Bridging the Divide: A Republican and a Democrat Debate Waste, War, and Immigration

In a time when political conversations often feel like battlefields, discussing the rapid changes shaping our world has become increasingly difficult. To gain a better understanding of how American citizens are responding and whether a middle ground is possible, we educated Stella.ai, a proprietary AI agent that my company has built, to create avatars of a Republican and a Democrat citizen by analyzing more than 40,000 social media posts from digital conversations just in the last seven days. This is a recap of the heated yet unexpectedly constructive debate between the two.

Let's be clear. They didn’t start with the intent to agree—far from it. Their conversation began with a great deal of tension, frustration, and a skepticism of the other side’s motives. But as their conversation progressed, through the fire of disagreement, they forged something rare: an understanding that, while their priorities may differ, they share more common ground than either of them initially believed.

Here’s how they tackled three of the most contentious issues of the moment: government waste, the war in Ukraine, and immigration policy, and where they landed in the end.

Government Waste: Reform or Recklessness?

The Republican started with a familiar frustration: government waste is out of control. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was finally exposing billions in unnecessary spending—like Social Security checks still being sent to dead people. The bureaucratic bloat had been ignored for too long, and now, at last, something was being done about it. For them, this wasn’t just about dollars and cents; it was about draining a swamp that had become too comfortable wasting taxpayer money.

The Democrat, however, was alarmed. Cutting waste was one thing, but DOGE’s “scorched earth” approach was slashing entire agencies overnight, with no plan for how to replace vital roles. Nuclear safety inspectors, veteran services workers, and air traffic controllers—these weren’t just “paper pushers;” they were people whose work directly impacted public safety. The Democrat saw reckless and thoughtless destruction, not reform.

Tensions flared. The Republican accused bureaucrats of crying wolf every time inefficiencies were exposed. The Democrat shot back that blind cost-cutting would cost lives.

At this point, we did something that we're unable to do today... we asked these citizen avatars to negotiate... we asked them to find a middle ground. And they responded:

The Republican admitted that while rooting out waste was necessary, ensuring critical services remained intact was equally important. The Democrat conceded that if billions in wasteful spending were truly uncovered, then reform wasn’t just an option but a responsibility. Stella identified the underlying values that these partisans (and likely most people) would agree with: government efficiency matters but so does thoughtful execution.

While specifics might remain miles apart, in minutes, these two Avatars who started miles aprt were sketching out a framework for negotiation and resolution.

Ukraine: Protecting an Ally or Wasting Billions?

Next came Ukraine, a topic where the disagreement seemed insurmountable.

For the Republican, the issue was simple: $350 billion of American taxpayer money had been funneled into a foreign war with little transparency. Even Ukraine’s own President Zelenskyy admitted that he couldn’t fully account for the aid. Why should struggling Americans foot the bill for a war that wasn’t theirs? Trump’s approach, bringing the world’s biggest players into a room to negotiate peace was the only logical path forward.

The Democrat saw this as dangerous naivety. Ukraine wasn’t just any foreign nation. It was an ally that had given up its nuclear weapons in exchange for U.S. security guarantees. Cutting deals behind their back with Putin wasn’t “smart diplomacy”—it was betrayal. Worse, it signaled to every American ally that U.S. commitments were conditional, undermining decades of trust.

The Republican fired back: What’s the alternative? Endless war? The Democrat countered: What’s the alternative? Selling out an ally to a dictator?

Neither was willing to back down. But then, the Republican paused. What if Trump’s negotiation model could work, but with Ukraine brought in to finalize the details? The Democrat, though skeptical, saw the logic: What if high-level talks could create a framework, as long as Ukraine was involved before anything was decided?

It wasn’t perfect, but it was something. They agreed that a diplomatic solution was necessary, but any deal had to include Ukraine’s voice in a meaningful way.

Immigration: Securing Borders or Shutting People Out?

The final topic was one of the most emotionally charged: immigration.

The Republican came in strong: Trump’s border policies are working. Crossings are way down. Isn’t that proof that a tough stance is the right stance? They saw uncontrolled immigration as an economic and security threat, and finally, something was being done to get it under control.

The Democrat wasn’t buying it. Sure, crossings are down—but at what cost? Families torn apart, mass deportations, desperate people turned away. They saw a humanitarian crisis unfolding, not a success story.

The Republican countered: We have to enforce the law. If we don’t, what’s the point of even having a border?

The Democrat shot back: And what’s the point of a border policy if it doesn’t include a legal path for people trying to come here the right way?

Again, an impasse, until the Republican admitted that having clear, legal pathways to immigration was a necessary part of the equation. The Democrat acknowledged that stronger border enforcement, when done responsibly, could deter dangerous illegal crossings.

By the end of the discussion, they found themselves nodding in agreement: border security and legal immigration reform didn’t have to be opposing forces. In fact, together, they might just be the solution.

A Conversation That Matters

For both parties, this isn’t a conversation where one side needs to win and the other to lose. It needs to be a resolution where we need to move from the binary positions that each hold today to find a common meeting ground. Find solutions that can bring us together versus pushing us further apart.

These solutions don’t need to be perfect. If we can all agree on critical issues, then there is an opportunity for progress. Something like:

1. Government waste should be cut, but with thoughtful oversight to protect vital capabilities and services.
2. A Ukraine peace deal that includes Ukraine in a meaningful way, even if initial talks happen at a higher level.
3. Co-existing border enforcement and legal immigration reform with stronger security without shutting out people seeking opportunity.

Compared to what's happening today, where political figures are engaging in screaming matches with no pathway to agreement or alignment, making the effort to understand each other will show us a path forward. One built on dialogue, compromise, and the recognition that, at the end of the day, we all want a country that works, a world at peace, and a system that is fair.

That’s where real progress begins. Not with shouting, but with listening, to each other.