+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: Trumpled (Alternative Leading) (/thread-2312.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - madbluboy - 07-20-2016
(07-20-2016, 01:31 AM)sandsmere link Wrote: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.
Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - DJC - 07-20-2016
(07-19-2016, 06:51 AM)Mav link Wrote: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.
Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - Bear - 07-20-2016
(07-20-2016, 01:43 AM)madbluboy link Wrote: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 - Mav - 07-20-2016
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 - Lods - 07-20-2016
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 - Mav - 07-21-2016
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 - Lods - 07-21-2016
Second Lieutenant Michael Pence may have a difficult time if Hilary Clinton is his new Commander in Chief.
Off to the Aleutian Islands ;D
Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - DJC - 07-21-2016
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.
Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - Mav - 07-21-2016
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 - PaulP - 07-21-2016
They want a weakened state when it suits them, and a strong state when it doesn't.