You cannot engage (in politics) in any better way than by backing a candidate.
Why do you believe that?
Backing a candidate is an opportunity to change political rhetoric.
How does it do that? Especially if it involves backing a mainstream candidate?
I don’t need to back a candidate to change political rhetoric. A more effective way to change political rhetoric is figure out ways to change the current culture.
By supporting a candidate, we are instigating a conversation.
I doubt it. I don’t think you’re interested in having an open-minded conversation. I suspect that you’re only interested in supporting Kamala Harris. You haven’t explained why you support Harris, and you obviously need to do that if you want to start a conversation.
It’s about using political engagement to bring more people into the rationalist fold and out of tribalism.
How does backing a candidate “bring more people out of tribalism”? You haven’t given any explanation for this.
Why do you believe that?
How does it do that? Especially if it involves backing a mainstream candidate?
I don’t need to back a candidate to change political rhetoric. A more effective way to change political rhetoric is figure out ways to change the current culture.
I doubt it. I don’t think you’re interested in having an open-minded conversation. I suspect that you’re only interested in supporting Kamala Harris. You haven’t explained why you support Harris, and you obviously need to do that if you want to start a conversation.
How does backing a candidate “bring more people out of tribalism”? You haven’t given any explanation for this.
I believe that because over 200 people RSVPed for the event, unlike anything else we’ve done. This even eclipses our AI event.
We’re going to focus on action and reasons for backing Harris vs “rah rah” hype making.
The open conversation is how to get a candidate elected.
Most people back a candidate like they back a sports team. They don’t have reasons. We’ll work toward reasons.