comment: >
  
  That’s not terribly responsive to my question. I’m glad that you’re able to have good discussions with your friends (although that’s presumably part of the reason why you consider them friends), but I don’t see how that relates to the question of the correlation between political spending and the quality of political discourse. (I am, to be clear, not asking you to come up with the statistics for me, but I’m curious whether you can square our opposing thought processes.) Anecdotal experiences with friends doesn’t, to me, really speak to the question of whether people who aren’t friends (i.e., the vast majority of most communities) are able to engage in productive political discourse.
context: Little Free Libraries are not a good indicator for political discourse. Libraries in general aren't even a good indicator. 
  The only indicators that I would think show people are having honest discussion are voting rates, party/political group donations, and friendship networks that show groups that are not contiguous. >
  
  Why would political donations be a sign of healthy political discourse? Aren’t small-money donations through the roof the past few election cycles? >
  
  Because the more people pay for something, the more a person is interested in that topic. Money is speech. And, as a personal experience, donations to political groups usually means that person is going to talk to me about that topic. >
  
  I see what you’re saying, but I don’t see the correlation between spending and honest discussions that you are. I would actual guess that spending is significantly more highly correlated with fear-mongering rhetoric and political polarization, not healthy and productive discourse, but I could be wrong. >
  
  All of my in-person experiences have been honest discussions even between my Trumpian friends and my Progressive friends. I only have experienced dishonest discussions with anonymous people online.