Posted on 07/18/2016 9:44:51 PM PDT by aynrandfreak
Mrs. Trump, Monday night:
“From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect. They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily lives. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son. And we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow. Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.”
Mrs. Obama, in her 2008 speech:
“Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you’re going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them. And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children — and all children in this nation — to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Here’s the conclusion from the website:
“This isn’t to say that Obama is excused for his actions, just that there are clearly bigger fish to fry. The exposure by the Clinton campaign seems to be motivated solely by politics, as is Obama’s counter-attack and that belittles both the ongoing issues and the nature of plagiarism itself.
Though I am clearly against plagiarism and have no sharp political opinions about Obama or Clinton, I think the nation, and indeed the world, would be better served if the issue were dropped in favor of the topics that matter more in the election.”
It's the same theme, but different words and there's just so many ways to say the same thing.
This whole nonsenseical codswallop is false and utter garbage, meant to distract from a GREAT night!
I agree.
Could be, but I think it is less likely than another person doing a quick run-through of other “first lady” speeches. It’s something anyone might do if they had no idea where to start and it’s perfectly okay for getting ideas. There was just a bit too much copying and not enough disguising.
The author herself probably knows the Michelle speech by heart and recites it to herself every once in a while. Very unlikely she would repeat her own words.
Great post! (95)
They had to find something after all those great speeches/stories throughout the evening.
>They had to find something after all those great speeches/stories throughout the evening.
Trump did it intentionally to make the media put up pictures of his wife and the wookie. People will take one look and think what an improvement she would be.
No.
See post #246. : )
If I was a professor, I have zero tolerance for plagiarism.
It indicates laziness, sloppy thinking, poor form and not crediting others with the source of the idea.
In politics, people borrow all the time without attribution and Neil Kinnock famously comes to mind.
Its not something I defend.
well then, they both plagerized John D. Rockefeller, Jr.:
‘I believe in the sacredness of a promise, that a man’s word should be as good as his bond; that character - not wealth or power or position - is of supreme worth”
or W. Lamb:
“Your word is your bond. Make sure your words match your actions. Keep your word and fulfill your promises. Your character is more important than your reputation.”
or Orson Welles:
In common with all Protestant and Jewish cultures, America was developed on the idea that your word is your bond. Otherwise the frontier could never have been opened, ‘cause it was lawless. A man’s word has to mean something.”
or even Charles Dickens:
“The word of a gentleman is as good as his bond; and sometimes better”
It will be forgotten. A few phrases out of an entire speech is not going to matter much with voters.
And public figures are held to a more lenient standard than students, academics and authors.
As long as it isn’t repeated, incidental plagiarism in public life scarcely matters.
There are bigger fish to fry. This controversy will pass.
From Politico: "A passage of Melania Trump's speech at the Republican National Convention on Monday night bore a striking resemblance to the speech delivered nearly eight years ago by another first lady hopeful, Michelle Obama."
From MSNBC: "Passages from Melania Trump's prime time speech at the Republican National Convention tonight bear a striking similarity to parts of Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2008."
If you think they were ever going let this night pass without finding something—anything—to distract and go nuts about, I got a bridge on sale.
The similarity is in the thought.
I do concede that changing a thought with a few changes of words is not acceptable practice.
Again, voters are not going judge Melania the way a professor would judge a student or a literary critic would judge an author.
The controversial passage was incidental and and it wasn’t like her entire speech was lifted word for word from someone before her.
Context does matter. Under the right circumstances, occasional plagiarism won’t really change our opinion of someone the way habitual plagiarism would change the way we view a person.
It all depends on whether a person is fundamentally dishonest enough not to have any original thought worth mentioning and not even Melania’s critics accuse her of plagiarizing Michelle’s entire address.
And she isn’t running for public office or trying to get a paper submitted in school or write a book, its not that a big deal and no one thinks it will really matter come Election Day.
> I think this was intentional by the Trump team.
I tend to think you are right.
I think this was a twist on Michelle’s ~First time proud of America~ line meant to get headlines. It’s another Trump head fake to the media, and it works, every time. It will be nothing by next week except to those who could never be converted in any case.
It’s true. There are people who will attack you if you criticize Trump or other popular conservatives. This is even if you post something with is constructive criticism, negative (not even because you agree with it) for discussion, or post poll numbers that aren’t favorable. It is cult like. There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism if it can help your candidate do better. There is nothing wrong with addressing negative news head on. If we don’t address it, counter it, and repudiate it, who will? There is nothing wrong with posting poll numbers. We need to know whether it is good or bad. Finally, there is nothing wrong with admitting your candidate made a mistake. To do otherwise goes beyond supporting a political candidate into blind following.
This thing with Melania is that basically, yes, I think it was plagiarized. However, she had writers who helped her with this speech, and I don’t see Melania Googling this speech, changing a couple of words, and then telling her speech writers to put it in. I think her speech writers talked to her, got her thoughts and feelings, some phrases from her, and put the speech together. The thoughts and feelings that Melania expressed are common in a lot of political speeches because most Americans share those values. The speech writer, in looking for a way to convey it, obviously liked the way that message was articulated in the Michelle Obama speech. Therefore, they changed a few words around and lifted it. That is, unless some speculate, someone was trying to sabotage her. The bottom line is, I highly, highly doubt that this is Melania’s fault.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.