When it comes to politics in America it's nice to know how the other half lives.

[sjoes006]

It takes exerted effort to not only seek out news sources outside your bubble but also hear them through without blowing a gasket.

BUT I've found if you practice what is called exposure therapy by reading your news sources then your most hated sources and maybe something. In the middle you walk through life easier.

If your friend is all Limbaugh and Fox News, you won't be surprised by his POV and will know it is pointless to try and reason your side. because that side has already been preemptively and superfluously playbooked to their wildest guess. Limbaugh is already preconditioning his listeners to believe things are going to go poorly for Trump at the G20 because the leaders are all against him and trying to take him down. He's the bare chested man on horse....

The Washington Post, NPR news The Times try to maintain journalistic code of ethics and not be biased. Ethics they uphold but it is hard to sit by and say nothing. But what they say has no meaning to the majority of Americans not entrenched in politics or law.

The law has become as inaccessible to the common man as the Bible was to the common man forcing the Protestant Revolution. If only we felt that passionately about law.

Nice to see the sake story covered twice:

If you listen to the end of the Fox News reporter he does politely conclude these tweets are counterproductive but only after a lon build up defending it.

Cooper goes straight in laying the framing for how he wants you to hear the story as well. Both pieces have some bit of meat to it somewhere at the middle or end.

This is the only news source for

many but this is cable news. I think you will find if you turn to print online or BBC and try NPR the language and arguments are at least less leading and more a presenting of facts.

My point is for every news news source you love try to find one you don't read but someone you work with or love reads.

That way when they saywhat they say, it doesn't catch you so offguard and strain that emotional bond.

Im friends with a lot of different people with different beliefs and that's only possible because I took the time to understand how they got there and why it makes sense to them. Doesn't mean we agree but it does mean we have respectful conversations on politics.

[RolandCuthbert]

Hello madam. I see your point. But I would like to say that the whole concept of "respectful conversation" has come under attack. I have talked to people who call that being a "snowflake" or whiny or PC. I am sure you have heard of this philosophy. That people can say whatever offensive thing that comes to their minds. Well, not anything. There are a few things that are off limits. The anti-PC crowd has a list of things that are offensive and things that are not. Basically anything they find offensive is PC. And things that do not bother them are anti-PC.

But you cannot discuss things with people who do not believe in respectful rational discussion. Some people rather believe in their politics. Not in facts.

There was a "mytake" about PC topics not too long ago. The person who created the mytake was a very rational woman. But many of the commenters were not. I posted to show all of these supposed PC topics were not PC at all. It isn't PC to believe in climate change. It isn't PC to disbelieve in race categories. It isn't PC to love your body even if you are overweight. All of these supposed PC issues had basis in fact and in science. But for some reason, they are categorized as being political issues.

Somehow, someway, we are going to have to separate political ideology from fact. We may interpret facts differently, but everyone is going to have to agree to use the same framework or basis for discussion.

[sjoes006]

Well I don't think anyone has ever used the same framework as in framing for a discussion since writing was invented.

But a more educated populace would have the tools to read the code. By educated I don't mean college just maybe some mandatory curriculum in hogh school that is pretty basic and debate, framing psychology and use of words. It's a more important topic in Englsih than grammar. Also how people use certain words to trigger context a lead you down a certain path.

Many, many people who don't have any college experience figure these things out on their own over time. But rural America distrusts bigger words and what they view as tricky logic. Tricky logic like explaining why what rich educated politicians and businessmen use language to appeal to them in a way they aren't aware through word choice and topic.

People vote from their gut often times even the best educated. I vote off of policy record.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, let's talk about the framework, you just set. Respectful reasonable discussion. We have to agree to that before starting. If we don't, then we can't discuss anything. I can just scream and call you a communist socialist, liar, liar pants on fire.

Maybe we have to agree that we shouldn't do that.

I can't speak to or for all of rural America. My family comes from Arkansas. My parents were born on farms, picked cotton, the whole nine. And my relatives in Arkansas and I can relate even if we do not agree. It isn't about getting to agreement. That is not possible much of the time. It is about creating a platform for discussion.

We do not have that. Maybe we never did and just didn't notice? I am not sure.

[JohnDoe3000]

I'm a progressive liberal but I think it's good to know where people are coming from and what problems, or perceived problems, your side has overlooked: for example there should be more affordable retraining opportunities for workers who lose their jobs in industries that are slowly regulated or outcompeted away through environmental legislation or foreign competition (yeah, globalization is a good thing on average, but there will be losers and yes, it's infuriating that those losers are now complaining while they've always been opposed to "handouts" and "entitlements" when it was other people that needed those, but good leaders can be frank with voters and compassionate at the same time).

It's also good to stay critical of the more sensationalist stories from your own camp: recently George Takei reposted a story about how Tomi Lahren was sooo ignorant about birth control because she said hers costs only $9 per month and thus shouldn't be covered by health insurance. Well, actually, that was entirely plausible since generic basic birth control pills that work just fine for a large percentage of women could cost only $9 per month and there are several European countries with universal healthcare that does not cover birth control pills exactly because they're so cheap (they do cover more expensive kinds if a doctor determines it's necessary, but that's not nearly as common as my fellow progressive liberals tend to believe). Yes, Tomi Lahren is an ignorant cunt who never worked a day in her life, but I'm critical enough to think "hey, she uses this stuff herself so this is probably something she does actually know something about and I remember my ex-gf didn't pay much for birth control pills either". If I just went uncritically along with the nice feeling of seeing her get bashed I wouldn't be any better than your average Trumpster.

[poopedmypantsagain]

Well I think we can all agree on one thing in politics, and that is every one of them lies their face off to first get elected, then they just keep it up, they are only interested in making as much money as they can either for themselves or their parties to further increase the fat paychecks they get already, and they also abuse the big perks they get with the job.. but are they ever told to stop doing it.. nope.. and sure they toss a few dollars here and there to make it look like they are trying to please the people,, but that is just a cop out by them and I think we all know that as well

[jacquesvol]

Poor is who isn't a millionaire , said TrumPutin
www.theguardian.com/.../trumpcare-health-tax-cut-1-percent

[sjoes006]

Yes in the United Stayes if you don't have at least $1m between property and other asset value between savings and portfolio you are poor.

[castratedwhiteguy]

You say, "The Washington Post, NPR news The Times try to maintain journalistic code of ethics and not be biased". Are you joking?

These left wing dinosaurs are losing their audience and going bankrupt because they've been exposed as known liars and anti- American globalist propagandists. I stopped listening to these lying idiots years ago because I just couldn't stand listing to their warped and convoluted brainwashing tactics anymore.

Understand, right now the battle lines are crystal clear. You're either for America (Trump supporters, Tea Party, economic nationalists, strong borders, Constitutional patriots, etc.,.) or else you're against America (Democrats, Rinos, SJW's, The United Nations, The WTO, NAFTA, open borders, international central banks, Agenda 21, global carbon taxes, junk science, etc.,.) So you need to chose a side; and you need to chose wisely...

[kilowatt04]

Love this take. Too bad most people will never do this, and also believe that any source that isn't biased to their side is in fact biased to the other. We think what we think because it's where our life experience has lead us, and unfortunately biased news sources play a huge role in this for most.

[Anonymous]

"The Washington Post, NPR news The Times try to maintain journalistic code of ethics and not be biased. "

This statement ^^ is 100% false and I believe it shows your bias. I agree with the spirit of your take but you can't really practice what you preach if you don't recognize bias when you see it.

[WalterRadio]

"The Washington Post, NPR news The Times try to maintain journalistic code of ethics "
Hardly.

NPR and the NYT are extremely biased.

[Anonymous]

CNN hates Trump, so they aren't good sources of information because they are so biased. In my opinion, CNN=Fox News. Both are very biased.

Obviously, Huffington post is Left. In other words, both sides of the political spectrum have their biased sources of news. You are right when you suggest it's important to get different viewpoints.

[Anonymous]

one channel refuses to face the truth and can't handle the truth, they know a certain crowd size was as bigly as his hands.

[Anonymous]

... I just don't watch the news.