The Vive Debates - Ask The Candidates!

It is unfortunate that those who complain so much about others excluding them from the debate are just as guilty of doing the same thing themselves.

Must totally agree with Innes comments.

---
"We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"

Speaking of exclusion, this line is very telling :<p> <i>"And an update, I've emailed invitations to members from the Green, NDP, CAP, Liberals and Conservatives to participate."</i> <p> Why couldn't Bloc Québécois members also be invited to participate in the debate ? I'm sure 'some' of them have sufficient knowledge about current issues to debate them openly on a public net space and certainly, out of the Blocs' 54 members of parliament, 'some' of them can probably be found to speak, read, write and even, understand plain English <p>Just a thought, if we wish to enjoy the full spectrum of Canadian politics. <p>---<br>« Il y a une belle, une terrible rationalité dans la décision d'être libre. » - Gérard Bergeron <br />

How so? Because the questions are posted in the Forums, where Anons can't post?

They are free to sign up for an account, and many Anons lately are admittedly American. So why should they care about our election? Many are also here for the soul purpose of disrupting discussions through a rise in the background noise. Why should we include that?



---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill

"Why couldn't Bloc Québécois members also be invited to participate in the debate ?"

(Since this is before your /sarcasm tag, I assume it's not

Well, because of Vive's mission statement, and because not all Candaians can vote for them. They limit themselves by their scope. I doubt their party platform includes fishing rights on the Grand Banks, or hardwood logging in BC.

I specifically did not send them an email, but you are always welcome to.

---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill

I belong to the Progressive Canadian Party and it has been excluded as well. We received the same percentage of the vote as CAP in the last election. We have tried to participate in the debate here but been largely ignored. Both our president Jim Love and Joe Hueglin as well as myself are or were registered members and have posted here in the past). In fact, we get much more response posting as "Anonymous" than we do if we mention our political affiliation.

What does that imply?

What do you mean you have tried to participate? Nobody is stopping anyone from posting as far as I know, where are the articles you submit, or your party platform, or your comments explaining the party? I would love to read that information.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Your comment illustrates the point I was making. When they were here you did not even read them.

Innes

Indeed, all Dr Caleb did was send invitations. Anyone else is free to participate, vive is not an invite-only site.

---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation.

Being ignored is entirely different from being excluded. The number of responses is no indicator of how well-received your posts are, merely how controversial. *shrug*

---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation.

Jesse, How do you evaluate being ignored? Why waste time in trying to engage in a debate if you are simply ignored? I ignore "trolls" because, in my opinion, they have nothing to contribute to intelligent discussion. Do people ignore my contribution for the same reason?

One of the essential ingrediants of any exchange of ideas is feedback. That is why most political parties participate. They want to know if their ideas are out to lunch or generally accepted. If people only respond to that which they do not agree then the whole exercise is merely negative. As far as I am concerned it is the negativity, as opposed to well argued disagreement, that alienates voters and inhibits participation. That is how consensus is built.

You may disagree with the Progressive Canadian viewpoint that consensus building is a prime function of politics. They may prefer the Manning thesis, on which the new Conservative Party is based, that politics in Canada should be based on a polarization of ideas and not on consensus building. That in itself would be a useful discussion but is anyone interested?

If there's something you'd like to see discussed, feel free to post it in the forums or as an article, and it will get the discussion it deserves.

---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation.

"That in itself would be a useful discussion but is anyone interested?"

Absolutely. I pride myself on reading all comments, and I cannot recall you saying you were running in the election. By all means, we'd love to have your viewpoint on these questions.

I went to Elections Canada, found the list of registered parties and invited everyone for whom I could find an email address.


---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill

I am personally not running in the election.

I hope that you have invited all our candidates although with the election in only three weeks it is really too late to engage most of them in the discussion. At this point our candidates are focused on making face to face contact with their constituents.

My role is an advisory and support role.