There's "opposing views", as in "I think we should avoid TPP because it's harmful to our businesses" or as in "I'm not so sure government medical care is the way to go, the private insurance industry can step up" but the types of anti-Hillary vitriol were off the charts.

She's literally a demon! She's running a child trafficking ring! She's covering up multiple murders! Black helicopters! Mind control drugs! It's the Alex Jones shit that's infected people and they're not even in the same reality.

You can't have a rational discussion with an irrational person.

I don't even use Facebook! But I primarily read mainstream (i.e. "liberal") newspapers like the New York Times, the Guardian, the New Yorker, and similar. And none of them have any opinion writers making a case for Trump!

So it's the traditional filter bubble, not the social media bubble.

First you say "i thought social media would help" and then you say "i don't social media". Did you read any positive things pro-brexit ?

Sorry, good point. What I meant initially was, "I thought the promise of social media was to drive down polarization." I think I'm not the only one who doesn't know anyone with the alternative view.

Did I read any pro-Brexit arguments? Hmm. I read a fair amount of fairly wonkish economic arguments--as with trade barriers, however, it seems that most professional policy experts (and most economists) are generally pro-free-trade and don't have much to say on this being good policy.

Again, maybe my perception is a bit off, but I see this as similar to climate change arguments: the science (especially when it comes to macroeconomics) is imperfect, but if you restrict yourself to those with some academic qualifications, you see a very different picture than if you read political opinion.

When Bernie competed against Clinton, I don't think there was anyone pro Clinton. Stuff happened.

You could've gone to /r/the_donald. Beside the memes, there were many threads for each podesta email-leak, linking specific comments/sentences for deplorable dnc doings.

But you instead went to cnn, where it is illegal to think for yourself. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A )

Now, it will be the Hillary supporters that need to create new accounts to defend her.

You're doing exactly what both sides have been complaining about: vilifying the other side and making assumptions. And you're doing it to someone replying to you in good faith.

Knock it off.

I didn't make assumptions, he already said he was reading 'liberal media'. I was trying to say what happened because of that.

Knock it off.

I actually did spend a lot of time passively reading r/the_donald, but as you say, it seemed more into the other side (email leaks, etc) than into Trump's policy proposals or similar.

I don't watch CNN. Not a big fan of TV news.

Heck, the WaPo and Economist are normally good political opposites of NYT and Guardian, but even they found Trump repulsive.