What will happen to the US after the coming Presidential Election?

SGT Efaw (Mick) G. - "Shenanigans of the Tea Party?" What pray tell are those? Have you ever attended a "Tea Party"? Lots of very respectful folks getting together to commiserate over the cancerous growth of government and disrespect of the Constitution. People who obey the law, obtain permits to meet in public places, and clean up after themselves? You find this offensive? Would you have preferred that they put on a freak show like the "Occupiers"?

And you find that President Obama's use of executive power is "legitimate"? Seriously? He has violated our constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech and to defend ourselves using Executive Orders. You find that legitimate. Yes, he can veto and has. That makes him correct? Or does it make him obstructionist?

There is no doubt that President Obama will do whatever it takes to alter the makeup of the Supreme Bench. Nothing I say would ever convince you that he would alter for the worse than you could convince me that he would alter it for the better, so we'll leave that one alone.

Your right because nothing you say makes sense. You rather see nothing get accomplish then to give credit to president you've hated since day one. It's that deep hate that is embedded inside of some of you who drive this crazy train. We heard you and put up with your crap for 7yrs. The people of the United States don't believe you. Your hatred speeches of doom and gloom never came. Your a disgrace and you will go down in history as the dumbest racist hating group that decided to come out just when a black president was elected.

CPT Jack Durish -

"The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday had barely moved beyond the realm of rumor before Senate Republicans announced that they would stonewall any replacement named by President Barack Obama. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—who controls much of the confirmation process—quickly declared that “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Republican presidential contenders agreed at Saturday night’s debate, and the right-wing press jumped into action to pretend that blocking a Supreme Court nominee for 11 months is a time-honored American tradition. (It’s not.) Obama refused to play along, stating that he planned to fulfill his “constitutional responsibility to nominate a successor in due time.” Many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, also employed the “constitutional responsibility line” to imply that the Senate would be shirking its Article II duties by obstructing the appointment of a new justice."

Basically treason and also suicide by the GOP.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/senate_republicans_should_compromise_on_antonin_scalia_s_replacement_or.html

SGT Efaw (Mick) G. - Obviously I cannot correct your many errors. However, for the benefit of those who might be misled by them I will offer the following quick observations. RINOs are not conservatives. A Tea Party is not a political party. It was simply a gathering of people tired of the cancerous growth of government and flaunting of constitutional limits. Every President has issued executive orders. No one is complaining that President Obama is using them or their quantity. The complaints focus on his abuse of powers as expressed in some of his Executive Orders. No one is defending McConnell or others who politicized the confirmation process before Scalia's body even grew cold. Timothy McVeigh was not a member of the Tea Party. There was no Tea Party then. There is no "Tea Party" now. And no one who attends gatherings of conservatives (known as Tea Parties) ever extolled the virtues of Timothy McVeigh. Some conservatives may espouse the political philosophy of the John Birch Society. Not me. Last, but not least, SGT Efaw (Mick) G. does not speak for or represent the "Constitutionalist Crowd. He is merely employing a popular propagandist technique known as "the straw man argument" wherein obviously wrong-headed or objectionable statements or beliefs are ascribed to some "other person" and then argued against to demonstrate moral superiority. As I said, propaganda. Ignore it.