speech if it's too boring.  Putting your most important speakers earlier ensures a greater audience, at least on the East Coast.  And, as Muon has been telling us, it runs the risk of the main speaker speaking to an empty floor, as delegates leave for parties and get togethers.

I get the other argument. I don't agree with it per se, but I do see it. My bigger point was that the Trump team are rejecting the advice of the people who have done this before over and over again. Maybe there are cases where that is a good thing, but in many cases it is a bad thing. This plagiarism thing is clearly one of the bad things.

Another example of the disjointed thing is how yesterday every surrogate was saying something different. Carson was saying how great it was that Melania and Obama can sound the same, Christie was talking about how most of the speech was original so that is fine, Spicer was talking My Little Pony and Manafort was rejecting the notion there was anything happening at all. A real campaign would have fired the person responsible and had unified talking points out to everyone by 9am yesterday.

This convention continues to expose how the pirate ship that is the Trump campaign is not ready for the general.

[Gass3268]

Trump celebrates plagiarized speech but it got the most publicity "in the history of politics"

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Trump celebrates plagiarized speech but it got the most publicity "in the history of politics"

In the sense that it was given at two separate conventions, he's technically correct.

[Hermit For Peace]

Trump celebrates plagiarized speech but it got the most publicity "in the history of politics"

This cracks me up. It isn't surprising that Trump is totally into the numbers and not the quality of the speech.

Just do whatever you do in a BIG way! Whether what you do is good or not, just make sure it makes a BIG SPLASH. Trump's credo.

[heatcharger]

So Melania clearly lied about saying she wrote the speech "with little help as possible". She needs to be grilled for this and has to apologize.

[Likely Voter]

Regarding the legality of Trump Org working on campaign, WaPo article covers it saying that as long as they account for it properly it's Ok...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/20/did-the-trump-campaign-violate-federal-law-by-using-a-trump-organization-speechwriter/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[PeteB]

Color me naive but I actually believe McIver, that she inserted the Michelle Obama paragraphs. Whatever I may think of the Trumps, nobody can be that dumb.

However, it does raise the issue of the perpetual  amateur hour in Trump's campaign - ultimately that will be the nail in the campaign coffin.

[Likely Voter]

Color me naive but I actually believe McIver, that she inserted the Michelle Obama paragraphs. Whatever I may think of the Trumps, nobody can be that dumb.

Well she actually said it was Melania who provided her with the Obama passages, and I believe her.  Only a non-professional would do that. The mistake McIver admits to is not double checking to see what Melania gave her was word for word from Michelle Obama.

She is saying that Melania is the plagiarizer but it was her job as the ghostwriter to edit it so it was different enough.

[Illiniwek]

Color me naive but I actually believe McIver, that she inserted the Michelle Obama paragraphs. Whatever I may think of the Trumps, nobody can be that dumb.

Well she actually said it was Melania who provided her with the Obama passages, and I believe her.  Only a non-professional would do that. The mistake McIver admits to is not double checking to see what Melania gave her was word for word from Michelle Obama.

She is saying that Melania is the plagiarizer but it was her job as the ghostwriter to edit it so it was different enough.

It's a very believable story.

[Seriously?]

I will now accept my accolades

My guess would be that Trump muddles the issue similar to how Seriously? is, by going on some networks and saying "they both used some common ideas, some common phrases, they both wanted to give an inspirational and uplifting message, and I think that's something you shouldn't tear someone down for."

Wrote the entire script to the Trump campaign response within five minutes of the story breaking and nailed the entire thing, right down to the "tear down" script-flipping language.

True that both trump and Seriously responded similarly.
But they also both failed miserably and look like fools.

Maybe I am a Trump plant... Or maybe I am not. In either event, this nonsense is much ado about nothing that isn't going to change anyone's mind on who they are voting for.