These leaders were invited to speak at major churches, Christian conferences, and religious colleges without protest from the faithful. Their organizations were—and in some cases, are—funded on the scale of tens of millions of dollars per year. So how have their comments been forgotten so quickly? It’s not that conservatives are denying the existence of arguments they know were made by the organizations to which they pledge allegiance; rather, they have collectively (and conveniently) forgotten that such arguments were made. As gay marriage becomes less taboo in American culture, you can expect this trend to continue. In the days ahead, you’ll hear many Christians crying about “militant gays” and “liberal bullies” in the days to come. But examples of militant, bullying Christian extremism will be absent from their speeches. They’ll forget they supported damaging ex-gay therapies. They’ll disavow leaders like Tony Perkins and Jerry Falwell, pretending that they were created by CNN and not catapulted into the social stratosphere through their donated dollars. They’ll never mention that their sermons once stated that HIV/AIDS was God’s judgment on LGBT persons, or spoke of sexual minorities like disgusting deviations of the human species. They’ll forget all about how their leaders pressured politicians to block or reduce funding for AIDS research—actions that contributed to countless deaths of LGBT persons. They’ll preach from their pulpits that repentance and confession for past mistakes is necessary for healing, all the while failing to do either.
youtube

PLEASE LISTEN

PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK Up and listen

when people say they’re a conservative what I hear is

“I’ve been extremely privileged my whole life, have never faced discrimination, and have never come upon hard times, and I don’t understand how any of those issues could affect someone so significantly”

Donald Trump has been labelled an “extremely silly man” by America’s largest Latino civil rights organisation after claiming that Mexico is sending “rapists” to the US.

While Republicans such as Jeb Bush are going out of their way to attract the increasingly important Hispanic vote in 2016 – Bush delivered some of his launch speech in Spanish – Trump appeared to be heading in a different direction with his campaign launch on Tuesday.

“[Mexico] are sending people that have lots of problems, and they are bringing those problems to us. They are bringing drugs, and bringing crime, and their rapists,” the business mogul said.

“This is a man who has a pathological need for attention,” said Navarrete. “I look at him as a two-year-old who will say a naughty word to get their parents’ attention. That’s what he’s doing.”

Trump has toyed with running for president since the 1980s. He has said he was considering a bid during almost every election cycle since 2000. Tuesday’s event at Trump Tower represents the first time he has fully outlined his policies and political beliefs.

He aimed specific ire at Mexico, claiming he would build a “great, great wall” on the Mexican-American border, and accusing the country of sending “not the right people” to the US.

“The US has become a dumping ground for everyone else’s problems,” he said.

Navarrete said the claim that Mexicans seeking work in America were rapists was “offensive”.

“This is an exceedingly silly man, who has no idea what she’s talking about,” she said.

— 

The Guardian“Donald Trump’s Tirade on Mexico’s ‘Drugs and Rapists’ Outrages U.S. Latinos.”

The Tea Party Republicans, ladies and gentlemen.

The problem with white people talking about race is, it’s like catching your parents fucking. It’s always bad. There’s two types of white people that talk about race, and it’s like high school. You have the hall monitors and you have the bullies.

The bullies are the conservatives, they’re just looking to say bad shit about black people. I’m not talking about all conservatives, I’m talking about the kooks. And the kooks are always the loudest heard. They’re just wanting to get a jab in. They’re looking to bully, they’re pissed off. They’re just assholes.

And then you have the people on the left, who are the fucking hall monitors. They just feel that they’re all professors and they have a big syllabus to teach the world. And the world would be perfect if people just followed the syllabus, even though no one fucking reads the syllabus! No one does.

Yet that’s the two loudest voices when talking about race. I’m not into either of those.

The Fair And Flat Tax

Okay, so taxes are an important issue in the GOP. Tax plans, as a Presidential candidate, are important. It serves to show people what you plan to do, and how you would like to go about it. Let’s look at Randal’s, which was recently released.

Key Points:

  • Flat rate of 14.5%
  • Applied to both personal income and businesses
  • Major cuts in deductions
  • Would mean $2 TRILLION in spending cuts
  • Grow the economy

Personal Income:

The tax rate for personal income would be set at 14.5%. That’s it. This would apply to:

  • Wages
  • Salaries
  • Dividends
  • Capital Gains
  • Rents
  • Interests

There would only be two deductions left to be claimed. The rest would be completely eliminated. They are:

  • Mortgages
  • Charitable Contributions

Things that are good to know:

  • The first $50,000 of income for a family of 4 would not be taxed
  • The Earned-Income Tax Credit would be retained for low-income families

Business/Corporate Income:

The rate would still be set at 14.5%. Here’s how it’d work:

  • Levied on revenues
  • There would be allowable expenses (such as parts, computers, office equipment) that would be subtracted from the revenues.
  • Capital purchases would be immediately expensed, ending complicated depreciation schemes

What Would It Do?:

These are the Senator’s own words now:

“The immediate question everyone asks is: Won’t this 14.5% tax plan blow a massive hole in the budget deficit? As a senator, I have proposed balanced budgets and I pledge to balance the budget as president.

Here’s why this plan would balance the budget: We asked the experts at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation to estimate what this plan would mean for jobs, and whether we are raising enough money to fund the government. The analysis is positive news: The plan is an economic steroid injection. Because the Fair and Flat Tax rewards work, saving, investment and small business creation, the Tax Foundation estimates that in 10 years it will increase gross domestic product by about 10%, and create at least 1.4 million new jobs.

And because the best way to balance the budget and pay down government debt is to put Americans back to work, my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts.“

Objections:

Let me put up a few possible objections, and then go ahead and address them.

“But the rich will be taxed less than everyone else!”

To quote the Senator, “Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won’t have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%.” Even though they won’t be paying as much as people thought they were before,  they won’t be able to pay lower than that 14.5%.

“But what about deductions?”

As stated, there will only be the two stated earlier in the post. There won’t be any other deductions then. Those two will be it. There wouldn’t be any special one’s for rich people, corporations, etc… 

“But what about the special interests!?”

Steve Forbes ran with a flat tax idea in 1996. t was liked by voters for it’s simplicity it’s capacity to help the economy. Cronyists didn’t like it. But this isn’t 1996 now. The GOP of then isn’t the GOP of now. Now, Conservatives are a lot more anti-corporate welfare than before, and I see it becoming more popular within the party too.

This plan relies on two things: electing competent people to office who are willing to stop the expansive growth in government, and their constituents making sure they do what they said they were going to do. Without either of those two, this plan may seem nice, but it’d be bound for deep troubles.

“Why should we do follow along and support this?”

Because it’d mean more money in your pocket for you to control at the end of the day. It means people will be able to build their savings, plan for retirement, set money aside, not worry as much, and be able to live a better life. That’s what it means. At the end of the day, it means you being able to live and do more as you please.

Credits:

Noteworthy people to mention in bringing this to life:

Steve Forbes (Forbes)

Stephen Moore (Heritage Foundation)

Arthur Laffer (Former Reagan Economist)

Rand Paul (R-KY)

Information from Opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal

Originally posted by runningrepublican