2016 Republican Convention

Did GOP Platform Writers Not Realize the Republican Party Was Nominating Donald Trump For President?

Make party platforms great again!

|

CreditKEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom

The Republican party's 2016 platform is finally out for all to see! It says a lot of things. Many of them are pretty stupid.

Among them: The platform complains that President Obama and his fellow Democrats have "nearly doubled the size of the national debt." This is true. However, it seems like kind of an empty complaint given that the tax plan put forth by Donald Trump, the Republican party's presidential nominee this year, would add nearly $10 trillion to the national debt, according to the Tax Policy Center. Trump's other ideas to reduce the debt and annual deficits are total nonsense.

More in keeping with the nominee, the platform adopts Trump-like language on international trade, declaring that "we need better negotiated trade agreements that put America first." We know that such trade deals would be good for Americans because, the platform says, "when trade agreements have been carefully negotiated with friendly democracies, they have resulted in millions of new jobs here at home supported by our exports." Tellingly, it does not say which trade agreements count under as "carefully negotiated" or what current deals would look like if they had been negotiated better.

Also somewhat oddly, the platform, in a section on constitutionally protected speech, says that Republicans "call for an end to the so-called Fairness Doctrine" and instead "support free-market approaches to free speech unregulated by government."

That all sounds fine, except that Trump is perhaps the most overtly anti-free speech candidate in memory, having threatened the owner of a newspaper that reported on him, and having called for an expansion of libel laws in order to go after news organizations that say things he doesn't like.

Also, the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to air opposing views, hasn't been enforced since the late 1980s. In fact, it was wiped from the federal government's rulebooks entirely in 2011. 

And then there are the portions of the platform that lay out the Republican party's commitment to restoring faith in constitutional government and opposing discrimination.

"Our most urgent task as a Party is to restore the American people's faith in their government by electing a president who will enforce duly enacted laws, honor constitutional limits on executive authority, and return credibility to the Oval Office," the platform says.

"We denounce bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance," it declares in another passage.

Donald Trump—who, again, is set to officially become the Republican party's presidential nominee this week—has all but promised that he would ignore the Constitution if elected president. He has run the most divisive, racially charged major party presidential campaign in decades, attacking Mexican immigrants as criminals as rapists, criticizing an American born judge for his parents' Mexican heritage, calling for a total ban on Muslim immigration, repeatedly playing coy about thinly veiled appeals to anti-Semites and white nationalists. Far from "denouncing" bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance, Trump has made all of these things part of his political appeal.

Maybe the GOP platform writers just didn't quite realize that Republicans were on their way to nominating Donald Trump for president?

Advertisement

NEXT: Milo Yiannopoulos Proposed a Gay-Conservative Alliance and the Pro-Trump Crowd Loved It

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. except that Trump is perhaps the most overtly anti-free speech candidate in memory

    Peter Suderman is perhaps the first eunuch on Reason’s payroll.

    1. Yes, I was just about to ask if Citizens United was chopped liver.

      I believe ol’ Hillary is seeking to overturn that in the future. Its made the papers, Suderman. Pull your head out.

      1. Trump is more threatening to free speech than overturning CU.

        1. I don’t know about that. Overturning CU means that the government could outlaw book sales if the book mentions a political candidate. That’s pretty fucking broad.

        2. How do you figure, Cytocanuck?

          Last I saw, Trump wanted to make a fairly minor change to the burden of proof a public figure has to satisfy when suing for defamation.

          Overturning CU would mean, at a minimum, that the federal government could ban any corporation from saying anything about any candidate during an election.

        3. Well I considered playing the copy/paste links game to see who would be worse on the 1st amendment but since I’m not a Trump supporter I suppose it doesn’t matter.

          Plus it seems you and John are having another go at it. You crazy kids have fun.

          1. Lots of white supremacists butt-hurt that Reason is piling on the Orange Turd.
            Don’t you guys get enough of a circle-jerk on the Federalist threads?

      2. Suderman is gonna have to be fast if he wants to beat the other Reason contributors out of writing The Libertarian Case For Hillary Clinton piece. Get Megan to ghostwrite it if you want to win.

      3. Trump and Hillary both suck on the First Amendment. A writer suggest that one might be a little worse than the other is hardly an outrage.

        1. Actually, Hillary Clinton is so much worse than Trump on free speech that suggesting otherwise can properly be met with, if not outrage, at least scorn and derision.

          1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

            1. One has to admire the audacity of hoping no one translates this: “I got away with it. I will continue to get away with it. So, FYTW, proles.”

          2. Trump has threatened a newspaper owner who criticized him, suggested “opening up libel laws” to make it easier to go after people who criticize him, want to ban people from entering the country on the basis of religion, wants mass surveillance on the basis of religion (and seriously considered a VP candidate who wants to bring back HUAC, enact loyalty tests based on religion, and punish people for visiting websites), and criticized Citizens United (a major piece of criticism of Clinton). There is plenty to attack both candidates on this issue. I don’t think it’s crazy to suggest Clinton is worse here, but I also don’t think it’s crazy to think Trump is.

            1. > suggested “opening up libel laws”

              Your presumption is that our libel laws are perfect?

              > want to ban people from entering the country on the basis of religion,

              You don’t get a pass for totalitarianism just because it’s theocratic totalitarianism. At least not with me. I don’t want more theocratic totalitarians in the country. Why do you?

        2. Stalin and Truman both suck on economic intervention. A writer suggesting that one (by which I mean Truman) might be a little worse than the other (by which I mean Stalin) is hardly an outrage.

          This left-libertarian bullshit is probably just a California thing. The mind can only take so much.

          1. Yes, Trump = Truman and Clinton = Stalin. Totally reasonable comparison. I bet you’re the same type of guy who would (rightly) attack people for using Trump = Hitler comparisons.

            And of course anyone who doesn’t think Donald Trump is totally clearly better than Hillary on everything is a “left-libertarian” (a term that has an actual meaning that is very far from “cosmotarian Reasonites” as some here seem to think).

    2. They are both dreadful. Do we always have to decide who is worse?

      1. Exactly. When two people are as revolting as Hillary! Clinton and Donald Trump, are we gonna split hairs here?

        Am I wrong?

    3. Remind me again. Is it the Republicans who are calling for the Reason Foundation to be criminally investigated under RICO?

      1. But Trump COULD BE WORSE. Best to stay the course with a known quantity who’s more popular with people we have to work and socialize with.

  2. Suderman sure knows how to troll the TEAM RED folks on here.

  3. You try writing a platform from scratch, resisting the temptation to copy and paste from various sources.

  4. “repeatedly playing coy about thinly veiled appeals to anti-Semites”

    That’s a bold move with a Jewish daughter.

    1. We don’t talk about that. Spoils the narrative.

      Did Reason’s staff receive a directive from on high to parrot the NYT talking points on penalty of losing their jobs or is this legitimately what they’ve always been, namely Democrats who like to smoke pot and (talk about) shooting guns?

      More importantly, did Lucy lose her job because she was an early Trump supporter?

      1. No they’re just upsetting the yokeltarians a lot.

        1. Just between us, how much pleasure do you receive from the abuse you receive here? Is virtual masochism a thing in the Morlock demographic?

      2. “Democrats who like to smoke pot and (talk about) shooting guns?”

        Well that’s probably a fine thing to be, they just don’t seem to even be trying to sort the propaganda when it comes to Trump. I’d reckon that anything Trump related gets a spike in page views though.

        1. It’s better than the alternative, but there’s something up when a once-Randian magazine becomes the NYT East on the topic of Trump.

          1. Well, the simple answer is that the Koch brothers hate Trump. That’s too easy though.

      3. Did Reason’s staff receive a directive from on high to parrot the NYT talking points

        It’s not out of the question that some of them might want to keep the ol’ resume clean in case another opportunity presents itself.

      4. It is possible that they think that by bashing Trump, the Democrat attorneys general will back off on the RICO investigation.

    2. That’s a bold move with a Jewish daughter.

      You don’t have to be an anti-Semite yourself to find appealing to them profitable. Trump is a racist carnival barker, the fact that Team Evil makes this point does not invalidate it.

      1. Anti-Semite’s national pastime is spotting Jews, I just don’t think he could make a profit appealing to them when his daughter is right next to him all the time.

    3. That’s a bold move with a Jewish daughter.

      Bold move for a guy who has been in real estate in Manhattan for decades.

      But it does seem a bit odd for Hitler to choose to live in the city with the most Jews in the US, and second most in the world.

  5. Trump is perhaps the most overtly anti-free speech candidate in memory

    Lol!

    Suderman is a moron whose wife does his homework but even he knows he’s lying here.

    1. Oooh good one! Did you think that one up over recess?

      1. You just had to say the word “recess”, didn’t you. You know everyone’s going to twit you now. I don’t know why you make it so easy.

  6. As if the platform means anything. Only fools expect a party to follow a platform.

    1. They don’t tell the voting public that they are in fact referring to a hangman’s platform, easily kicked out with deadly effect.

  7. GOP RIP

    1. They only own 2/3rds of the state governments and both houses of Congress the poor dears. You really do enjoy being stupid don’t you?

      1. They are going to lose the senate and maybe the house. The Whigs also had dominance before they died.

        The GOP is toast. They have forfeited large swathes of America to the Dems.

        1. Have you considered getting some therapy or maybe some kind of meds? You used to just be comically stupid. Trump seems to have caused you to lose your small mind.

        2. Don’t the polls and odds say they’ll keep the Senate? Here’s hoping they go as the Whigs did though.

          1. Don’t bother hi with facts or logic. It’s retard world. Eat your cake an enjoy

          2. To be replaced by?

            1. “To be replaced by?”

              Ideally, some sort of radical anti-federalist party. I don’t think they’ll quickly be replaced at the national level, and the country will increasingly resemble a Latin America in more ways than one. (However, I think this will ultimately happen whether Trump wins or loses, or if anyone else running had the nomination)

            2. No need to replace it. The Perot/TP/Trump populist appeal to white America has always been the core of the right, not conservatism or appeals to small government. GOPpers love their Social Security and Medicare.

              The Trump movement is just jettisoning all the establishment baggage that never appealed to people who used to hold their nose and vote GOP. Whether it can stick or not this time is the question.

    2. The GOP has been dead for a very long time.

      1. They’ve basically been all downhill in terms of quality and electability since Reagan stepped down.

        1. The Moral Majority religious fucks were the beginning of the end.

          1. How dare those fucks breath your air and expect any voice in government.

            1. They can expect it all they like and then they can fuck right off along with the all the others who want to use the cops to enforce their morals.

              1. Sure you can. But you can’t then bitch when they tell you the same thing. You also can’t claim to have any principles when you cheer on the Progs taking their rights. You don’t believe in rights if you will only defend the rights of those whom you like. You believe in privileges.

            2. My problem with the Religious Right is not their religious beliefs, it’s, among many things, their failure to defend capitalism against the left’s socialism. To be fair, the GOP had been getting weaker and weaker on free enterprise before the Religious Right took power e.g. Nixon’s price controls.

              1. I think the religious right has done what it can to defend capitalism. It is not their fault the Republicans would rather steel than defend it. It wasn’t the religious right that demanded the Repubicans roll over to the Democrats on those issues. Further, states where the religious right has a lot of power are a lot more friendly to business than states where the Democrats run things.

  8. The platform is almost as pointless as the convention. The candidates routinely ignore the platform. It’s just there for the various interest groups to feel like they belong.

    1. Or as pointless as the Constitution which they ignore too.

  9. Maybe the GOP platform writers just didn’t quite realize that Republicans were on their way to nominating Donald Trump for president?

    They probably did. But they also realize that most Trump supporters won’t read the platform, so it doesn’t matter.

    1. No one reads or care about the platform. It is the ultimate sop for nerds like Sudderman. Both parties wipe their asses with those things the day after the election.

  10. He has run the most divisive, racially charged major party presidential campaign in decades, attacking Mexican immigrants as criminals as rapists, criticizing an American born judge for his parents’ Mexican heritage, calling for a total ban on Muslim immigration, repeatedly playing coy about thinly veiled appeals to anti-Semites and white nationalists.

    A quick pedantic point: Mexicans and Muslims are not races.

    The link to the anti-Semite thing with the star is patently absurd. It takes some mighty powers of projections to look at a red, filled-in, six-pointed star on an obviously cheap graphic and say “he wants to kill the Jews!!!” Know what I see? A graphic pointing out that Hillary is drowning in money that she acquired – allegedly – illegitimately. Know why? Because I’m not insane.

    1. Tell us more about how the Trump-Pence campaign logo is obviously sexual in nature. No, really. Please do.

      Suderman, is everything a fucking Rorschach test to you?

      1. It really is. He seems to have no idea how ridiculous he sounds. Talk about living in a bubble

        1. Holy Christ the irony…

          1. Yeah dipshit I live in a.bubble. Says the person who thinks Muslims are going to make Europe free. You do know you are a comedy act here?

            Tell us more about the joys of millions Muslim refugees invading the country.

            1. Tell us how Trump can totally win this thing, in spite of reality.

              1. The polls show him very competitive. It is what it is. Meanwhile, tell us how what happened in. Cologne was not the result off refugees you lying retard. You don’t want to talk about that do you?

      2. Has he seriously suggested that it is sexual in nature?

        I think it’s kind of funny, but at most it means a graphic designer slipped one by them.

        1. He has. And maybe they meant it to to get people to talk about it and make their critics look crazy.

          1. That would be funny, I hope that’s it.

    2. “It takes some mighty powers of projections to look at a red, filled-in, six-pointed star on an obviously cheap graphic and say “he wants to kill the Jews!!!” ”

      Actually it just takes some research:
      link text

      1. Ot being a mildly retarded 8th grader with paranoid delusions.

        1. But enough about you John. This is the adults table; you don’t belong here.

          1. You didn’t pass last year did you?

      2. I went through that article. It alleges that the meme was posted on an 8chan thread a week before the Trump team sent it out. It doesn’t even attempt to make the argument that the 8chan thread is where it originated.

        Memes spread. Who knows how the Trump campaign got it? I doubt they send their staffers to spelling through week-old 8chan threads.

        1. *spelunking

        2. Cytoxic is retarded and functionality illiterate. Rest assured he didn’t read the article or understand it if he did.

    3. It takes some mighty powers of projections to look at a red, filled-in, six-pointed star on an obviously cheap graphic and say “he wants to kill the Jews!!!

      When your only weapon is the Racist! Shriek, every star is a Star of David.

  11. Hillary Clinton wants to overturn Cotizens United. Trump once said that the media should lose the reckless disregard standard in libel actions involving public figures.

    And Trump is the worst free speech candidate ever? Jesse Christ Suderman do you value the ability to slander public figures that much?

    1. Cotizens being people who insist on lounging all day on a rickety, musty and uncomfortable platform.

    2. “Trump once said that the media should lose the reckless disregard standard in libel actions involving public figures.”

      He also said he wants to ‘do something’ about that pesky internet.

      1. Hillary wants to shut down all political criticism of candidates running for office.

        1. No, she just wants to shut down criticism of herself, which is worse.

          1. Good poInt. The law would be selectively enforced. I don’t understand how Suderman can just ignore that.

    3. If trump means what he said, that’s pretty bad too.

      Let’s say that neither is what you’d call a free speech absolutist. I’d also say that Hillary is more immediately dangerous on that front, probably.

      1. I don’t see how it would be bad. The reckless disregard standard was a judicial creation. It didn’t exist before the early 1960s. Truth would remain an absolute defense to libel and statements of opinion still protected under the 1st Amendment. The media just has a fit over it because they were protecting the guild, not because it actually means anything.

  12. Far from “denouncing” bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance, Trump has made all of these things part of his political appeal.

    So, Trump is making a play for Democrat voters who want four more years of the community-activist-in-chief?

    Clever.

  13. Also, the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to air opposing views, hasn’t been enforced since the late 1980s. In fact, it was wiped from the federal government’s rulebooks entirely in 2011.

    And the left would like to reinstate it to get talk radio off the air.

    1. Yes. They also would like to use the FEC to get rid of Drudge and Fox News. But Peter doesn’t give a shit about that because he thinks those people deserve it. He is such a phony.

  14. “He has run the most divisive, racially charged major party presidential campaign in decades”

    2012 was decades ago?

    1. Remember when Trump told black people that Hillary was going to put them back in chains? Remember that?

      Is there any standard of behavior Peter will hold the Democrats to?

  15. I mean, the media does get away with shit they probably shouldn’t be allowed to. They report stories before the facts come out and it ruins peoples’ lives who it turns out were innocent all along.

    I don’t trust Trump to fix that or anything. But it’s not an invalid point.

    1. They do it all of the time. And if the person is a public figure, they have no recourse. It is hardly clear that the NYT v. Sullivan standard of reckless disregard is a good thing. It is a very interesting and debatable point. Sadly, Suderman is just not that bright and not honest enough to engage in that debate. I don’t understand what is so hard about writing an even handed assessment of Trump. Why it is beyond Suderman’s intellectual capability and more importantly, why reason keeps such low standards for its writers is a bit of a mystery.

  16. More than a few people have already noticed that Suderman’s article looks like a penis.

  17. He has run the most divisive, 1) racially charged major party presidential campaign in decades, 2) attacking Mexican immigrants as criminals as rapists, 3) criticizing an American born judge for his parents’ Mexican heritage, 4) calling for a total ban on Muslim immigration, 5) repeatedly playing coy about thinly veiled appeals to anti-Semites and white nationalists.

    The lying liar strikes again!

    1) The Dems have been playing the race card for decades, and indeed, support policies to make whites second class citizens. Obama’s campaign was all about “vote for the black guy”. (Just as HIllary’s is Vote Vagina.) Trump is for *Americans*. The Left are the racists. But supporting their racism is ok with Suderman, because Open Borders Uber Alles.

    2) Didn’t I read, in Reason articles, that rape is a huge problem with the human traffickers in Mexico? You guys racists too? You also might want to check on the legal age of consent in Mexico. Kind of low, and when you import people, you import their culture with them.

    1. 3) He didn’t criticize Curiel for his heritage. Such a lie. He said Curiel was biased against him. And we all know that’s likely true. Feel free to make a case to the contrary. You’d be the first to actually make the case. Good luck.

      4) True. And it’s a good plan. That Reason writers are eager to import Big Government voters to the US is their betrayal of freedom. What is it about Theocratic Totalitarianism that you think America needs more of?

      5) I love the cheek of race baiters like Suderman, calling Trump “divisive”, while they’re busy dividing Americans with baseless charges of racism (Look, a star in a retweet, he’s Hitler! Look out! He’s gonna get ya!).

  18. Butt-hurt hillbilly crackers are getting quite amusing around here.

  19. We can even create playlists of them so it will be very easy to find our videos which we like. We can also download those videos and can watch them offline. Showbox for pc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.