You know, if that was really the case, I’d be even more in favor of Clinton than I currently am (and I really like her, now). I mean, the woman managed to brainwash the speechwriter into stealing Michelle Obama’s speech - not Clinton’s speech, mind you - and then somehow go after all of the media and make them call her out…I mean damn!
I’m very close to someone who was a security consultant in Afghanistan. They don’t like the word “mercenary”. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit, of course.
If he is willing to work for any nation that pays him, he is a mercenary. The vast majority of DOD civilians and contractors are not, and are therefore not mercenaries.
Someone was bound to do this:
Do you not think the speech was vetted? Are you arguing that the speech was not read by Donald Trump and that the speech that his wife delivered was completely un-screened by her candidate husband?
Far, far easier to believe that Donald is responsible for this wording - if there was somebody to fire, they would have been fired already. The longer it takes to fire somebody indicates two things:
- Somebody WAY high up in the campaign approved the wording
- They’re searching desperately for a willing fall guy… and are having trouble finding one.
The Donald himself cribbed the speech and added the rickroll line himself - hell, he probably thought he came up with the phrasing and was clueless that it was from a 30 year-old song.
Also, if this was sabotage, everybody would be shouting “That’s not the speech we wrote and approved!” Since it is the speech they wrote and approved…
We will see. Some patsy will take the blame for this, a person who we’ll end up asking “Why is this guy writing speeches?” But I would place a few bucks on it being the Donald himself who put those lines in there.
Best lines of the day.
Manaforte, Christie et al. deny there was any plagiarism? Whew. There are none so blind as will not see.
That sounds familiar. Is that yours? 
That could be an interesting comparison; maybe she got hold of an advance copy somehow and plagiarized from him, too.
I think it’s just straightforward incompetence and lack of process. Sure, a normal campaign would vet the hell out of every speech, with a dozen or more quality checks and reviews. But this campaign hasn’t shown any sort of competence for this kind of thing. I think some speechwriter stuck it in to fuck with them, and no one caught it because they’re incompetent.
The only concept someone who steals a speech about hard work and integrity could possibly symbolize is “irony”.
Here are my two favorite things from that article; one of them is a statement of pure “duh” and the other is an excellent non-denial denial:
I wish the reporter had followed that one with “By ‘her’ do you mean Melania Trump or Michelle Obama?”
It’s not necessarily cheapness – once you get a reputation for stiffing your contractors, you soon can’t hire anybody at any price.
And if by “hard work” one means “gold digging opportunist”.
So, just to make this clear, your argument boils down to “he did it, too.” (Nevermind that it’s splitting hairs to try to twist a situation that isn’t remotely the same for your own purposes.) Yeah, that argument always works. Just ask Trump.
My guess is that the check bounced before the writer turned in the final copy.
Agree, and ‘Anglo Saxon bullet heads’ would be deemed racist I believe, if it were almost any other group. Altogether the theme of personal attack on the people involved on the ground in Benghazi is bush league.
You don’t have to be in uniform or paid less than a certain amount in order to to serve your country at risk of your life. The security people were doing so, as were the State Dept diplomatic staff. You can debate all you want about whether the impression of some people on the ground of what happened there is relevant to Clinton’s fitness to be Pres or not, that’s a different topic.
Tragic thing is, both theories are completely believable, aren’t they? Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that both are true: Someone sabotaged a speech and, just like a comedy of errors, the candidate liked the speech so much he over-ruled any changes made by his level(er)-headed minions who were wise to the problem.
It’s like an episode of Veep, to be honest. 
Stiffing contractors is a form of cheapness.
I assumed he got bored with listening to this woman talk about a subject other than how great Donald Trump is.
Clearly, it is the other way around. Michelle stole it from Melania.