Detailed Instructions: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no". 
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Problem:Wasn't this intentional?     They designed the bill to give a small tax cut to the lower and middle class so they can be push the talking points and fool the American public (or at least sell it to their base) into thinking that the bill benefits them.     But the scam is that the tax bill lowered the taxes for the wealthy elite and massive corporations in a much more skewed and beneficial way, effectively negating any benefit the lower and middle class would have seen had this bill been passed in good faith.     It's a con. That's what people are upset about. Too many ignorant people being taken advantage of by liars and propagandists with malicious intent.     Similar to the way the Republicans push the talking points about a potential universal health care system, "But taxes will go up!" they cry, while ignoring that people will pay less overall because of the redundancy of health insurance costs under such a system (obviously this debate would depend on the language of the legislation involved).
Solution:
yes