Is it me or do folks here seem somewhat ranty of late?

[brooklynite]

No problem with disagreeing with decisions but angry venting doesn’t seem to accomplish much.

[Emile]

1. Seriously 😑

It's not polite to call people names.

[Think. Again.]

2. Anger is a natural response...

...to blatant mistreatment.

It serves an important function in self-preservation.

[brooklynite]

8. One of the lessons of politics I've learned...

Is when you lose a battle, you get up the next day and start fighting the next one.

[mountain grammy]

16. I think that's exactly what's happening here

and personally I'm glad to see it. Lot's of battles ahead.

[Think. Again.]

21. Yes, but...

...this battle isn't lost yet so you might consider joining this fight.

[MiHale]

30. One of the lessons in life I've learned...

There are times you yell ‘OUCH’. It’s human nature to get a little pissy when you get hurt, you don’t stay that way. You acknowledge your hurt gather up your emotions and get on with it. Next time you stub your barefoot toe on a nice rectangle furniture leg, remain calm and continue walking. (Yeah right!). You expect that people around you understand your pain and show compassion.

I hope you understand the analogy.

[brooklynite]

42. Perhaps so, but I don't share that irritation with everyone around me.

[Tree-Hugger]

58. Who isn't getting up to fight?

Venting does not mean people aren't ready to get up and fight the next day. Sometimes, venting HELPS people feel more prepared.

[Kaleva]

44. Anger can have a negative impact on one's health and mental well being

When managed properly, anger can be helpful.

Just ranting on social media doesn't do much

[Think. Again.]

47. Sharing legitimate emotions...

...with trusted, like-minded folks is healthy.

[Kaleva]

48. Especially if it gets people to take positive actions

[Emile]

54. Seems like the mean ones live to old age around here.

Wife's aunt mean as hell. Treats everyone with disrespect is 97.

[Think. Again.]

62. Give her a big happy kiss and hug for me!

[dalton99a]

3. Perhaps because they are not well-connected contented millionaires

[brooklynite]

9. And yet here I am working day after day to get Democrats elected.

…in the same calm demeanor that the candidates express.

[BannonsLiver]

4. It's just you

Also consider the fact not everyone is emotionally inert.

[Easterncedar]

6. I beg leave to withdraw!

Last edited Fri Feb 9, 2024, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

[BannonsLiver]

7. Lol

[Easterncedar]

26. Sorry!

[Emile]

10. He answered a question.

[Easterncedar]

25. Ok. I should take my own advice

and not be so quick to assume ill will. Obviously!

[Easterncedar]

57. I wish I'd thought to pretend I was joking

Cause the response was literally called for. I’m an idiot.

So thanks!

[TwilightZone]

61. Don't feel bad.

You may have been closer to the mark than you might think. Perhaps not with that particular post, but DUers are not above being snarky, as other replies in this thread have demonstrated. Intent isn't always easy to determine.

[Easterncedar]

63. Thank you. That was kind.

[BeyondGeography]

18. Rec'd

[Easterncedar]

5. True. I think the stress is showing.

Ranting doesn’t bother me too much, but the ad hominem arguing is also on the rise, it seems. Civil disagreement is fundamental to critical thinking and problem solving. We can be mindful that we share basic ideals and be respectful of one another. And we should be aware that trolls actively try to weaken the community by sowing discord. More love, folks!

[Ocelot II]

11. Yup. It's an outlet for frustration but after awhile it's just tiresome.

No question, there are many things to be frustrated over, but it seems that all the ranting just leads to more frustration and more ranting. I find myself becoming annoyed at the irrational ranting of others, which becomes a rant of my own. I don't want to be dragged into a state of mind where every damn thing sets me off and every ranty post lures me into a cranky response. It's too easy to become an echo chamber for anger; that's how things get shitty for everybody.

[Maeve]

12. There is only so long stress can go on

A lot of pressure in the past few years (especially 2020 on) and it's hard to maintain a level of calm. Steam gets let off and, with luck, life levels out. Justice is delayed and pressure builds again.
Now, if Engoron will just drop the hammer on tgf enterprises....

[limbicnuminousity]

13. It can be challenging to avoid.

Blatant injustice and hypocrisy invites scorn and ridicule. It serves a purpose, allowing people to vent because there isn't anything they can do at this exact moment. Dusting yourself off and getting back to work is great but it takes time whereas the mental fury is immediate.

It can get out of hand though. Understanding just how personal some of these issues are to individuals though, I'm not going to browbeat anyone if they want to flame away.

[SarahD]

14. I know I am.

Don't know what's wrong. Tried that new deodorant, anti-bacterial soap. Nothing seems to work. Still ranty. My friends are avoiding me. Even the neighbor's dog stays away. I blame Trump, of course.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. So many unresolved issues affecting the survival of democracy

Something’s gotta give, scapegoats must be found, simple solutions must be spouted.

Political Reality is a pressure cooker right now, and the urge to relieve that pressure, even by grasping at unrealistic Deus ex Machina democracy rescuing scenarios, is tremendous.

When those rescue scenarios don’t come to pass, the pain and frustration becomes unbearable, as the only thing that remains is the uncertainty of the future, and that is intolerable.

And so the search for scapegoats and simple solutions continues…

[TwilightZone]

17. Unrealistic expectations didn't help.

DU is great for what it is, but we put much too much emphasis on the opinions of talking heads, even allegedly "expert" ones, to form our expectations. When we're told repeatedly that this is a slam dunk (Laurence Tribe) or that the SC has no choice but to allow the CO ruling to stand (several "experts" on MSNBC, plus a lot of celebrity "experts" on social media), it's not really surprising when reality arrives and it's not what we were told, and we kind of lose our minds.

They're partly to blame, but it's really on us. Outside of that bubble, nearly everyone was saying this was the longest of long shots. I went into this with highly-tempered expectations -- I presumed a loss but thought there would be some dissent -- and even those tempered expectations might have been a bit too lofty.

[Fiendish Thingy]

31. I've said it before, and I'll say it again

Using TV lawyers as your only/primary source of legal analysis will surely lead to disappointment and heartbreak.

[TwilightZone]

35. Agreed.

I watch very little cable news, but my partner watches a lot of MSNBC, so I kind of absorb some of that through osmosis. There is so much speaking in absolutes - this absolutely WILL happen - that it doesn't surprise me when I come here and people are utterly convinced of an outcome. Then things go nuts when it goes awry.

It's a product, of course. I don't know if the experts who are on really believe as strongly as they indicate or if they're filling a role the network wants them to fill, i.e. here's what we want to say; let's make the discussion fit that. That in itself is a bit of a problem.

[Ocelot II]

37. Yes, we accept what we want to believe.

The theory proposed by Luttig, Tribe, et al. - that 14/3 is self-executing - was persuasive as a theory, and the scholars loved it because they thought it would appeal to the originalists. The problem that I always saw with it is that there was no mechanism in 14/3 itself or in any of its subsequent applications that explained how it could be applied in a national election. Once lawsuits were filed in different states with differing election laws I became pretty sure that Anderson would a loser at SCOTUS - not because a majority of the justices are conservative but because there was no way to uphold it without throwing yet another very large spanner in the works of a national election where there were already plenty of spanners being thrown. You could argue (correctly, I think) that Dobbs also disregarded the chaos likely to result - and that did result - from throwing abortion regulation back to the states. A lot of people complained that in deciding Dobbs SCOTUS' majority stuck to a constrained originalist approach and ignored the practical effects of its decision. But now do we want SCOTUS to go all originalist and ignore the practical effects of a decision that either applies Anderson to all states, ignoring the election laws the Constitution delegates to the states, or else that holds that each state could decide for itself whether an insurrection had occurred and whether the candidate did it, leaving those states to apply different standards and allow that decision to be made in some cases by a single official? One thing that particularly bothers me is the possibility that the GOP would weaponize 14/3 and use it to remove Democrats from ballots using specious claims that they fomented insurrections, just as they have been doing with the impeachment process. If Anderson is upheld I can easily imagine some nutball GOP secretary of state in a GOP-controlled swing state waiting until just before general election ballots are printed to decide that Biden had committed insurrection because of some damn thing they made up. Be careful what you ask for, I guess. But all the geschrei about this being yet another example of SCOTUS being a bunch of fascists in Trump's pocket is mistaken, at least in this case. I don't think the liberal judges will vote to affirm, either.

[TwilightZone]

41. The liberals asked some of the most pointed questions.

I know that it's a losing proposition to try to extrapolate from the questions asked, but when that happened, I sat up and took notice. That's when I knew that my concerns (many similar to yours) were likely warranted. It's one thing when the conservatives do it. It's quite another when it's the liberals who are seemingly blowing holes in the case. At that point, it can't just be written off as the activist right-wing running the show.

[LeftInTX]

45. Abortion is health care (medical practice/nurse practice) Each state has their own medical/nurse practice act.

Now allowing people to sue people who helped people get abortions is plain old bizarre and overreach. However, there is nothing in the constitution about medical practice acts, which are strictly state laws. There are federal healthcare laws, but abortion is only addressed and is limited by the Hyde Amendment and the late term abortion law.

Each state also has their own voting rules/laws too: Early Voting period, Voting by Mail etc. The only thing in the constitution is the election date and electoral votes. However, we also have the Voting Rights Act, civil rights laws and few other federal laws on books.

Statutory eligibility for office of president and therefore a certain part of ballot access is in the constitution (35 yrs, natural born citizen).

The 14th is not statutory because it uses the word "insurrection", without specific definition of what "insurrection" exactly is. (That makes it non-statutory) It has been used to unseat candidates, by members of congress, but never used to remove candidates from the ballot. I think the SC will leave the vague definition of insurrection in place. (In place for another case to decide). They will leave him on the ballot due to a technicality since he would have already won the Colorado primary by the time of their decision.

If he is found guilty before the general election, I think another case can be filed and it will be another argument.

Just my opinion.

[Sympthsical]

52. The most enjoyment I've gotten out of politics in months was the 14th Amendment hearing

Because we could watch it in real time, hear all the words with our own ears, think about what was being unsaid, unfiltered, without someone yammering over it with commentary.

I was here and two other places just having discussion about it all in real time. I got nothing done all morning, because I was so engaged and having a good time.

Then the hearing ended. And then, "PERSON ON THE TV BOX I WATCH SAYS THIS"

And it's like, golden moment passed. Now it's back to appeals to media authority, which is really just, "Person who shares 99% of my politics who is an authority said things I agree with, so they must be true."

Which feels like it's like 60% of all political content these days.

I just don't fucking care what people on the tv box say. Almost ever. I enjoy discussion. I like to know what the people I'm talking to think, what they've put together themselves, using their own minds and analysis. Not just repeating what person they already always agree with said that agrees with them.

Every time I see yet another, "Person on cable news is saying something," I make the same face I use when one of the cats is puking on the rug. It's like, "I don't need the information reprocessed and returned to me in a worse form, thanks."

Doing one's own work is so much more satisfying, I promise.

[boston bean]

19. Better than pretentious from my pov anyhow.

[Bettie]

22. But how can we mere mortals

understand why venting on a message board is so vexing to the ruling class?

[Doc Sportello]

38. Or making predictions on primary outcomes

BTW, your post now has 10 recs. Says a lot.

[senseandsensibility]

49. Scolding posts about what others are saying on DU

are perfectly okay, but ranting is very, very bad.

[MOMFUDSKI]

20. DU is exactly the right place to gripe our way

through this election. It’s ugly out there

[Stuckinthebush]

23. I've been around here since the beginning of DU

(God I'm getting old)

I have found that election season brings out an increase in rants. It'll cool down.

[bluestarone]

24. I'll start with, a lot of people here are like myself, not understanding how our court system works! It goes from there

to watching JUDGES stalling. Then there are GOOD lawyers (which i fully agree with) on our other news sources saying some of the decisions coming out are CLEAR BULLSHIT, (cannons court is the hardest one to watch). Then top that off with our country is being torn apart, LIES from the other side ELECTION year, on and on and on! I can 100% understand people here getting really upset. (myself included) It helps ME tremendously when our great lawyers here help try to understand how courts work. (still hard to see how judges can help this monster) Then we watch this asshole special council say BULLSHIT things about OUR PRESIDENT! Some days i feel so helpless how to fight these dirty bastards. Hell wait until election, if these creeps pull off some of the things i believe they will, i can see even our election DESTROYED. (i'm thinking almost EVERY rethuglicon controlled state will do things locally that could tie up our courts for MONTHS, hell for years. We better be ready for the most unbelievable election this country has ever had! I'm thinking we haven't seen anything yet. (hope i'm wrong)

[Caliman73]

27. It is you. People on DU have ALWAYS been ranty.

This isn't anything "of late". We all have strong opinions and some people will let it flow at the drop of a hat.

What maybe making things different right now is that there is a lot going on politically and legally. People are reacting to a bunch of different things. Trump has several cases going on in one way or another. There is a primary (that is likely all but over) and at the same time it feels like the national election is already on.

I agree that angry venting doesn't tend to accomplish much, but people need to release pressure and feel like they are reaching out.

I typically skim posts and if something interests me I read into it, if not, I skip it. That seems to help me not get sucked in or bogged down.

[Scrivener7]

28. Angry venting ... well, it, umm.... vents. That is very valuable to some.

It helps to work off the anger and frustration from situations that only a moron would not find infuriating.

If you don't need venting, how nice for you.

But when others do it, it helps them and hurts no one.

That's why it is so annoying when people quickly chime in and say, "Shut up. I don't like what you are saying."

[republianmushroom]

29. Some times it takes anger venting to get your point across.

[cachukis]

32. I see it as an opportunity to share our world view

by writing out our thoughts for public rebuttal.
You can talk to yourself most of the time, but once in a while you have to talk to some one else.
There is a trust of like mindedness here, but good ideas still have to pass muster.
The big picture is filled with minutiae. I don't take offense if I missed something. Actually grateful to have the chance to posit.
Listening to redundancy is wearisome, but it is a chance to reimagine and refine.
We do have the go back button.

[asiliveandbreathe]

33. Often, you can tell if rant..just from the title..you choose..get in the mix, or

Move on..me, it is the sniping..not sure why that is done to fellow passionate DUers..I think I read that somewhere here..

Peace..

[KPN]

34. WTF?

[TwilightZone]

36. In fairness, there's a lot to rant about.

And there's plenty of evidence that ranting can be beneficial.

There's a balance, of course. Ranting all the time just for the sake of ranting probably isn't healthy, but blowing off steam can be a bit liberating.

[yorkster]

39. Well, Comey'ed once shame on you...

But twice? Immediate recognition.
Between the shameful report and the press behavior at the press conference, the anger is palpable and highly justified.

[FHRRK]

40. LOL!

Some people don't like being reminded that they were wrong, take ownership, take corrective action.

It was like the Colbert comment about GWB at the WH Correspondence dinner - basically he goes with his gut feel, and no matter how much additional information he receives he sticks with the original gut feel.

[zanana1]

43. It's good for the soul.

[LeftInTX]

46. I ranted here yesterday about the Special Counsel. I like to be able to rant where I can be anonymous at times.

I was mad. I didn't see my real life Democratic friends ranting, so I came here. Maybe my little chat group felt as shell-shocked as I did. I will see real people later today and we will vent.

[msfiddlestix]

50. Thank you for the chuckles.. I love a bit of humor in light of the shit show going on with DOJ & cult fans in power

[gab13by13]

51. I believe that Luttig, Tribe and the many other legal experts were

correct in their interpretation of the law.

I have only one question to ask the legal beagles; If Jack Smith had indicted and convicted Trump of seditious conspiracy, do you honestly believe that this Supreme Court would have banned Trump from the ballot?

[Celerity]

59. yes

If Jack Smith had indicted and convicted Trump of seditious conspiracy, do you honestly believe that this Supreme Court would have banned Trump from the ballot?

They would have to IF Trump had also lost all his appeals, including to SCOTUS.

Seditious conspiracy is a crime of conspiring against the authority or legitimacy of the state. It definitely falls under the area of violent insurrection (January 6 was violent) against the US. An insurrection is an uprising against a larger force that's in power. Other words for insurrection include "rebellion," "revolt," and "uprising."

14th Amendment

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[H2O Man]

53. Recommended.

I just posted an essay ("Our Father&quot that speaks to this, if indirectly.

[spanone]

55. It's you.

[gab13by13]

56. Oh no, Vice President Kamala Harris

just ranted on national TV about the report. Om.

[Tree-Hugger]

60. Yeah, instead of venting...

....we should vent about venting instead!

[Scrivener7]

65. You win the thread.

[My Sweet Summer]

64. I'm just confused about how people are getting upset that the media keeps talking about yesterday's report...

...and yet it's all everyone here is talking about. If that's all posters here are talking about, it's not hard to imagine why the media is doing it too I guess.

[TwilightZone]

67. It's a DU tradition.

With all things Trump, it's even worse. We'll complain constantly about all the media coverage he gets, then post every snippet from every news organization, every pundit, and every social media blogger, every time he says or does anything, however minor. It often overwhelms the main feed.

As for the current situation, there's nothing in the report that's any worse than the GOP has over-exaggerated about Biden for years, so I just don't think it's going to have lasting power. We should be focusing on the big picture - no charges, no evidence of much of anything, the case is over - instead of fixating on the personal nonsense injected into the report. It's unfortunate that it happened, but we're just feeding into the narrative by obsessing about it.

[My Sweet Summer]

68. I agree. It's the same talking point that has been used against Biden since 2020.

Didn't work then. Don't expect it to work now.

[DemocraticPatriot]

66. THANK YOU for posting a 'rant', brooklynite--- or what passes for

a 'rant' from you!!!! LOL

Usually you mainly post only links to articles, and then attempt to shoot down the rants of other people...
(except for that unfortunate N.H. prediction, but that didn't qualify as a 'rant', and anybody could be wrong once...)


Actually, I would very much enjoy an actual 'rant' from you---
something much more long-winded, less brief and deadpan,
but an actual heart-felt VENT!

I am sincere here.... Tell us what you REALLY think,
and spend a little more keystrokes on it!

When you can.... I know you must be busy 'behind the scenes'...

YES, you have irritated me many times with your brief 'realism', in contrast with my idealism,
but I do respect your opinions and would like to see them more 'fleshed out' and with less brevity, on some occasions....

Cheers!