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."

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.

I am not conceding a thing. This is politics, not some meeting of academics. Politicians rip off other people's sh**t all the time. This is trivial at the end of the day and your typical left-wing media gotcha game. I'd be more than happy to supply examples of Democrats that did the same thing, if you'd like.

[psychprofessor]

Looks as if the staff person, Meredith McIver is actually a made up person. Multiple media outlets now looking into if this person actually exists.

[TomC]

So the rickroll wasn't? I'm still not quite convinced. The "no such thing as bad press" tweet makes me think it was planned. Media sure stopped talking about chaos and gestapo tactics.

[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.

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.

They hell of it doesn't mean "nothing to change anyone's mind."
I'm sure some independents, and individuals associated with academia, who were on the fence, take plagiarism very seriously. This incident will only push these individuals to vote against
the Trump /IS Dense campaign.

[Alcon]

I am not conceding a thing. This is politics, not some meeting of academics. Politicians rip off other people's sh**t all the time. This is trivial at the end of the day and your typical left-wing media gotcha game. I'd be more than happy to supply examples of Democrats that did the same thing, if you'd like.

The only thing I care about is you either substantively rebutting my argument (which you absolutely haven't) or conceding you're can't/unwilling.  Whether Democrats did "the same thing" (what "same" thing was that?) isn't material to whether your dismissal of the statistical evidence of plagiarism was reasonable.

lol at "this is not a meeting of academics."  Are you dismissing the statistical evidence because somehow statistics don't apply outside of academics?  You're ridiculous.

[heatcharger]

Looks as if the staff person, Meredith McIver is actually a made up person. Multiple media outlets now looking into if this person actually exists.

Jesus. What's next, John Miller will be making a speech at the convention? How much deeper can we go into this rabbit hole that they dug themselves?

[Alcon]

http://time.com/4415378/meredith-mciver-donald-trump-speech/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If she's a fictitious person, that's some weird deep background.

[TomC]

She's real

[Erich Maria Remarque]

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.

Do you think, that it was a awful speech? In my opinion, it was a pretty good, and plagiarism gave it publicity it needed. Plagiarism is bad, but it's Trump we're talking about. Frankly, I wouldn't argue, if we'd be plagiarizing more from Obama

[PeteB]

McIver is real and is a former NYC ballet dancer.

However that fact doesn't excuse the sloppiness of Trump's campaign.

[ProudModerate2]

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.

Do you think, that it was a awful speech? In my opinion, it was a pretty good, and plagiarism gave it publicity it needed. Plagiarism is bad, but it's Trump we're talking about. Frankly, I wouldn't argue, if we'd be plagiarizing more from Obama

You got it all wrong.
It was the plagiarism that made the speech "pretty good." Without the Michelle Obama quotes, it would have just been mediocre.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

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.

Do you think, that it was a awful speech? In my opinion, it was a pretty good, and plagiarism gave it publicity it needed. Plagiarism is bad, but it's Trump we're talking about. Frankly, I wouldn't argue, if we'd be plagiarizing more from Obama

You got it all wrong.
It was the plagiarism that made the speech "pretty good." Without the Michelle Obama quotes, it would have just been mediocre.

[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."

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

Looks like you're right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/melania-trump-speech-campaign-contribution_us_578fb709e4b0f180da641208

[SillyAmerican]

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.

Here's what I think.

(1) That one section of Melania's speech was clearly taken from Michelle Obama's speech;
(2) I don't think Melania wrote 100% of that speech, especially given that english is not her first language;
(3) Somebody in the Trump campaign dropped the ball, because you don't leave a speech being delivered by a potential first lady to be unchecked and left to chance;
(4) Nobody casts a vote for Melania Trump;
(5) Unless the criticism being leveled against Melania is coming from someone who can point to similar comments which were just as critical of Joe Biden's plagiarization history, this is simply politics as usual;

[Taco Truck 🚚]

(5) Unless the criticism being leveled against Melania is coming from someone who can point to similar comments which were just as critical of Joe Biden's plagiarization history, this is simply politics as usual;

Three things.

(1) Biden dropped out of the race.  There was a severe price that was paid.  So your analogy is telling us this is a big deal.

(2) Biden quoted a Labor leader.  He didn't quote the person that his party had been demonizing for 8 years.  It just makes you look like a liar when you demonize someone for 8 years then stand their cheering for someone who is quoting that person word for word.

(3) It's over.  Stick a fork in it.  Post all you want.  The verdict is in.  The RNC was a disaster.

[SillyAmerican]

(5) Unless the criticism being leveled against Melania is coming from someone who can point to similar comments which were just as critical of Joe Biden's plagiarization history, this is simply politics as usual;

Three things.

(1) Biden dropped out of the race.  There was a severe price that was paid.  So your analogy is telling us this is a big deal.

(2) Biden quoted a Labor leader.  He didn't quote the person that his party had been demonizing for 8 years.  It just makes you look like a liar when you demonize someone for 8 years then stand their cheering for someone who is quoting that person word for word.

(3) It's over.  Stick a fork in it.  Post all you want.  The verdict is in.  The RNC was a disaster.

Three things.

(1) Again, Melania isn't running for anything. You needn't wonder which charge I believe is worse, that of a candidate that has plagiarized, or a candidate's wife that has plagiarized. (And again, I don't believe it was Melania who lifted those particular words...).

(2) I don't know of anybody who has "demonized" Michelle Obama. And the criticism should be leveled against the act of plagiarism, regardless of whose words were being lifted.

(3) Your particular verdict was in before any RNC speeches were delivered; we get that. Whether or not the RNC is a "disaster", which is to say how voters respond to the event, remains to be seen. It might be a good idea to let the event wrap up before delivering any pronouncements about its success or failure, no? So I'll be keeping my fork handy (but unstuck) for the time being...

[Taco Truck 🚚]

(2) I don't know of anybody who has "demonized" Michelle Obama.

I would say you just lost all credibility but we all know that happened a long time ago.

[Gustaf]

(2) I don't know of anybody who has "demonized" Michelle Obama.

I would say you just lost all credibility but we all know that happened a long time ago.

Anyone still backing Trump at this point is either an idiot or a fascist or both so of course they'll spout nonsense. But just so we don't sink to their level, here are some examples:

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/03/the_right_wings_hideous_crusade_against_michelle_obama_has_completely_fallen_apart/