I did. I read some comments on my congressman's Facebook (you'll have to look for his post explaining why he voted against the Manchin-Toomey bill), on The New Yorker, and I always ask my self "why did you do that?"
If this is the level of discourse in our country, we may be doomed.
Occasionally, there are bright moments, like this one from the vapid New Yorker piece linked above:
"..were a stark reminder of how anti-democratic and dysfunctional our political architecture is..." Actually, No. The system works as designed. The majority shall never tyrannize the minority. Don't forget, we are a Republic not a democracy. In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident in the wording of the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy. To the extent that the United States of America has moved away from its republican roots and become more "democratic," it has strayed from the intentions of the Constitution's authors. Whether or not the trend toward more direct democracy would be smiled upon by the Framers depends on the answer to another question. Are the American people today sufficiently better informed and otherwise equipped to be wise and prudent democratic citizens than were American citizens in the late 1700s? By all accounts, the answer to this question is an emphatic "no." "There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind" Madison(Federalist No. 63).
It's amazing that The New Yorker published a piece that was so stupid. A bullet point called "The Tyranny of Small States?" Really? Complaining that the Senate gives equal weight to every state? That's not "democratic?" What a dumbass. Seriuously. If you whine about the Senate not being just like the House, you are an idiot and I am finished listening to you.