Mutex wrote:Well, my strategy of refusing to get my hopes up seems to be paying off.
I wonder if the GOP will take this as a clear warning shot and rethink their deeply unpopular tax bill. I mean, what could be a clearer warning than losing Alabama? Somehow I doubt they'll take heed though. More likely they'll rush even harder to get as much passed as possible before Jones takes his seat.
I think this is more a reaction against a particularly awful candidate than a referendum on the tax bill. Trump voters turned out and duly voted for Moore, there was just also a really good turnout to oppose him. Sure, sure, an unpopular president has down ballot effects, but Alabama is normally safe as houses for Republicans. This couldn't have happened without Moore being outed as a predatory sort.
There might be a lesson for them to learn of "don't abuse power to be awful to women/children" or some such, though. If they take it.
CorruptUser wrote:I said it before and I'll say it again. Except for a few fringe people, people are perfectly fine with rich people having more money than poor people; people are upset that being rich or poor is increasingly diverging from contributions to society. If society requires your labor to function, there is no excuse for that society to let you remain poor. If you provide little to no benefit to society, there is no excuse for you becoming richer.
Honestly, I don't think Republicans are all that different as far as contributions go. They love castigating people they see as useless to society, and arguing that they ought to have less.
I just don't think they view the rich people as the problem there.