U.S. Trend Forecaster Celente Predicts Rise of Third Party

Discussion in 'Politics' started by lightfiend, Sep 28, 2009.

  1. sounds fine and dandy, but as long as the rep/dem party has a hold on the media like they do, this will never hapen.
  2. im amazed personally that there isnt a bigger push by the american public for a broader political spectrum than just red vs. blue
  3. Yeah... I'm a bit confused...
    I didn't watch all of the video, but what the hell exactly is "Progressive in terms of issues such as food safety, education, health, and the environment," but "Libertarian in the truest sense of the constitution." ? Seems like this guy is saying "Progressive Libertarians" want more regulation/bigger gov't and less regulation/smaller gov't at the same time?
    The hell is "progressive in terms of food safety", anyways?

    But sounds good to me otherwise. We need a rise of third parties to combat this one-party system and the media that reinforces it.
  4. I think he means revamping our regulatory policies and agencies, like the FDA for example. Revamp to make more effective, efficient, practical, cheaper, and condensed. So, in effect it is reducing the size of govt, by creating regulations that only serve to... regulate, and getting rid of all the extra shit. Cuz when we say we want a free market with minimal regulation, we have to realize that very few of the regulatory practices we have in place are actually effective and therefore would need to be changed in a Progressive manner to achieve Libertarian objectives.

  5. I say it must happen, and it must be this generation that breathes life into it. I'm registering libertarian this year. We must fight our current two party system. A two party system is just as bad as a one party systrem.
  6. ^^
    Ahh, that makes sense. "Progressive Libertarian" is just a weird name for what he's describing. To me it sounds like normal Libertarianism - I don't see why he's putting the word "progressive" in front. I don't even know what "progressive" means in this context.

    and I would argue that we currently have a one-party system. If you look at the tiny, tiny differences between the front-runners in the last election - McCain and Obama, obviously - there was like two degrees of disagreement between them. Their "disagreements" were largely over matters of semantics ("preconditions" vs. "preparation" in their first debate). I don't think it's really a two-party system when the differences between the two parties are that minuscule.
  7. So... when do we realize that it doesn't matter how many parties we have?
  8. Because progressive makes it sound liberal, and everyone already has an opinion of what liberterian means. So Progressive is meant to broaden it's appeal.
  9. #10 TheDankery, Sep 28, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2009
    I understand that... "progressive" is a just buzzword here. I mean, if you asked Obama if he called himself a progressive, he would probably say he is. Who doesn't want to be "progressive"?

    I think some form of left-leaning Libertarianism is what this fellow is referring to. Which would be a group I would say most of us fit into. Words which attempt to define political stances like liberal, conservative, libertarian - have deviated so much from their original meanings it's just... ludicrous.
    But yeah, I hope this guy is right. I think the group you could loosely call "libertarians" in this country will only swell in size exponentially as 2012 approaches. It's really not that long of a time from now if you think about it.

    I mean, didn't it seem like the primaries and campaigns and other bullshit for the last election started in like early 2007? I swear that election cycle lasted at least 2 years. It just went on and on in a constant cycle of bullshit.

Share This Page