# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Celente: New third party (formed by 2012) will be "progressive-libertarian"

## emazur

YouTube - pt 3/3 Gerald Celente on Coast 2 Coast AM 14 july 2009

I'd like him to give a more detailed profile of this party.  I imagine it would be somewhat similar to what I described in my poll question:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199223
- perhaps it will be a "big-tent" party of libertarians and progressives that agree on the problems of society (but not necessarily the solutions), but find enough common ground to join together to fight tyranny? And perhaps after victory, split apart into the 21st century Federalists and Anti-Federalists?

I see a chance for victory if the religious nutters sink the GOP by breaking off and following Palin, and the "people's party democrats" ditch the Democratic Party when they finally realize this party has been working against the people's interests as bankers prosper from bailouts (i.e. Goldman Sachs), the stimulus does jack $#@!, the economy continues to go down the toilet, public services quality decreases as more and more of the budget is eaten up by interest on the national debt, and quality of life goes down as more and more money is eaten up by taxes.  Or maybe hyperinflation will be the catalyst for change (John Williams of ShadowStats said there is a strong risk next year)

I consider myself a strong libertarian, but in case anyone's interested here's 3 news sources that are progressive bent but nonetheless I find useful and informative (though sometimes they do stories that turn my stomach):
http://kpfa.org/archive/show/34
http://therealnews.com/t/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=home
(there are some great interviews available in the archives of the Global Research News Hour from the last site)

----------


## acptulsa

They are obviously trying to split the conservative vote so the powermongers can rob us a little longer before it all falls apart on them.




> perhaps it will be a "big-tent" party of libertarians and progressives that agree on the problems of society (but not necessarily the solutions), but find enough common ground to join together to fight tyranny? And perhaps after victory, split apart into the 21st century Federalists and Anti-Federalists?


This is certainly one way to take the lemons they're handing us and make some lemonade.  And lemonade is certainly the order of the day.  Got sugar?

I think we've subverted other plans for subversion they've made.  But they enjoyed, one, splitting the conservative vote in order to pave the way for McCain (even though conservatives had moderate Republicans outnumbered 11-8 in the primaries).  And they enjoyed watching the Libertarian Party shoot itself repeatedly in the foot (something I still think they helped to engineer).  But you know what--we already have third parties, and anyone who doesn't find one of them adequate is pretty obviously a warmongering imperialist.  And a warmongering imperialist party won't accomplish _anything..._

It isn't like we don't already have two of those.

----------


## Elwar

How does a progressive libertarian steal from you while stopping theft from you?

----------


## acptulsa

> How does a progressive libertarian steal from you while stopping theft from you?


A _real_ one doesn't.  Now you know how to tell the difference.

----------


## CUnknown

I also believe that this is the near-term future of this movement.  It would be an incredibly powerful coalition if we could pull it off.

----------


## klamath

I can see a major split in the RP movement on its way.  The signs are all over this board.  It was a good thing while it lasted.

----------


## sevin

> I can see a major split in the RP movement on its way.  The signs are all over this board.  It was a good thing while it lasted.


yup. Minarchists vs Anarchists. Theists vs Atheists. Etc.

Sad.

----------


## Cowlesy

> yup. Minarchists vs Anarchists. Theists vs Atheists. Etc.
> 
> Sad.


And those of us who get along with minarchists, anarchists, theists and atheists and refuse to let it get into the way.

Some people on this board are so anti-social that i can't imagine meeting them offline.  I think some of the best supporters I met were in my meetup group, and only a handful of them also use the board.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

The best way to build this new entity such that it would have absolute continuity with the Paul movement started two years ago, would be to push the same 10-11 point agenda that was on the Ron Paul 2008 palm cards. That agenda would pull Democrats and Republicans to the new party about equally (as it did in 2007-2008), and serve as a common platform to minimize further acrimony over what the movement positively stands for. 

This is needed to avoid the liberty agenda being corrupted or veered off course. Anyone supporting the 'Paul 2008' platform, be they formerly Republican, Democrat of other, could be trusted, while those who could not substantially embrace it could be rightly suspected of trying to use the new party to co-opt it back into the GOP or Democrat matrix.

----------


## Feenix566

Or maybe you could all stop arguing amongst yourselves and just make campaign donations to Schiff, Kokesh, and Rand Paul.

----------


## aravoth

Would be nice to just drop the party labels entirely. Democrat, Libertarian, Republican, Progressive, Minarchist, Anarchist, Communist, Socialist, Pacific Green, Fascist, and all the other butt-licking imaginary descriptive terms, do nothing but prevent free thinking. 

It also creates a "go team go!" attitude amongst the herd. Which allows the Senior Party members who hold offices, to commit various atrocities and moral errors while the herd continues to cheer them on, because they are all part of the team. 

Would be nice if everyone dropped all party affiliations, and stopped donating to ridiculous organizations like the DNC, or the RNC. Seriously, all parties have a platform, none of them follow it, they make a living on useful idiots for gods sake.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Or maybe you could all stop arguing amongst yourselves and just make campaign donations to Schiff, Kokesh, and Rand Paul.


See what I mean? "Or just support the next batch of Republican candidates we like" is not an independent movement strategy, it's a support more Republicans we like old school approach. 'Let's save the GOP and run the show' is not the answer, since part of 'the show' is the Democrat universe and media as well. If we keep reform confined to one party, we immediately lose the hope of gaining supporters from across the spectrum.

The reason to argue about the long term form a coaltion should take now, is precisely to avoid the urge to make it a secular-progressive or religious-conservative movement, only concerned about the immediate elections coming up. That two party puppet show election cycle is part of the problem, factionalizing pro-liberty people from different sectors from ever coming together as a mass block. The goal should be to reform or displace the entire current establshment, with OUR establishment.

----------


## speciallyblend

> I can see a major split in the RP movement on its way.  The signs are all over this board.  It was a good thing while it lasted.


it is called political change. do not be so worried . once the right-wing fringe of the GOP/RP movement understand liberty is for everyone not just Christians! Then we will continue to grow. the GOP/Ron Paul movement must distance itself from the old guard/right-wing  of the GOP! until then that part of the party is what is killing the brand name of the Republican Party!   the right-wing of the GOP and the old guard are the problem in the GOP.  political change takes time the whigs didn't die over night. it took a Lil time!  the GOP must fall into a ditch before it realizes it was dirty the whole time!  We just need to keep building our support no matter the party and unite what republicans we can and when the corrupt GOP tries to co-opt our message with a joke of a 3rd party. we build our coalition so that the neo-cons remain a 3rd party in the GOP or if they try to lie to americans and create one we keep them a 3rd party . while we build in the gop or outside the gop. the battle continues!  The corrupt GOP is running scared. that is why i think they will try to hide behind palin. let them form a 3rd party and then let the neo-cons die with their 3rd party or die in the gop as we continue to build! if the corrupt gop forms a 3rd party and does good it is our fault for allowing them to win. just call them out where it is needed!  

if the dam leaders of the lp/tp/cp and rpr/rpd and indys actually formed a new platform and party in colorado. it will not matter what the corrupt cogop does in their gop or if they formed a 3rd party! the fact is if the political forces i mentioned above united .it will not matter what the cogop or the neo-cons forming a new party did they would still be a 3rd party as the new coaliton became the 2nd major party!

the fact the neo-cons are going to try to steal our platform is good news we must be doing something right to scare the neoons into trying to form a 3rd party

the lp/tp/cp and rpr/rpd and indys are not going to buy a neo-con 3rd party!  no matter what the bs polls and gop tries to tell/stop us! you can count my vote on that!

----------


## hrdman2luv

Personally, I think the Libertarians and Constitutionist should come together under a conservative party.

----------


## speciallyblend

> See what I mean? "Or just support the next batch of Republican candidates we like" is not an independent movement strategy, it's a support more Republicans we like old school approach. 'Let's save the GOP and run the show' is not the answer, since part of 'the show' is the Democrat universe and media as well. If we keep reform confined to one party, we immediately lose the hope of gaining supporters from across the spectrum.
> 
> The reason to argue about the long term form a coaltion should take now, is precisely to avoid the urge to make it a secular-progressive or religious-conservative movement, only concerned about the immediate elections coming up. That two party puppet show election cycle is part of the problem, factionalizing pro-liberty people from different sectors from ever coming together as a mass block. The goal should be to reform or displace the entire current establshment, with OUR establishment.


you da man. I am hearing you loud and clear! big things could happen in Colorado! i am just not sure how to get the leaders of the tp/lp/cp and the indys and rpr/rpd together to form a new platform and new party!(if the gop does not listen!)unless we get ron paul and other political figures into a room and start working a new coalition! i wish i had money to at least help this cause and forming a new coalition  No reason we cannot multi-task as republicans inside the gop and forming coalitions outside the gop!  last election proved in Colorado that we ron paul republicans can keep the cogop in check aka as the cogop didn't do very well i wonder why? maybe alienating almost 1/3 of their party aka us they did nothing to earn our votes and got sent packing. trust me the cogop knows exactly why they lost, of course they did nothing to address it. change is coming in Colorado with or without the cogop!

I will hold the cogop accountable for all their actions to my last breath!

----------


## speciallyblend

> Personally, I think the Libertarians and Constitutionist should come together under a conservative party.


yep this is the road we should be pursuing while we continue to build support in the GOP with Ron Paul republicans. do not forget all the rprepublicans and rpdems and indys/lp/tp/cp that would flock to our new platform and party

only if they used ron paul platform the fact is me joining the gop shows  me Ron Paul is a miracle worker  the fact i joined the gop is the parting of the red sea

the platform is the key or i would of never considered joining the mob aka the gop and sent money i never had to ron paul and ron paul candidates

----------


## JoshLowry

Herding cats isn't really possible.


Keep it simple and we'll be fine.   Freedom, Prosperity, and Peace!

----------


## speciallyblend

> Herding cats isn't really possible.
> 
> 
> Keep it simple and we'll be fine.   Freedom, Prosperity, and Peace!


hearding cats is easy you just need to get them a good platform aka meow mix 

ron paul has good meow mix or i wouldn't be a registered republican. Ron Paul proved you can attract cats we just need to put a new mix of juices into the meow mix some good  juices will work aka a new platform and party(if the gop fails to listen). i personally think the failed gop is trying to lure us cats with sour milk. as a cat i hate sour milk,but i love meow mix especially with some new tuna juice MEOWWWWWWWWWWWW, PURRRRRRRRRRRRRR

KEEP IT SIMPLE with or without the failed gop

it is all about Ron Paul's platform. that is the bottom line as my sig says, RON PAUL is the Leader of the GOP,until they figure this out!!!!The GOP might be a 3rd party!!!!
so far the only hope i see for the gop in 2012 is RON PAUL 2012 never say never. you can count my vote and money on it

----------


## sevin

> Personally, I think the Libertarians and Constitutionist should come together under a conservative party.


qfft

----------


## BillyDkid

> I can see a major split in the RP movement on its way.  The signs are all over this board.  It was a good thing while it lasted.


Well, I believe that will only happen if there are people associated with the movement who make it happen and want it to happen.  It would be truly stupid - to throw out the possibility of ever achieving anything like liberty if our conceptions of it are not utterly identical.  I know there were people in here during the campaign who's only interest was in derailing things things and driving wedges in between us.  I'm sure those people are in here now - agent provocateurs.

There is one single thing that we all agree on - that the only hope for human progress and a humane society lies with personal liberty.  If you don't believe in liberty, both economic and personal, then you wouldn't or shouldn't be in here.  If not, your only reason for being here is to disrupt.  The Libertarian Party has made a science of destroying themselve from within. That is why so many of us have become disenchanted with it.  If we do that same thing in here, within the movement, then we deserve the rotten, soul destroying, freedom destroying government and society we get.  People arguing about minarchism and anarchism and all the rest of it is nothing except pure horse$#@!.  

We either want to elect people and have a government that respects and protects personal liberty and follows the law of the land or we want destroy any hope we have left for restoring this country by letting the only remotely coherent movement for the restoration of the founding principles of America I have ever seen in my life time turn to ashes by calling each other names and whining about who's more right about which particular form government is hypothetically the best.  Let's fight about abortion and let that disagreement destroy us.  Or maybe gun rights.  Or whatever else some in here may not agree completely about.  

Or maybe we should first try to restore the form of government that was created and left to us by the founders of this country to it's original purpose - to protect our liberty and to make this really the land of the free and the home of the brave.  Maybe we should concentrate on having a federal government that actually follows its founding document and is actually bound by the Bill of Rights and so on.

But no, we can instead have bitter pointless philosophical feuds about forms of government we will never have in this country and fine details that mean nothing in the overall picture and guarantee that we are never taken seriously and are the whackos the rest of the country likes to think we are and thereby ensure that even the most fundamental principles are never taken into account in how this country is run and never, ever in our lifetimes or our children's or their childrens' lifetimes know what it really means to live in a country with liberty and justice for all.  

If we want to, we can guarantee that the dream that was America never comes true and this faint glimmer of hope we all saw with Dr. Paul's campaign flickers out for good and finally put the nail in the coffin for anything ever resembling actual liberty in the world and write it off as the fantasy it really is, apparently.  If what we want is to destroy this tiny flicker of hope we saw in Ron Paul, fine, let's $#@!ing do it and lets live like the animals we apparently really are - crawling into the sun for warmth and under rocks for protection.  Let's fight over the scraps that fall from the table of the real owners of this country and the world and leave that legacy to our children so that they can spend their lives fighting over the scraps until there aren't any left.  Yeah, that's the ticket!  Let's do that!

Let's keep bickering pointlessly about what amounts to nothing in the scheme of things and then let's pout like 5 years old over it, but let's not ever come together in support of the basic principles of self ownership and self determination and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  No, that might be productive and get us somewhere.  That might actually resonate with 95% of the people in this country and they might actually start to hear and understand us and we wouldn't want that.  

Instead, let's fight over conspiracy theories and Obama's birth certificate and how Dubya and Cheney brought down  the twin towers and how the moon walk was faked and how the government is hiding the truth about extraterrestials and all the rest of it so that we can give the MSM even more fodder and even more excuses for making us look like tin foil hat wearers.  Let's do everything we can to ruin the only hope we have for ever promoting the principle of liberty to the rest of the country just so some people can feel self satisfied and gratified by their rightness and the wrongness of everybody else.

----------


## roho76

> ron paul has good meow mix


LOL.  That's $#@!ing classic. That's it I'm making a T-Shirt.

----------


## speciallyblend

> Well, I believe that will only happen if there are people associated with the movement who make it happen and want it to happen.  It would be truly stupid - to throw out the possibility of ever achieving anything like liberty if our conceptions of it are not utterly identical.  I know there were people in here during the campaign who's only interest was in derailing things things and driving wedges in between us.  I'm sure those people are in here now - agent provocateurs.
> 
> There is one single thing that we all agree on - that the only hope for human progress and a humane society lies with personal liberty.  If you don't believe in liberty, both economic and personal, then you wouldn't or shouldn't be in here.  If not, your only reason for being here is to disrupt.  The Libertarian Party has made a science of destroying themselve from within. That is why so many of us have become disenchanted with it.  If we do that same thing in here, within the movement, then we deserve the rotten, soul destroying, freedom destroying government and society we get.  People arguing about minarchism and anarchism and all the rest of it is nothing except pure horse$#@!.  
> 
> We either want to elect people and have a government that respects and protects personal liberty and follows the law of the land or we want destroy any hope we have left for restoring this country by letting the only remotely coherent movement for the restoration of the founding principles of America I have ever seen in my life time turn to ashes by calling each other names and whining about who's more right about which particular form government is hypothetically the best.  Let's fight about abortion and let that disagreement destroy us.  Or maybe gun rights.  Or whatever else some in here may not agree completely about.  
> 
> Or maybe we should first try to restore the form of government that was created and left to us by the founders of this country to it's original purpose - to protect our liberty and to make this really the land of the free and the home of the brave.  Maybe we should concentrate on having a federal government that actually follows its founding document and is actually bound by the Bill of Rights and so on.
> 
> But no, we can instead have bitter pointless philosophical feuds about forms of government we will never have in this country and fine details that mean nothing in the overall picture and guarantee that we are never taken seriously and are the whackos the rest of the country likes to think we are and thereby ensure that even the most fundamental principles are never taken into account in how this country is run and never, ever in our lifetimes or our children's or their childrens' lifetimes know what it really means to live in a country with liberty and justice for all.  
> ...


yep,i know one thing i will not join the lp again until they unite under a new platform and new party! all this is up to the gop actions of course!

----------


## BillyDkid

First, I apologize for my long, not very articulate diatribe, but I think the points are legitimate.  I have to add that Gerald echoed my feelings and many others in terms of what the effect of the so called "global economy" has been on America and jobs in America.  I believe absolutely in free trade, but globalization has not really been about free trade - there is something else going on and it is hurting most of America.

----------


## tron paul

Celente is a trend spotter.  We're always on the same page.

I think progressive-libertarian pretty much means paleo-populist.  

The labels don't matter.  As long as the new party supports the Constitution, I support them.

It's up to Sarah Palin to decide: restore the classic but rusted-out GOP, or use it as a trade-in on a new hybrid.

Maybe the rEVOLution has grown so big it's going to divide like an amoeba.  In my view it already has, from PrisonPlanet Truthers to Team Sarah Birthers and everything in between, above, and below.  All Ron Paul's beautiful children!

Regardless, we'll continue to rally around the Constitution.  And have embarrassing family reunions at the Tea Parties.

----------


## acptulsa

> It's up to Sarah Palin to decide: restore the classic but rusted-out GOP, or use it as a trade-in on a new hybrid.


Ah, yes.  We the Plebes have no voice in the matter.  Only those Anointed with Celebrity may decide.

----------


## Todd

> First, I apologize for my long, not very articulate diatribe, but I think the points are legitimate.  I have to add that Gerald echoed my feelings and many others in terms of what the effect of the so called "global economy" has been on America and jobs in America.  I believe absolutely in free trade, but globalization has not really been about free trade - there is something else going on and it is hurting most of America.


No, don't.  It's actually makes sense in a forum that desperately needs some lately.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And those of us who get along with minarchists, anarchists, theists and atheists and refuse to let it get into the way.
> 
> Some people on this board are so anti-social that i can't imagine meeting them offline.  I think some of the best supporters I met were in my meetup group, and only a handful of them also use the board.


Don't worry.  In real life, I'm quite friendly.  I don't even bite  (unless you request me to do so nicely ).

----------


## PaulaGem

> But you know what--we already have third parties, and anyone who doesn't find one of them adequate is pretty obviously a warmongering imperialist.  And a warmongering imperialist party won't accomplish _anything..._
> 
> It isn't like we don't already have two of those.


Um - isn't there a difference between A THIRD PARTY and alternative splinter groups?

Wouldn't it be nice to have an inclusive third party that was ready to focus on the basics and leave the nit-picking and partisanship alone until we have basic civil rights and an honest vote again?

----------


## BenIsForRon

I think what Celente was alluding to is a Libertarian-Green-Constitution kind of coalition, much like what we saw at Dr. Paul's press conference.  I'm totally for that, hell, I voted for McKinney in the general.  I think many more Ron Paul supporters would be for this kind of coalition than this forum would indicate.  Most of the people on this forum are way more right wing than your average Paulite.  Like in my local meetup, all but one or two guys believes in peak oil.  So something about this website draws in the more religous, more staunch anti-regulation branch of the RP coalition.

And for the record, I think a progressive-libertarian coalition would be the most effective party the country will have seen since the early 1800's.  We have the most activists.  We will just have to put aside issues like health care and education, and instead focus on the drug war, actual war, and civil liberties.

----------


## Steeleye

This is what happens when you have people thinking Dennis Kucinich is a good guy with principles just because he doesn't like the Fed. You get people talking about forming an alliance between libertarians and the loopy greens. One group which believes in limited government and natural rights, the other believing in making the government bigger to promote "social justice" and "protect" the environment. This to achieve a "common goal" neither have.

----------


## acptulsa

> This to achieve a "common goal" neither have.


Natural rights is a goal both share.  Now, greens might not believe that extends to protection from cap and trade b.s., but they do believe people should have rights, and they believe in the Bill of Rights.

I'll form any coalition I can to restore to us our God-given rights.  Once people taste the liberty, one, I don't think they'll go back, and two, I think selling liberty in other areas will be easier.

Selling our cause to older people isn't all that hard.  Don't know if you've tried, but as long as you don't name any names that have been demonized in the media it works pretty damned well.  There's a reason for that.  They remember liberty.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> This is what happens when you have people thinking Dennis Kucinich is a good guy with principles just because he doesn't like the Fed. You get people talking about forming an alliance between libertarians and the loopy greens. One group which believes in limited government and natural rights, the other believing in making the government bigger to promote "social justice" and "protect" the environment. This to achieve a "common goal" neither have.



You should listen to the posted video.  What I'm saying is, save the debate for the role of government.  Instead, discuss values.  Like Celente said, Main Street, not Wall Street.  Mom and Pop stores, not Walmart.  Family Farms, not Agribusiness.  I believe free market economics can bring the country back in line with those values.

What I think your problem is, steeleye, is that you don't make value judgements about the problems our society has.  Instead, you are so afraid of government intrusion that you are afraid to even admit the market has made mistakes.  Instead, you should be pondering how the market can correct the mistakes, as it naturally will.

----------


## acptulsa

> Instead, you are so afraid of government intrusion that you are afraid to even admit the market has made mistakes.


But don't feel alone in this, because you're not.  I fear this elemental blind spot could give our foes all they need to undermine us with credible charges of 'intellectual dishonesty'.  Yes, the free market demonstrably racks up a far, far superior track record to intervention.  No, nothing man made--not even a 'natural' free market--is infallible.

----------


## klamath

> I think what Celente was alluding to is a Libertarian-Green-Constitution kind of coalition, much like what we saw at Dr. Paul's press conference.  I'm totally for that, hell, I voted for McKinney in the general.  I think many more Ron Paul supporters would be for this kind of coalition than this forum would indicate.  Most of the people on this forum are way more right wing than your average Paulite.  Like in my local meetup, all but one or two guys believes in peak oil.  So something about this website draws in the more religous, more staunch anti-regulation branch of the RP coalition.
> 
> And for the record, I think a progressive-libertarian coalition would be the most effective party the country will have seen since the early 1800's.  We have the most activists.  We will just have to put aside issues like health care and education, and instead focus on the drug war, actual war, and civil liberties.


In my neck of the woods I have seen more civil rights violated by environmentalism backed by the Federal government. Environmentalists will violate far more civil rights all in the name of saving the world much like the neocons saving us from terrorists. They will be far more ruthless for their agenda is to save the world, not just the U.S.. Whatever it takes to accomplish that will be justified in their minds because the cause is so noble.

----------


## acptulsa

> In my neck of the woods I have seen more civil rights violated by environmentalism backed by the Federal government.


All the more reason to hold them close, is it not?  Wouldn't we rather have the environmentalists inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in?  If we can hold them with us on the basis of liberty and rights, why wouldn't we?

----------


## BenIsForRon

Because klamath has too much hate in his heart.

----------


## RevolutionSD

Sorry, but I see it as statists vs. non-statists. Political parties will never lead to more freedom.

----------


## acptulsa

> Sorry, but I see it as statists vs. non-statists. Political parties will never lead to more freedom.


You say they never will, but they have.  So, either you don't know your history, temporary gains are simply not good enough for you, or you have no faith in us.  If it's the middle one, well, my turn to apologize to you.  You simply will not live long enough to guarantee that anything accomplished in your lifetime will last.

----------


## klamath

> All the more reason to hold them close, is it not?  Wouldn't we rather have the environmentalists inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in?  If we can hold them with us on the basis of liberty and rights, why wouldn't we?


Unfortunately have you ever looked at the mission statements of the major environmental organization. It is all about moving power to the federal government. I have faced this personally. Years ago there was a movement called home rule that was to bring more of the decisions on how to manage the forest and land to the local residents that knew the land best. It brought a rain of hell down from well funded environmental groups. Needless to say in a county of 13,000 we lost. The leader of home rule in our county one day walking a trail she had walked many times before some how slipped off over cliff and died. She was a libertarian hippy. 
I myself am an environmentalist and have lived off the grid longer most of the people on these forums have been born but the environmental groups are anything but for individual freedom.

----------


## RevolutionSD

> You say they never will, but they have.  So, either you don't know your history, temporary gains are simply not good enough for you, or you have no faith in us.  If it's the middle one, well, my turn to apologize to you.  You simply will not live long enough to guarantee that anything accomplished in your lifetime will last.


When have political parties lead to freedom?
Usually it takes a complete totalitarian dictator to bring people to revolt, then the government collapses, then some new gov't takes over that's slightly less tyrannical, until the cycle repeats itself. The political parties themselves are not bringing anyone freedom, they are actually perpetuating statism.

----------


## klamath

> Because klamath has too much hate in his heart.


Wrong. I don't have hate for people but I do have hate for ideas the bring harm and hate to people.
You and I have had ideological disagreements but I certainly don't hate you or Kucinich. I disagree with Kucinich on more than 50% of what he stands for but that is not hate. I chalenge you to to find where I have used personal vindictive names against Kucinich or yourself?

----------


## Imperial

I actually could see this under a Jesse Ventura/Gary Johnson ticket. One of the few ways I think it could work.

The problem is that a candidate like this would probably alienate the conservative bunch. We have pretty much gotten to the point that the mainstream GOP would to a pretty decent extent work with us(not saying the party establishment here, before someone implies that). A candidate advocating progressivism would alienate the far-right.

----------


## Stary Hickory

> I can see a major split in the RP movement on its way.  The signs are all over this board.  It was a good thing while it lasted.


My values will not change but I am not willing to let the current socialist elites sit there unchallenged for 10 years or so. That is madness, I cannot support a third party. It will not get the votes it needs and it will cause us a great deal of harm.

We already had one episode like this when the Democrats changed into progressives....and we had a very very progressive era. Work within the GOP and turn that into the party you want, don't throw all the progress away and start over.

I want to avoid Tyranny. The GOP is the way to go. Spliting the GOP is going to be a disaster for us.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

And not splitting the GOP in 2008 resulted in a great victory for us? The last 80 years of continuous legislative failure of Republicans in reversing any aspect of the welfare/warfare state was a great victory for us? You think recycling that track record is the way to go?

I continue to believe Paul's decision in March 2008 to not pursue a third party run (when he had a gigantic network in place, the LP and the CP unified behind him, and the money bomb mechanism in place to finance a serious run) was the disaster. If the LP or CP had gotten an minimum 5% of the vote nationwide with Paul (and he likely would have gotten closer to Perot's numbers) it would have obtained permanent ballot status in a majority of the states, making it vastly easier to run liberty candidates all across the country. 

This by itself would have made the movement much more viable than it currently is. The certainty of a pro-liberty candidate being on the ballot (without the expense and energy-draining hassle of independent petition drives) could then in turn provide decisive leverage in helping the candidates to also win many Republican nomination races, so it would have helped the 'save the GOP' effort as well. And it would have aided efforts to recruit RPDs as candidates in Democratic-leaning states, expanding our clout and political reach even more. The future lies in being a third force in politics, not just another reform wing of a failed major party.

----------


## t0rnado

If there was a current movement to get behind we would all ignore our minor differences and get behind that movement. After Ron Paul's Presidential campaign ended, there really hasn't been anything to get behind. The Campaign for Liberty hasn't done anything and the most we can do for HR1207 and S604 is lobby Congress and Senate.

We don't have anything to support right now other than 2010 elections.

----------


## Epic

Progressive/Libertarian ???

Those are opposites

progressive = authoritarian
libertarian = libertarian

In this authoritarian/libertarian party, will it advocating initiating force against innocent people?

Will this party advocate collectivism which killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century?

----------


## klamath

> And not splitting the GOP in 2008 resulted in a great victory for us? The last 80 years of continuous legislative failure of Republicans in reversing any aspect of the welfare/warfare state was a great victory for us? You think recycling that track record is the way to go?
> 
> I continue to believe Paul's decision in March 2008 to not pursue a third party run (when he had a gigantic network in place, the LP and the CP unified behind him, and the money bomb mechanism in place to finance a serious run) was the disaster. If the LP or CP had gotten an minimum 5% of the vote nationwide with Paul (and he likely would have gotten closer to Perot's numbers) it would have obtained permanent ballot status in a majority of the states, making it vastly easier to run liberty candidates all across the country. 
> 
> This by itself would have made the movement much more viable than it currently is. The certainty of a pro-liberty candidate being on the ballot (without the expense and energy-draining hassle of independent petition drives) could then in turn provide decisive leverage in helping the candidates to also win many Republican nomination races, so it would have helped the 'save the GOP' effort as well. And it would have aided efforts to recruit RPDs as candidates in Democratic-leaning states, expanding our clout and political reach even more. The future lies in being a third force in politics, not just another reform wing of a failed major party.


The more I look at it the more think RP and only RP could put together the coalition he did.
I hear the label "liberty candidate" thrown around a lot but *WHAT IS A LIBERTY CANDIDATE*? There seems to be as many ideas of what a liberty candidate is as there are people on these forums, minus the anarchists, who believe in none. There don't even seem to be a consensus on the issues that define a liberty candidate.
I have not seen a 3rd party candidate bar RP that was any better than the main party candidates. Perot being the best vote getter since Wallace was no gem nor was Wallace
And the last thing I want in this country is leaders of numerous parties forming backroom deals on who should govern like Europe.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> Wrong. I don't have hate for people but I do have hate for ideas the bring harm and hate to people.
> You and I have had ideological disagreements but I certainly don't hate you or Kucinich. I disagree with Kucinich on more than 50% of what he stands for but that is not hate. I chalenge you to to find where I have used personal vindictive names against Kucinich or yourself?


I was mostly joking.  I'm sorry about your friend that was hiking, sounds like something fishy did happen.

But you can't write off the entire environmental movement.  Not all environmentalists want to grow government.

You should also understand that there are other big issues we share with progressives.  We both want to eliminate the prison industrial complex.  We both oppose bailing out banks and insurance companies.  This could be one hell of a coalition.

----------


## Nate

What Celente is talking about here is a coalition of anti-war, pro-civil liberties people who originate from both sides of the false left-right paradigm. I live in Chicago which is one of if not the most "left-wing" Democratic strongholds in this country. There are many, many people here who are starting to wake up to Obama's lies about civil liberties, foreign policy and his theft of money from the taxpayer for the much hated by the left corporate wall street elite.  
Celente's business is trend forecasting. What his trends models are telling him is exactly what I'm seeing amongst my neiborhood, family and friends. That is alot of the "left-wing" Democrats don't like what they are seeing from Obama. Just like many Republicans woke up during the Bush years and started questioning their political alignments, the same thing is starting to happen right with many people who thought of themselves as Democrats.  
I have many Democrat friends who have thought that my political beliefs were absolutely nuts for many years. My belief in the free-market, anti-tax stands, viciously anti-FED diatribes and many, many more anti-government "conspiracy theories". For the first time in years they are starting to listen to me and actually ask for and respect my opinion. I also have many friends who were very non-political. It wasn't something they cared about or even wanted to know about. Lets call them the politically apathetic. They are starting to listen and care as well. 
Look people, what I'm saying and Celente is saying is that our numbers are about to skyrocket over the next few years. Instead of attacking these many many "progressives" who will be looking for an anti-war, pro-civil liberties and anti-state-capitalist movement/ideology and start trying to politely engage them. DON'T FIGHT THEM, TRY TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS. We know we have a great ideology and that this movement is well grounded in sound economics and the moral principles of non-coercion. Show them why we are right. Learn how to use their rhetoric against corporations and show them how a strong central government actually creates the huge global conglomerates that they hate so much. Show them how a larger government ALWAYS brings more war. 
What he is saying is that there is going to be a anti-government movement that will actually be able to challenge this monstrous system. And that us, the "Ron Paul Revolution" will be at the front of the charge. WHAT A TIME TO LIVE! Stop the bitching and moaning and embrace the moment you're living. You're about to be a part of a great moment in world history. The explosion of the liberty movement that will make the "Ron Paul Revolution" of the 2008 elections look like a cheap bottle rocket.

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> Herding cats isn't really possible.
> 
> 
> Keep it simple and we'll be fine.   Freedom, Prosperity, and Peace!


ANYONE CAN HERD CATTLE!

Why sure it is pardner! My great grand daddy was a cat herder, it's what we do.

we bring together ideas, information and technology and make them go where you want.

YouTube - EDS Cat Herder

*YEE HAW!*

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> The more I look at it the more think RP and only RP could put together the coalition he did.
> I hear the label "liberty candidate" thrown around a lot but *WHAT IS A LIBERTY CANDIDATE*? There seems to be as many ideas of what a liberty candidate is as there are people on these forums, minus the anarchists, who believe in none. There don't even seem to be a consensus on the issues that define a liberty candidate.


Yes, Paul is the unifying glue, and as I suggested earlier in the thread, his 2008 agenda is suitable for ongoing use as the minimum platform for liberty candidates. I scanned the old slimjim literature in this downloadable file:

http://www.mediafire.com/?1xp2rmwjxao

Here's a run down of 'the liberty platform' verbatim from that 2008 slim jim:

*A Ron Paul Presidency will:

--let Americans keep more of their own money. 
--end the IRS. 
--stop the central bankers' "inflation tax." 
--stop unconstitutional spending leading us to bankruptcy. 
--stop the financial dependency on China, Saudi Arabia. and other foreign governments. 
--oppose trade deals and groups that threaten American Independence (incl. the UN, GATT, NAFTA, NAU, WTO, CAFTA, ICC). 
--protect our privacy and stop the national ID card. 
--protect our constitutional rights and end the 'Patriot" Act. 
--secure our borders and end illegal immigration. 
--end "birthright" citizenship for illegal aliens. 
--bring our troops home from no-win "police actions"* 

Sounds like a defining consensus liberty statement to me.

----------


## qh4dotcom

Bump

----------


## BenIsForRon

I'll say it again, your average Ron Paul supporter would be much more receptive to this idea than your average Ron Paul forums poster.  Forums people get real, this is our best shot.

----------


## Pod

Progressives dont have our mojo. Why would we want to animate them and carry them on our backs? Let the Socialists die off already.

----------


## BenIsForRon

I didn't have mojo until I got involved, if we can get them involved then there will plenty of mojo to go around.

----------

