Speakers at the convention who have contradicted other speakers

[136or142]

I'm not referring to the themes of the speeches, but specific lines.  While obviously Ted Cruz' speech should be omitted from this, it does raise the idea that nearly all of the speakers at the convention, with the exception of Trump's children are freelancing for themselves.

I think that's one possibility, the other is that, as we have seen from the Rapist Trump campaign, on nearly all issues, he's taken at times every side.

I know (nearly) all politicians change their positions on some things, but I've never seen a candidate before take multiple positions on multiple issues in the same campaign, and sometimes even in the same interview.

So, I can think of two off the top of my head.  I only managed to catch today's convention right at the end of the Cruz speech, so I don't know much about tonight.  Of course, frequently the talking heads at CNN and PBS talk over the speeches and I don't have access to CSPAN.

1.Scott Baio vs. Melaina Trump.
Scott Baio more or less kicked off the convention with a rather classless comment that 'being an American doesn't mean 'free stuff.'"

Melaina Trump who should have ended the first night of the convention said that 'we need more programs to help the poor.'

1.While I suppose these two comments need not contradict each other, if you were to ask  Republicans anyway what they think of when they hear 'programs for the poor' my guess is most would reply 'free stuff.'

For all the praise Melaina Trump's speech received prior to the plagiarism stuff, I thought her speech calling for more programs for the poor and nearly everything else she said was about her promoting things she wanted to see, and nothing than her husband had called for on the campaign trail.

2.On the other hand, I don't know if Rapist Trump himself has ever used the phrase 'free stuff.'  (I did actually hear one Hillary Clinton official supporter on CNN use the term though during a discussion with a Bernie Sanders official supporter, which the Sanders' person rightly called him out on.)

So, I think both Scott Baio and Melaina Trump were at least partially freelancing.

2.Donald Trump Jr vs Newt Gingrich
In Donald Trump Jr's speech, he not only said that only American companies should be allowed to get contracts or be suppliers to American infrastructure projects and complained that Chinese firms were allowed to bid, he even alleged that Hillary Clinton was behind this 'UnAmerican activity' (my phrase not his) of not restricting federal government infrastructure projects to American firms and workers.

Newt Gingrich, in contrast, charged that 'government regulations' raised the cost of infrastructure projects.

Again, as with Melaina's programs for the poor, I don't know what specifically Gingrich is referring to (I suspect there really aren't any regulations that (significantly) raise infrastructure costs and Newt was just making stuff up) but I can't think of anything that would raise the price of an infrastructure project more than restricting the inputs to just U.S suppliers.

There is also the obvious contradiction of Rapist Trump saying that 'support for our NATO allies is conditional' when both General Flynn and Governor (and Vice Presidential nominee) Pence both complained that the Obama Administration has not stood up for its allies, but that wasn't in the form of two speakers contradicting each other.

Did anybody catch any others?  Or does anybody disagree with the two I've pointed out?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Speakers contradicting other speakers was a regular event in the days when parties were less ideological.  The parties have moved toward more regimented ideological postures over the years, but Trump and his campaign represent a movement away from this, and toward the real "big tent" coalition parties we've had as a rule in American politics for almost our entire existence.

The lasting effect of Trump's campaign, regardless of what happens from here on out, is an end to a "Who's the most pure conservative?" nature of its nominating processes.  Trump's campaign shined light on the fact that a large portion of the GOP is as "big government" as the Democrats, and that the difference between them is the direction in which they want that big government to be aimed at.  In that vein, the "Constitutional Conservative" kick the GOP has been on since the rise of the Tea Party is being revealed as nothing more than an anti-Obama posture; the "conservatives" didn't care one whit about the "Constitution" during the Bush 43 years when they were passing the Patriot Act, etc. 

Trump represents the best chance the GOP has in getting back to an Eisenhower-esque consensus posture.  In those days, the GOP was a truly National party.  Barry Goldwater proposed "A Choice; not an Echo", but "unity" and "an end to divisiveness" requires a focus on the areas of thought and policy where folks echo one another, and where the choice is only one of degrees.