An experiment in political discussion

Came across this today and found the idea interesting.

A small (526) representation of American voters brought together in Texas discuss the issues in a civil manner and come away a little better for it.

I will be interested to see the results of the exit poll as compared to the entry poll. A way forward on political discourse BY the people? Including here?

8 thoughts on “An experiment in political discussion

    1. Add Alaska to the list of states that have cancelled GOP primaries. Three Republican challengers will not be given a chance to have their voices heard and give old school conservatives an alternative to the current leader of the party. SAD!

      Liked by 2 people

    2. I dunno, maybe it all makes sense. Once every couple of weeks, the wife and I, faced with commitments and time constraints, eat at Arby’s — arguably the best of fast food — because of ill-timing. The menu is too varied. I find myself starring at my choices and lamenting that unless I move quickly, I will be forced to wolf down whatever it is that I choose.

      Maybe the Republicans have solved that problem. Rather than decide on the best sandwich and wait for it to be made, I should just take a deep breath and let the counterman shove what’s under the hot lamp down my throat.


  1. Democracy is hard work. Not my idea, but just this sentiment came out in a discussion a week or so ago.

    We say we have family, jobs, health issues. A myriad of reasons not to participate. We think the Internet is a good substitute for face to face discussions.

    It isn’t.

    Of course when our representatives have 750,000 constituents, such one on ones, as in effective townhall meetings, are almost meaningless. Only the most vocal will get attention. And money plays a huge, distorting role.

    Our country is too large for the paltry number of representatives we now have.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Interesting for sure, but I imagine there will be little change in opinion.

    It’s reflective of neoliberal West Wing ideology that we can solve all our problems if we just get the right people in a room and expose them to “the facts.” Bigots don’t hate immigrants because they don’t have the correct facts about them. They hate them because they’re racist pieces of shit.

    Looking at politics this way ignores any kind of material analysis and precludes much-needed structural change. You can see how that would appeal to CNN.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Good news is that our racist history, more brutal and longer than apartheid in South Africa, is giving way to more acceptance.
    Obama gave a great speech to that effect. He said we have a ways to go, but “make no mistake”, life for minorities is a lot better today than in the 50’s.

    The bad news is that the Trump populism has a part of his core that believes the end of European descendants’ domination is a serious cultural threat. And the president has given them a green light to emerge.

    But I don’t think racial parity progress will stop. It just hit a speed bump, starting with Obama’s election that fired up the supremacy movement.

    Whether Trump is a racist or not can be debated ad infinitum. My take is he just doesn’t care so long as he gets his supporters’ loyalty.


    Liked by 2 people

    1. The issue about loyalty has to do with Trump’s ego and love of himself, not love of country and patriotism. The 40 sentences from David Leonhardt in the NYT sums up his Presidency quite accurately.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s