Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Trumpled (Alternative Leading) (Read 2405745 times) previous topic - next topic
Lods and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #465 –
Bad luck for her that she took credit for writing it "with as little help as possible".  Not that you'd expect that a former model with a thick Slovenian accent would have any difficulty throwing together a wonderful oration.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #466 –
The "Delegates Unbound" group made for an interesting start to the convention.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #468 –
Quote from: Mav – on
Bad luck for her that she took credit for writing it "with as little help as possible".  Not that you'd expect that a former model with a thick Slovenian accent would have any difficulty throwing together a wonderful oration.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-accused-of-plagiarism-in-speech/
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #470 –
Quote from: sandsmere – on
Dated 2008.

Hardly relevant today.

Pathetic how the same people bashing Trump for being a sexist pig are happy to got to town on this poor woman for doing what they all do.

2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!
 

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #471 –
Quote from: Mav – on
Bad luck for her that she took credit for writing it "with as little help as possible".  Not that you'd expect that a former model with a thick Slovenian accent would have any difficulty throwing together a wonderful oration.

It just shows that Donald is right; immigrants are going to the US and stealing from Americans.  I'm not sure that he meant speeches though.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #472 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
Pathetic how the same people bashing Trump for being a sexist pig are happy to got to town on this poor woman for doing what they all do.

She isn't poor, but good point.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #473 –
So funny, MBB!  If you're going to try to pull a sexism counter-attack, best not resort to the 'poor woman' trope.  A 'poor woman' is a helpless victim who needs the protection of a strong male.  That's not really the way someone who is serious about sexism would talk.  As Bear points out, she certainly isn't poor by any normal metric - she's privilege personified.

The next error is to suggest that she was attacked "for doing what they all do" while also pointing out that the same allegation was made against Obama.  The latter point highlights that political speeches are routinely scrutinised by opponents to see if they contain any plagiarism.  Once spotted, such plagiarism is always the subject of comment whether the one who makes the speech is male or female.  And politicians do their best to avoid falling into this trap, with speeches being carefully vetted to avoid unintentional plagiarism.  So, not everybody does it and when caught out all those who do it are roasted.

So what was the attack, and who really was the target?  You don't think the attack is really directed at Trump?  Wasn't it attacking Trump's relentless dishonesty?  He or his campaign had Melania say that she wrote the whole speech "with as little help as possible".  That is clearly a lie as is apparent from the media autopsy.  The speechwriters were all over it, though the latest suggestion is that the plagiarised text was added after it was finally vetted.  I don't think anyone would have cared if she said that she left it to speechwriters given she isn't a native English speaker.  And if she had, the allegations of plagiarism would have been levelled at the speechwriters rather than Melania.  But the lie put her right in it.  Even if she hadn't claimed authorship, Trump's campaign staff probably wouldn't have wanted to accept the blame as it would feed a perception of incompetence, disorganisation and deceptiveness.

But I reckon it has Trump's fingerprints all over it.  If the media reports that the offending text was added after final vetting are true, surely he's the most likely suspect.  It's safe to say Melania didn't add it herself.  We know Trump liked Michelle Obama's speech - he tweeted his approval when she gave it.  We know he likes rebadging the work of white supremacists such as the picture of Hillary superimposed on a pile of cash and with a comment in a Star of David.

And we also know that Trump just has to say that everything in his world is just the greatest in all respects.  He just couldn't let Melania admit she isn't the world's greatest wordsmith.  He wants to show that Melania is every bit as eloquent as Michelle Obama, so much so that they say pretty much the same things!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #474 –
It doesn't matter a lot who "copied other folk's homework" in the past.
What matters is the "now".
That's why this is a problem.

Trump needs a good convention.
He needs a mistake free convention, and one that at least gives the impression that the party is healing the wounds and coming together.

Had Melania's speech not contained the "copied" parts it would have been seen as a real positive.
Unfortunately it took the focus away, from not only the speech, but a very positive start to the convention. (Some minor hiccups over procedural matters was quickly quashed).

The next few days may present a few problems for Trump....Ted Cruz to speak....but he needs it to stay positive and united.

There's also the elephant in the room (or not in the room). John Kasich the governor of Ohio is not present at a convention in his own state. (No Bushes either)..That probably reflects more on Kasich but clearly demonstrates there are still major divisions and opposition to Trump in the party.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #475 –
What a shambles!

Two speakers have pointedly refused to endorse Trump.  A female astronaut failed to read out the penultimate sentence in her written speech which was a statement that Trump was the man to make America great.  The fact that the campaign had released the text made the omission obvious.

More importantly, Cruz refused to endorse Trump despite the crowd shouting at him to do so.  There was loud booing at the end of the speech and Trump came out into the crowd, seemingly to distract attention from the debacle that was unfolding.

How desperate it was for Trump to recruit Cruz as a speaker when in all likelihood Trump's personal attacks on Cruz and Cruz's desire to run in 2020 would make it impossible for him to endorse Trump.

Thankfully, Trump has 4 children who can be trusted to endorse him.  And he can always be sure that current Trump employees won't stab him in the back, not if they want to keep their jobs.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #476 –
Second Lieutenant Michael Pence may have a difficult time if Hilary Clinton is his new Commander in Chief. :D

Off to the Aleutian Islands ;D

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #477 –
I couldn't stand watching the whole speech but it was interesting listening to Cruz defining freedom; if it conforms to my ideology, it's freedom.  If it doesn't, it's not.

The conference is a debacle and is perhaps a look into the future of a Trump administration.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #478 –
Yep, conservatives seem to use Orwell's 1984 as a blueprint.  They love to rebadge oppression as 'freedom'.  Of course, in a sense they are right.  If you limit someone's ability to oppress others, you limit his or her freedom to do as he or she pleases.  For instance, the Magna Carta certainly reduced the Monarchy's power and freedom.

Conservative Christians such as Cruz and Pence believe that gays are an abomination and their lives should be a misery in this world and the next.  They believe that the Bible gives them the right to oppress such sinners.  But demanding the right to discriminate and ostracise them isn't good PR.  Why not rebadge the Right to Discriminate as a fight for the Freedom of Religion?  Hell yeah! 

They love to twist the 1st Amendment which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...".  This explicitly prohibits attempts by the US or State Governments to declare Christianity as the religion of the US but that hasn't stopped the Christian Right from demanding this anyway.  The Supreme Court ruled that: "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach [only those religious] actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." 

In other words, the First Amendment didn't allow people to invoke their religion to excuse them from obeying the laws of the land, the prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of services being one such law.  Attempts by Pence and others to grant a right to discriminate were deemed unconstitutional.

The funny thing is that this social conservative agenda runs counter to libertarian values and the desire to minimise Government interference in the lives of citizens.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #479 –
They want a weakened state when it suits them, and a strong state when it doesn't.