The future of the two parties

[Non Swing Voter]

I don't see the Republican party lasting too much longer in its current form (super-religious, super white, etc.).

Therefore, I think the two party system will have to split along different lines (i.e. gay marriage will be legalized and become a non-issue... other social issues will move in that direction too)...

Republican Party = Libertarian, fiscally conservative, socially libertarian live and let live.

Democratic Party = Fiscally liberal, not socialist but moving in that direction, socially still more liberal and using the government to solve social problems.

I could actually see Republicans becoming competitive in states like New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa again... and Democrats becoming competitive in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, etc.

[Non Swing Voter]

I don't see the Republican party lasting too much longer in its current form (super-religious, super white, etc.).

Therefore, I think the two party system will have to split along different lines (i.e. gay marriage will be legalized and become a non-issue... other social issues will move in that direction too)...

Republican Party = Libertarian, fiscally conservative, socially libertarian live and let live.

Democratic Party = Fiscally liberal, not socialist but moving in that direction, socially still more liberal and using the government to solve social problems.

I could actually see Republicans becoming competitive in states like New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa again... and Democrats becoming competitive in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, etc.

Every post of yours has been about the republican parties failure and the democratic parties success. I'm getting pretty sick of this, the politics of each party change over time, democrats in the 60's and 70's were definitely more conservative than they are now. I've talked about this before and I'll explain it again, the republican party will not die, no political parties ever die and I'm sick of partisans from both parties getting all confident that their party will dominate simply because they win a few presidential elections.

I do see different states moving in different directions in the future, as states always have moved in different directions throughout history. Who would've predicted 70 years ago that Vermont out of all states would become perhaps the most democratic state after a long transformation in New England? The notion that republicans will have to go to the left on social issues simply because there not doing good and the trends are against them is ridiculous and unlikely (at the moment), but in return, they could go to the right on economics and fiscal issues.

Republicans shouldn't have to go to the left on any issues, they should simply make common sense arguments and maybe they'll do better than they are now. I'm also noticing that both political parties are going to their extremes (anybody who says they're not are obviously partisans) and I feel (at the moment) that only republicans are really getting the blame for being far right. I remember democrats being accused of being "far left" in the Bush years, its all just the same garbage posted over again.

Anyways, if you ask me, Yes, I would support a revival and a new version of the GOP. But that's me, that's not the GOP. And its way to early to start talking about GOP reform and shifting states until we have concrete evidence of trend affects in 2016.

I'm glad you are sick of them.  I hope it discourages you from posting in my threads...  You are by far the most disingenuous poster on this board, which is why I routinely ignore your responses to me.

[Non Swing Voter]

Socialism in terms of employees owning part of their place of employment is about the most radical idea I've heard since Sandra Fluke said I should buy her birth control so she can sleep around.

Oh my god, that rears its ugly head again.  Vulgar chaps when it comes down to it, aren't you?

Of course those are kind of abstract ideas that he is talking about.  Is he talking about banning coops and replacing taxes with fees?
I think he's thinking of replacing taxes with fees and that's not a small government solution, that's a no government solution. In terms of "freedom not being equal outcome" is freedom also the freedom to predetermine outcomes ? 

Liberalism is just as abstract and unworkable as Socialism. 

In the real world people can be encouraged by liberalism to be penny wise and dollar foolish as they are by socialism to be lazy or "babied".

No I'm not talking about replacing taxes with fees. I said lower taxes. Ideally, I'd like us all to pay a flat rate and use fees in addition to pay off our debt. Those who use the services such as roads pay as they go. Pragmatically speaking there is no predetermined outcome. Although, I do support safety nets such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and food stamps. My economic theories are center-right and in no way extreme.

But don't you think that more could be done guarantee true equal opportunity? Maybe if people didn't have to worry about the basics, they could afford to start a business or concentrate on work. Maybe if there were more antitrust laws, there would be more choice and competition instead of simply hoping what was the consumers' choice or the right allocation of resources will continue to be so in the future. As a result, there would be less cynicism and more active involvement.

Anti-trust laws are strangling our economy.  Whether or not monopolies are bad for the economy or a reflection of supply and demand is a chicken and egg debate and there may not be an answer. I don't think the tax payers should be responsible for supplying everyone with basic needs.

how are antitrust laws strangling the economy?  and which laws are you referring to?