Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Thread after thread after thread.. or u put a thread then u go to the WC and so on

   

Your are confusing post and thread. Pay attention to my next post.

   

It's true that political parties are not very useful. They live by complementing one another. What's missing is a project to fusion all political tendencies. Deliberative democracy is such a reconciliation movement. Our new party will be therefore called Deliberative Democracy Movement (DDM).

   

If I clearly understand u wanna set up a sole party?
one party = dictatorship

   

Parties as a political format will be neither discouraged nor facilitated under a DDM government.

   

I got back from a PC Manitoba AGM, and while there is some partisan quips and jokes, it isn't as "bad" as you all seem to think.

Partisanship is natural in any modern democracy, not everyone agrees, and there are some basic divisive political ideologies fighting against each other, and members of an ideology group together in what we call a political party...

But in the end, something I believe to be very true, through all the partisanship, the goal of every party/politician is too do whats best (in their idealogical belief) for their country/province/state/etc.

And we already know that when political parties are elected they govern from the center.

   

The PC is the first to say that they are not ideologically-oriented, that they are pragmatic.

   

The most straightforward definition of a deliberative democracy is a process that go beyond the majority rule towards broader consensus.

   

Jurgen Habermas is the main thinker behind deliberative democracy. And, Emmanuel Kant is the main thinker behind Habermas.

http://www.egs.edu/resources/habermas.html

   

An agreement in-between existing political parties on electoral spending can constitute an unfair barrier to entry for potential/future parties like our DDM.

   

OK Benoit,
I like what you are saying here. A party that doesn't impose it's own view, but respects the views of every one, right? If yes, count me in.

Just tell me, how do you want to merge separatists with feds?

It's not catchy. Sounds to official. How would people call members? Deliberate Democrats? Naah...



Sounds good. Does it work?
I was thinking about dividing the senate's seats half half between Anglos and Franophones. That's how some federations work or worked.


The Rhinos are back?
God, please give my fellow Canadians something better to do than repeting the same jokes...

   

I'm happy to have you on board. Deliberative Democracy is about every one's reasons for and against any policy decisions receiving rational responses before voting. Renaming DDM has to follow this procedure. To identify myself as a DDM's member, I say that I'm in the Movement. I think I have reasons to believe that not having a clearer label is more socially engaging. We will merge separatists by deliberating about all the reasons there are for and against changing the way the Canadian Federation is structured.

   

This sounds like a step in the right direction that democracy should take.

But, as always, big changes don't implement their selves over night, unless it is a revolution. It seams that their is going to be a lot of work for the DDM.

So how do you plan to engage people that are less aware of what is happening in the politics? People that don't base their political preferences on logical arguments, but rather on faith.




What our state is facing now is normal through out he world. We have Conservatives protecting traditional values, Liberals fighting for new freedoms, and parties that are in between and against both big movements (NDP, Green etc.). And off course, from another point of view, the division between socialist and capitalist.
So, DDM would want to get them all togheter to debate? Let's say it did. What will happen next?

   

Politics seems repulsive because no one thinks it is reasonable to expect more than temporary compromises from political actors. As soon as a deliberation occurs, political actors notice that their interests can be served better by engaging themselves in universal agreements. Deliberation is a specific type of debate where threats are immoral and where language gets back to its roots, i.e. altruism and cooperation.

   

Really? How?

You know, most of any today's society still prefers a leader than debater. A Politician must convey certain emotions rather than arguments. The stronger survives, the weaker dies.

Isn't that the case of Stéphane Dion?


To clarify: I support you I am just not sure if it is the right moment for this to work. Maybe it is too soon. At least let's give it a try

Advance Canada Avance le Canada

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next