EPTThere's the possibility that this was an intentional move by the Trump campaign to capture a news cycle, or distract from other problems, or set up contrast because they have opposition research that shows Clinton plagiarized speeches or something. However, it's far more likely that this is simple incompetence, and everything else we've seen coming out of the convention thus far points to the latter rather than the former.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4332
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
There's the possibility that this was an intentional move by the Trump campaign to capture a news cycle, or distract from other problems, or set up contrast because they have opposition research that shows Clinton plagiarized speeches or something. However, it's far more likely that this is simple incompetence, and everything else we've seen coming out of the convention thus far points to the latter rather than the former. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21961 Posts
On July 20 2016 03:50 TheTenthDoc wrote: I don't think very many people want Melania Trump raked over the coals or to retract the speech or give a public apology to Michelle or whatever. In fact I think the speech and her delivery of it were received the best by the "left" of any of the speeches that day. I think people just find it fascinating and in some ways hilarious that 1) nobody in the Trump campaign is willing to admit the speech was not penned by her and 2) the campaign will go to such extremes to fight allegations that the speech was copied in any way. Thats the whole reason this is in the news in the first place. If the Trump campaigns first statement was 'we will look into it and take action if it was indeed copied" the news would have ended then and there. Instead we have multiple Trump officials denying anything was stolen in the face of overwhelming evidence. | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
On July 20 2016 03:50 TheTenthDoc wrote: I don't think very many people want Melania Trump raked over the coals or to retract the speech or give a public apology to Michelle or whatever. In fact I think the speech and her delivery of it were received the best by the "left" of any of the speeches that day. I think people just find it fascinating and in some ways hilarious that 1) nobody in the Trump campaign is willing to admit the speech was not penned by her and 2) the campaign will go to such extremes to fight allegations that the speech was copied in any way. This. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States5770 Posts
On July 20 2016 03:54 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Alright boys let's do this!! + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + Source OH THE OUTAGE!!! Maybe that's why he said “I think that I'm a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Incapable of admiring mistakes. Literally incapable. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45078 Posts
On July 20 2016 03:53 The Bottle wrote: I was disputing Kwark's specific point that she chose the exact same words in the same order without synonyms or variations. At no point did I say that it disqualifies her from plagiarism if she in fact copied it from Obama's speech. In fact I even went on to clarify that I understand the scenario of plagiarism in which someone takes a passage and makes minor tweaks to it. Then you came and attacked me for not understanding what plagiarism means, when at no point I disqualified a passage from being plagiarised if it was copied with minor tweaks being made. I only offered my skepticism of the proposition that it was copied in the first place and my reasoning for that, which is something you can certainly dispute. You just have to understand what you're disputing before you actually respond, which you clearly didn't. The fact that you can try to dispute something is different than whether or not there's reasonable evidence disputing the claim. You can try and dispute anything you want, but if your argument really is "well, most of it isn't, the part that is plagiarized is meh, and I don't care" then your argument should remain dismissive and not "it's not true". It's either true and you don't care, or it's false... But it can't be both. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 20 2016 03:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/SkyNewsTonight/status/755472151021428736 We could still be talking about this tomorrow because the Trump camp will have come up with more excuses and reasons. Rather than just admit they made a mistake. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21961 Posts
On July 20 2016 03:55 Seuss wrote: It's plagiarism and it's ironic, but I don't think either of those things are as important as how this gives the lie to Trump's assertion that he'll make up for his deficiencies through his staffing. There's the possibility that this was an intentional move by the Trump campaign to capture a news cycle, or distract from other problems, or set up contrast because they have opposition research that shows Clinton plagiarized speeches or something. However, it's far more likely that this is simple incompetence, and everything else we've seen coming out of the convention thus far points to the latter rather than the former. You think that a campaign who has made mistake after mistake had a special speech ready for her incase they needed something to distract the news from a potentially bad convention day? Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14048 Posts
I mean its a convention speech and now everyones talking about it. Isn't that the whole point to begin with? | ||
|
The Bottle
242 Posts
On July 20 2016 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The fact that you can try to dispute something is different than whether or not there's reasonable evidence disputing the claim. You can try and dispute anything you want, but if your argument really is "well, most of it isn't, the part that is plagiarized is meh, and I don't care" then your argument should remain dismissive and not "it's not true". It's either true and you don't care, or it's false... But it can't be both. Let me lay out my points clearly, and keep in mind that none of these points are mutually exclusive, nor do they contradict anything I have said before. - I am skeptical of the claim that this specific paragraph was plagiarised, even though it looks very suspicious and there's good reason to believe that it was - the fact that the alleged plagiarised passage is one small portion of the speech, and one particularly trite and uninteresting portion makes me question the motivation for plagiarising that passage in the first place, which lends to reasonable doubt that it was plagiarised - the passage is not identical, it has small semantic differences and even a completely new sentence. While this certainly does not rule out the possibility that it's plagiarised, it also means that the skeptical position is not completely unreasonable - the media is making a mountain out of a molehill whether or not the passage was plagiarised You can judge the level of dismissiveness of my position, and you can argue how unreasonable my position is. But you can't claim that I don't understand what plagiarism is, or that I'm claiming that it's "not true". | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45078 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dyfnUb6.png) | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
On July 20 2016 04:04 Sermokala wrote: It just seems like more of the "if we can't get good press lets get bad press" strategy that trump has been following his whole campaign. I mean its a convention speech and now everyones talking about it. Isn't that the whole point to begin with? I'm pretty sure trump would much prefer that we be talking about how unexpectedly smoothly the convention is going rather then whether his wife ripped off a speech from the secret Muslim presidents wife. I don't understand how people think the trump campaign is the product of cold calculation, and not, you know, what one would expect of a campaign headed by a birther real estate developer with 0 political experience and run by a dictator lobbyist who hasn't had a major role in a presidential campaign since the 70s. | ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
On July 20 2016 03:59 Gorsameth wrote: You think that a campaign who has made mistake after mistake had a special speech ready for her incase they needed something to distract the news from a potentially bad convention day? Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity I don't! That's what "it's far more likely that this is simple incompetence" meant. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On July 20 2016 04:05 The Bottle wrote: Let me lay out my points clearly, and keep in mind that none of these points are mutually exclusive, nor do they contradict anything I have said before. - I am skeptical of the claim that this specific paragraph was plagiarised, even though it looks very suspicious and there's good reason to believe that it was - the fact that the alleged plagiarised passage is one small portion of the speech, and one particularly trite and uninteresting portion makes me question the motivation for plagiarising that passage in the first place, which lends to reasonable doubt that it was plagiarised - the passage is not identical, it has small semantic differences and even a completely new sentence. While this certainly does not rule out the possibility that it's plagiarised, it also means that the skeptical position is not completely unreasonable - the media is making a mountain out of a molehill whether or not the passage was plagiarised You can judge the level of dismissiveness of my position, and you can argue how unreasonable my position is. But you can't claim that I don't understand what plagiarism is, or that I'm claiming that it's "not true". -You can also be skeptical that the moon landing was fake. Even though there is good reason to believe it happened. You know like evidence. -The length and importance is irrelevant. You are questioning a hypothetical and asking for some sort of motive which doesnt really need to exist to prove the crime. -The third point is a nothing statement, you are basically saying "we cant be sure because.. words..." -Yes the media is making a mountain out of a molehill, it is doing so because it is being lied to (maybe it would do so either way, but again hypotheticals.) Also using the logic you have outlined it is not "completely unreasonable to suggest" that based on your dismisiveness + Show Spoiler + (is that a word?) Because frankly the alternative is willful ignorance. You decide which is worse. And all of this is kinda funny because the issue is far gone form the fact that she copied some words. Thats not even the story anymore. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
What was it to be a vote on? Why did they deny it? Were there any procedural irregularities, or was proper procedure followed in denying it? I want to make a joke about Republicans being obstructionist and not letting stuff come to a vote, but I want the facts first so I don't make an unsound joke. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
Its this continual denial and deflection by everyone that makes this noteworthy at all. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23488 Posts
On July 20 2016 04:27 zlefin wrote: I'd like to hear more about the denial of the roll-call vote issue. What was it to be a vote on? Why did they deny it? Were there any procedural irregularities, or was proper procedure followed in denying it? I want to make a joke about Republicans being obstructionist and not letting stuff come to a vote, but I want the facts first so I don't make an unsound joke. The roll call vote was to approve the rules, they wanted to not approve the rules to push to unbind the delegates (they promised other people other alterations if they supported it to whip up votes). They denied it because they didn't want to delay the proceedings (according to manifort) but the real reason was they thought the optics of denying the roll call would be less bad than a roll call vote on trying to undermine Trump's ability to win the nomination on the first ballot (by potentially unbinding delegates). As for the procedure, it's rigged in such a way that cheating wasn't necessary. The reasoning for denying the roll call was justified by saying only 11 states, instead of the 12 required, petitioned for it. I've heard reports that the rules previously had 7 but the committee bumped it to 12 (when they heard about this plan) but I haven't confirmed that bit myself. People throwing all this shade at Melania sure were quiet about Hillary copying Bernie word for word sometimes. Of all the things that happened last night, Melania was the dumbest thing to focus on, yet that's exactly what everyone did. I know people can't understand why Trump is just denying this, but again you have to remember between him, Hillary, and the media, Trump comes out as the most trustworthy. Why admit to it, when people will believe your denial more than they believe their lyin' eyes or the media or Hillary/Congress? | ||
| ||
