GustavBahler wrote:You guys really want to bring their wives into this?

And then there is this:

Melania Trump's Claims She Graduated From College Are About As Credible As Her Speech Last Night

Melania Trump’s professional biography says the wife of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump began modeling at age 16, but she only began working full-time after obtaining a degree. She graduated “in design and architecture at University in Slovenia,” according to the bio as of Monday night:

It’s a good story, but it doesn’t appear to be true.

Melania Trump never earned a university degree in architecture ― she dropped out of college after her freshman year, according to her biographers. Still, she claims to have a degree from “university in Slovenia.”

Questions about her education grew more significant Tuesday morning, following the revelation that Melania Trump plagiarized parts of her speech to the Republican National Convention from one that First Lady Michelle Obama gave in 2008.

That revelation on Monday raised the question of whether there was anything else Melania Trump hadn’t been entirely truthful about.

Slovenian journalists Bojan Pozar and Igor Omerza wrote in their biography on the former fashion model that she “became ― and remained ― a college dropout” after leaving the University of Ljubljana’s architecture school following her freshman year.

Below is their account of this period of her life in the book, Melania Trump ― The Inside Story: From a Slovenian Communist Village to the White House:

In her freshman year, the 19-year old Melanija Knavs attended lectures on the following subjects: elements of architecture, fine arts, fundamentals of technical mechanics, architectural construction, descriptive geometry, mathematics, and an ideological (read “communist”) elective credit called “General Partisan Resistance and Social Self-protection”. Melanija would have made it to her sophomore year, even having failed 2 exams, but she was supposed to have gotten and held a 1-month internship and kept a journal about it.

******

Later, in America, after meeting Donald Trump and officially becoming his partner, Melania Knauss told the media that she got her degree in architecture and design. This was almost certainly done in consultation with Trump and his advisors, as they were desperate to give off the impression that the Slovenian model was not just beautiful, but also smart and well-educated.

The real issue is that when almost your entire campaign is about "lying Hillary," you can't be putting up a "lying Melania" as a spokesperson.

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:You guys really want to bring their wives into this?

Nobody did.

She and the campaign were receiving praise for the speech immediately following.

They did this to themselves.

And are currently making it worse.

This belongs on the petty level--I mean come on:) I dont like either candidate but if Im forced to look at Melania Trump 4 four years--I can hack that. And In my book she can plagiarize whoever she wants--who really gives a rats arse--it has absolute zero relevance.

It was plagiarized by someone. Having said that, thought she was the highlight of the night, her composure and delivery was fine for someone who wasn't the wife of a career politician. Jumping to conclusions but think she would be a capable 1st lady but it's husby that I'm more concerned about. Hard to believe that our choices are Hillary and Trump. Ugh

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:You guys really want to bring their wives into this?

Nobody did.

She and the campaign were receiving praise for the speech immediately following.

They did this to themselves.

And are currently making it worse.

This belongs on the petty level--I mean come on:) I dont like either candidate but if Im forced to look at Melania Trump 4 four years--I can hack that. And In my book she can plagiarize whoever she wants--who really gives a rats arse--it has absolute zero relevance.

So you are ok with her sounding like this in real life?...because THIS---> is probably closer to the truth.

WaltLongmire wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:You guys really want to bring their wives into this?

She was the highlighted speaker from last night...she is fair game, just as Hillary was when she was first lady.

And then there is this:

Melania Trump's Claims She Graduated From College Are About As Credible As Her Speech Last Night

Melania Trump’s professional biography says the wife of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump began modeling at age 16, but she only began working full-time after obtaining a degree. She graduated “in design and architecture at University in Slovenia,” according to the bio as of Monday night:

It’s a good story, but it doesn’t appear to be true.

Melania Trump never earned a university degree in architecture ― she dropped out of college after her freshman year, according to her biographers. Still, she claims to have a degree from “university in Slovenia.”

Questions about her education grew more significant Tuesday morning, following the revelation that Melania Trump plagiarized parts of her speech to the Republican National Convention from one that First Lady Michelle Obama gave in 2008.

That revelation on Monday raised the question of whether there was anything else Melania Trump hadn’t been entirely truthful about.

Slovenian journalists Bojan Pozar and Igor Omerza wrote in their biography on the former fashion model that she “became ― and remained ― a college dropout” after leaving the University of Ljubljana’s architecture school following her freshman year.

Below is their account of this period of her life in the book, Melania Trump ― The Inside Story: From a Slovenian Communist Village to the White House:

In her freshman year, the 19-year old Melanija Knavs attended lectures on the following subjects: elements of architecture, fine arts, fundamentals of technical mechanics, architectural construction, descriptive geometry, mathematics, and an ideological (read “communist”) elective credit called “General Partisan Resistance and Social Self-protection”. Melanija would have made it to her sophomore year, even having failed 2 exams, but she was supposed to have gotten and held a 1-month internship and kept a journal about it.

******

Later, in America, after meeting Donald Trump and officially becoming his partner, Melania Knauss told the media that she got her degree in architecture and design. This was almost certainly done in consultation with Trump and his advisors, as they were desperate to give off the impression that the Slovenian model was not just beautiful, but also smart and well-educated.

I guess she dropped out of school before taking that writing class which taught you how to cite your sources.

The real issue is that when almost your entire campaign is about "lying Hillary," you can't be putting up a "lying Melania" as a spokesperson.

I thought Hillary was fair game back then because she was so openly involved with policy making. This woman just gave a speech for her husband. I didnt like people dissing Laura Bush or Michelle Obama either.

Ive made it more than clear how I feel about the Trumps, bigger fish to fry IMO.

Cartman718 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:You guys really want to bring their wives into this?

Nobody did.

She and the campaign were receiving praise for the speech immediately following.

They did this to themselves.

And are currently making it worse.

This belongs on the petty level--I mean come on:) I dont like either candidate but if Im forced to look at Melania Trump 4 four years--I can hack that. And In my book she can plagiarize whoever she wants--who really gives a rats arse--it has absolute zero relevance.

So you are ok with her sounding like this in real life?...because THIS---> is probably closer to the truth.

Melania is probably more successful than 99% of women in this world without Mr Trump. She comes across well IMHO in every facet.

DrAlphaeus wrote:I love tangents but Melania Trump's speech doesn't seem relevant to me at all.

Her and her speech are not.

How the campaign functions and how the prospective president handles this is.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

meloanyk wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Uptown wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Uptown wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:I think this is just a common sense answer from my own personal view point. I think its pretty simplistic. African Americans are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime so the police who are in charge of that area have their "eye" on them much more so than other races. I guess from a cops point of view--he is scared or at a minimum heightened when confronted with the possibility of dealing with a higher source of danger. Remember these guys put their lives on the line every day--so you have to factor in their mindset. I think it really is as simple as that. If black people believe that white people have it out for them--my friends--you are dead wrong. White people green people yellow people--most of us have an every day responsibility of family and we are to busy to think about anything other than immediate issue. If it wasnt for what I heard on TV I probably wouldve steered clear of this thread. I believe strongly that Im a decent and honest fellow and answering questions honestly--even if they potentially offend--although im not trying to do that--is just reasonable back and forth recourse on an issue thats been getting a lot of attention. Its disturbing to hear--as a white person--what I believe is some true deep seeded hatred African Americans seem to have. I dont believe in the hood nor do I believe in excuse of race. If race was such an issue why dont Chinese people complain?

My dad died when I was 8. I went to PS 230 in Brooklyn until I was 10 and moved to a small condo in Ct with my two brothers and Mom. I shared a room with my twin brother for 18 years--two pretty big guys in a small room. I didnt have the money for special sneakers or clothes--and I lived in a town that had some money. The money I had was working a paper route that I had to get up at 6 am before school to do shuffling snow or cutting grass. When i was 15 and old enough to work I worked washing dishes at a Chinese restaurant(maybe the worst job on Earth:) I loved and played all sports--I was tall and ended up being a very decent football player. I dedicated time to work hard on my school work every day--no one told me too--my Mom worked---I took it upon myself to be aggressive and compete on my studies while putting effort into working out working--I mean I had ZERO "privilege" believe me. On top of it I was Jewish--and Ive heard my fair amount of derogatory BS--but I just dealt with it and went about my day--majority of people liked my brother and I. My goal was to play football at Syracuse and become a gym teacher or sportscaster because that is what I loved. I ended up at Uconn and had to pay for my own school and soon found out the difference between being good at sports in hS and college were two different beasts--but I played 4 years and worked hard anyway. I stayed and paid at Uconn for 6 years--all the way to an MBA. I wasnt given a penny for help from anyone in my family--I paid for myself by working in the summer. I ended up in the business side by chance--simply thats what my first roommate was there for--so I went with it as well. I got a very decent job right away in NY after graduating--yada yada 8 years later I dont have to work anymore---some luck there and some cahones--but it was built on hard hard work from a young age with absolutely ZERO privilege. Nothing--so when I hear that I dont get it and I dont personally believe in it. I believe in Obama and thats why I voted for him twice. You have to work hard in this world and those who dont get left behind and bitch. Sorry white people dont hate black people yellow people or green people==really I dont even think about it nor do i care because to me its a non issue.. If I was black and lived in the hood--Id work three F jobs and would get the F out to move my family to a decent place. And those who live there and bthc about it--thats on them--no one in this world forces them to be there. And finally like I said--cut the crime rate down and my bet is a lot of good things will happen.

First off, stop generalizing and painting everyone with a broad brush. The majority of black people who live in the inner-city are decent hard working families and quite a few of them have worked hard and are working hard to move to safer areas and or make their community a safer place to live. Not all white people hate blacks, but to think there aren't whites who do hate blacks, again would be ignorant on your part.

The fact that you are saying the color of a persons skin is a non-issue is either ignorance on your part or denial....Do you agree that there is systemic racism in this country?

It persists but I think it has lessened significantly in the last twenty years. It'd help a hell of a lot if the fabulously and unprecedentedly wealthy black athletes like Carmelo Anthony gave up two-thirds of their earnings to inner city issues. Has that notion crossed your mind? To ask him or others to give back? Money talks and genuine untold wealth can help.

I was always of the opinion that black athletes that make it out of the inner city should give back in some way whether its money for youth programs, investing in black businesses or just to give their time. Jim Brown is not acknowledged enough for the charitable work he has done especially going into some of the worse crime infested areas and re-mediating meetings between gang leaders, etc. More athletes and entertainers need to do this because they are revered by many young kids in the inner city and have the resources and influence to provoke change.

For as much sh#t as Marbury has taken, the one great thing he did was help create affordable sneakers for kids. That was big and innovative and I was hoping some athletes would follow his lead.

No question Athletes being more involved will help tremendously. The best and most effective solution is better parenting and more stable homes regardless of what is happening in the streets, education and the job market.

Too simplistic, my friend...and CashMoney himself, can attest to the power of peer pressure.

Parenting and home stability go hand in hand with economic issues. I saw this all the time as a teacher, parents having to work multiple jobs not being able to supervise their children properly.

I saw the thing CashMoney talked about- kids being pressured to be part of groupings which did not appreciate the importance of education.

A late former colleague talked about one African-American student, who I only knew from my work in the Deans Office, as being very intelligent, but influenced by kids who saw the education thing as uncool.

The classic theory is that most things fashioning personality and actions come from the family...but as an educator of many years I simply cannot say that this is always the case, and I have too many examples of this during my career to doubt the power of peer influences.

I wish it was that easy to take the straight and narrow path. I think I was lucky. My father was a teacher and Athletic Director, but he still had to work extra hours to raise 8 kids while my mother gave up her career to be an in-home mother. We were lacking in some things- didn't get a color TV until I was in college, but we had enough money to reside in a nice neighborhood and live somewhat comfortably.

Hard for me to understand poverty myself, though I've seen it, and my school had a large population eligible for free school lunches...a sign of relative poverty or financial duress.

In some cases, your way of thinking works, but the world is much more complicated, IMO.

Walter and Alpha,

I think you both as well as CashMoney cited peer pressure/ influence of kids as factors in viewing education as uncool. I have cited the 73% out of wedlock birthrate for blacks, a number that grew exponentially across all groups including whites with the War on Poverty legislation in the early 60's. Are both, peer thinking and out of wedlock births, cultural norms that need to change?

Sure, I'll concede these are things that should happen. I'm more interested in promoting education, critical thinking, financial literacy etc vs. the out of wedlock thing. Firstly because addressing the former issue should naturally trickles down to the latter IMHO.

I recently heard about "The Heckman Equation" which argues that the best return on economic investment we can make is in early childhood education.

Secondly, being born out of wedlock doesn't necessarily mean you don't have both parents in a child's life or household. In Sweden and Iceland out of wedlock births account for about half, but there it's more about abandoning the institution of marriage, not two-parent households. I have some doubts about common wisdom about "nuclear family" being the best way vs. extended families like many of our ancestors lived in the "Old Country". So I do want more two-parent households, less concerned about marriage per se... and if grandma is there too, even better in my book ;)

Will this concession to your argument eventually steer us back to what Melo was talking about?

I'm was not looking for concessions but full discussion of all that contributes to trapping people into poverty and how it impacts. The more alarming stat is that 67% of black homes are single parent families, studies have shown that it is detrimental to children for all races. In 1960, out of wedlock births of white and black families were only 3% and 24%, today it is 29% and 73% and 41% for the entire U.S. which is a disturbing national trend. White single parent families are actually higher than out of wedlock at 25% due to divorce but greater financial resources of many whites can mitigate the economic consequence though many of the same emotional issues remain

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

misterearl wrote:Knickoftime - The difference is that Obama owned his mistake. The Trump mob insists they did nothing wrong.

Did he own when he said you can keep your doctor? when he said it was a video that caused Bnghazi? Come on now.

What does that have to do with anything?

It is adolescent reasoning to excuse any wrongdoing with "yeah, but that other person did worse."

If you don't care that she plagiarized, that's fine, you don't have to. But the reason you're offering isn't even good enough for the Trump campaign, who obviously recognize it is an issue, which is why they're denying.

As I say, if you don't care, that's you choice. But you should be able to acknowledge what occurred with reasoning it away.

If you could comprehend words, I already explained to you that I believe it was intentional.

Then it was a campaign misstep, of pretty significant proportions.

Because NO ONE but you is talking about that. The point you think they were trying to make it lost in the accusation of plagiarism, which btw, is also taking them off message for the first 2 day of their convention.

Whether you want to rationalize that it was part of some grand rhetorical plan is up to you, but you should be able to at least acknowledge if that was their plan, it failed.

I added Obama to show YOU how its accepted for some but not others.

You recall it because it was made an issue (rightly) and the issue was acknowledged, not denied.

My own belief is that if the words are good use them.

You're entitled. Just understand your words can get you on the losing end of a lawsuit depending on the circumstances. Plagiarism has a legal definition and this is plagiarism.

As I say, you can rationalize it away. What you cannot rationalize is the Trump campaign intended this to dominate the 12 hours (and counting) following the first evening of their convention.

That's just an unforced, amateur-hour error.

These are your opinions and you have a right to them as do I to mine.

I'm not sure the utility of this statement. This is a given no one is denying. You have absolute right to spin this in the favor of the team you favor. No argument.

You think they have been taken off message by this? What is everyone talking about? Her Speech in which she laid out why he is a good choice to win. She used similar words as the previous winner's.

You may not see it but as others say and I believe they calculated,

They why didn't the campaign on TV today actually making the argument. Saying Mrs. Trump purposely choose those words to highlight the failed promise of the Obama administration.

They are doing the opposite, both denying it was plagiarism and at the same time explaining how Mrs. Trump genuinely believes in those words and sentiments.

The Trump campaign disagrees with you more than I do.

its not about the so called plagiarism, its about owning the headlines as he had since last June.

It's his convention. The headlines this week were already bought and paid for. He had them to himself all week, he could make them whatever he wanted them to be this week.

This is the result.

But to be clear, you're perfectly entitled to believe a significant screw-up was intentional.

You're also perfectly entitled any of this is helping him make up the demographic ground he is at a significant disadvantage in. You'd be wrong, but entitled.

They are doing the opposite, both denying it was plagiarism and at the same time explaining how Mrs. Trump genuinely believes in those words and sentiments.

I fail to see how those are distinct. IT seems like they match up. As to whys and hows of the campaign, I am not privy to them, I just have noticed that they are not normal in any sense of how politics are played. What seems to be a curse for most candidates turns out well for him. Call it a hunch, but there is more to this than meets the eye.

Paul Manafort has gone on TV and stood in front of the press and said you're be crazy to believe the passages that are almost exact is anything but a spontaneous coincidence.

"There's no cribbing of Michelle Obama's speech. These were common words and values. She cares about her family. To think that she'd be cribbing Michelle Obama's words is crazy."

He also legitimized the issue.

"To think that she would do something like that knowing how scrutinized her speech was going to be last night is just really absurd,"

Since you actually believe the cribbing was intentional, you do acknowledge Trump sent his campaign manager out on TV this morning to tell a boldface lie that it was not, correct?

gunsnewing wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:You guys really want to bring their wives into this?

Exactly on speeches like likely didn't even write.

Obvious the speech writer dropped the ball but people are actually making a big deal out of what an immigrant who hasn't been in this country too long said?

Reaching

She may have written a draft but it's silly to think that it was not vetted, worked on and altered by speech writers Parts were plagiarized and fair to criticize . In the end , the lady has the It factor, nice combo of looks, brains, style and personality just as his daughter Ivana does which should help Trump some. The vote is still about him.

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

misterearl wrote:Knickoftime - The difference is that Obama owned his mistake. The Trump mob insists they did nothing wrong.

Did he own when he said you can keep your doctor? when he said it was a video that caused Bnghazi? Come on now.

What does that have to do with anything?

It is adolescent reasoning to excuse any wrongdoing with "yeah, but that other person did worse."

If you don't care that she plagiarized, that's fine, you don't have to. But the reason you're offering isn't even good enough for the Trump campaign, who obviously recognize it is an issue, which is why they're denying.

As I say, if you don't care, that's you choice. But you should be able to acknowledge what occurred with reasoning it away.

If you could comprehend words, I already explained to you that I believe it was intentional.

Then it was a campaign misstep, of pretty significant proportions.

Because NO ONE but you is talking about that. The point you think they were trying to make it lost in the accusation of plagiarism, which btw, is also taking them off message for the first 2 day of their convention.

Whether you want to rationalize that it was part of some grand rhetorical plan is up to you, but you should be able to at least acknowledge if that was their plan, it failed.

I added Obama to show YOU how its accepted for some but not others.

You recall it because it was made an issue (rightly) and the issue was acknowledged, not denied.

My own belief is that if the words are good use them.

You're entitled. Just understand your words can get you on the losing end of a lawsuit depending on the circumstances. Plagiarism has a legal definition and this is plagiarism.

As I say, you can rationalize it away. What you cannot rationalize is the Trump campaign intended this to dominate the 12 hours (and counting) following the first evening of their convention.

That's just an unforced, amateur-hour error.

These are your opinions and you have a right to them as do I to mine.

I'm not sure the utility of this statement. This is a given no one is denying. You have absolute right to spin this in the favor of the team you favor. No argument.

You think they have been taken off message by this? What is everyone talking about? Her Speech in which she laid out why he is a good choice to win. She used similar words as the previous winner's.

You may not see it but as others say and I believe they calculated,

They why didn't the campaign on TV today actually making the argument. Saying Mrs. Trump purposely choose those words to highlight the failed promise of the Obama administration.

They are doing the opposite, both denying it was plagiarism and at the same time explaining how Mrs. Trump genuinely believes in those words and sentiments.

The Trump campaign disagrees with you more than I do.

its not about the so called plagiarism, its about owning the headlines as he had since last June.

It's his convention. The headlines this week were already bought and paid for. He had them to himself all week, he could make them whatever he wanted them to be this week.

This is the result.

But to be clear, you're perfectly entitled to believe a significant screw-up was intentional.

You're also perfectly entitled any of this is helping him make up the demographic ground he is at a significant disadvantage in. You'd be wrong, but entitled.

They are doing the opposite, both denying it was plagiarism and at the same time explaining how Mrs. Trump genuinely believes in those words and sentiments.

I fail to see how those are distinct. IT seems like they match up. As to whys and hows of the campaign, I am not privy to them, I just have noticed that they are not normal in any sense of how politics are played. What seems to be a curse for most candidates turns out well for him. Call it a hunch, but there is more to this than meets the eye.

Paul Manafort has gone on TV and stood in front of the press and said you're be crazy to believe the passages that are almost exact is anything but a spontaneous coincidence.

"There's no cribbing of Michelle Obama's speech. These were common words and values. She cares about her family. To think that she'd be cribbing Michelle Obama's words is crazy."

He also legitimized the issue.

"To think that she would do something like that knowing how scrutinized her speech was going to be last night is just really absurd,"

Since you actually believe the cribbing was intentional, you do acknowledge Trump sent his campaign manager out on TV this morning to tell a boldface lie that it was not, correct?