Honest question

[DvlDog4WVU]

Do you think it's ok for Obama to carry out items he knows are in direct contradiction and opposition to the incoming President's plans? Moreover, some of these moves look to intentionally create controversy out of the gate for the incoming administration. I personally think it's very poor behavior of the lame duck administration and continues to show just what kind of leader he really is.

Off the top of my head:
1. Obviously the Israel stuff. How can go along with condemning actions of our closest ally in the region and side with the organization who refuses to acknowledge our ally's right to exist as a nation, let alone the fact they fund and incentivize terror against said ally?

2. I've read the administration plans to place sanction against Russia. Ok fine. Was Trump's administration consulted on this? Are they in-line with this plan?

3. The artic drilling restriction

4. The streams and waterway decision

5. Tonight I read where they decided a National Park designation in Utah which directly impacts drilling exploration.

Do you all really believe this type of behavior is good for the country? These are the exact scenarios I point to when making a statement about how divisive this administration has been for this country. They are literally intentionally setting up obstacles to the incoming administrations plans. Not very Presidential at all considering the assistance Obama lauded G-Dub for providing. Ditto Clinton for Dubya, and H Dubya for Clinton in 92.

Jan 20th can't get here fast enough.

 

[rog1187]

Do you think it's ok for Obama to carry out items he knows are in direct contradiction and opposition to the incoming President's plans? Moreover, some of these moves look to intentionally create controversy out of the gate for the incoming administration. I personally think it's very poor behavior of the lame duck administration and continues to show just what kind of leader he really is.

Off the top of my head:
1. Obviously the Israel stuff. How can go along with condemning actions of our closest ally in the region and side with the organization who refuses to acknowledge our ally's right to exist as a nation, let alone the fact they fund and incentivize terror against said ally?

2. I've read the administration plans to place sanction against Russia. Ok fine. Was Trump's administration consulted on this? Are they in-line with this plan?

3. The artic drilling restriction

4. The streams and waterway decision

5. Tonight I read where they decided a National Park designation in Utah which directly impacts drilling exploration.

Do you all really believe this type of behavior is good for the country? These are the exact scenarios I point to when making a statement about how divisive this administration has been for this country. They are literally intentionally setting up obstacles to the incoming administrations plans. Not very Presidential at all considering the assistance Obama lauded G-Dub for providing. Ditto Clinton for Dubya, and H Dubya for Clinton in 92.

Jan 20th can't get here fast enough.

It's all about him...I am not surprised he's doing what he's doing. He's a poor leader and no he shouldn't be doing what he's doing IMO.

 

[Boomboom521]

Do you think it's ok for Obama to carry out items he knows are in direct contradiction and opposition to the incoming President's plans? Moreover, some of these moves look to intentionally create controversy out of the gate for the incoming administration. I personally think it's very poor behavior of the lame duck administration and continues to show just what kind of leader he really is.

Off the top of my head:
1. Obviously the Israel stuff. How can go along with condemning actions of our closest ally in the region and side with the organization who refuses to acknowledge our ally's right to exist as a nation, let alone the fact they fund and incentivize terror against said ally?

2. I've read the administration plans to place sanction against Russia. Ok fine. Was Trump's administration consulted on this? Are they in-line with this plan?

3. The artic drilling restriction

4. The streams and waterway decision

5. Tonight I read where they decided a National Park designation in Utah which directly impacts drilling exploration.

Do you all really believe this type of behavior is good for the country? These are the exact scenarios I point to when making a statement about how divisive this administration has been for this country. They are literally intentionally setting up obstacles to the incoming administrations plans. Not very Presidential at all considering the assistance Obama lauded G-Dub for providing. Ditto Clinton for Dubya, and H Dubya for Clinton in 92.

Jan 20th can't get here fast enough.

Doesn't a lot of these answers depend on if you believe in manmade climate change? It's obvious Trump doesn't, and with who he appointed to head the EPA the damage to the environment is assured to be done. Maybe he is doing exactly what he thinks is best for this country. Same with Russia, and the Middle East.

 

[va87eer]

That is a good question. Most people probably don't think outgoing presidents should do this but it is the norm when there is a party change.

I didn't have much time to check but a a very short Google search shows that Clinton rushed through a series regulations at the end of his term related to environmental regulations, drinking water standards, and medical records standards. According to the single source that I checked, Bush2 implemented the biggest volume of last minute changes with dereg of industrial farms, adjustments to FMLA, opening public land to fracking, and many more. In that respect your items 3-5 seem pretty typical for the types of things that are done last minute.

In my short search I didn't see major foreign policy decisions being made during this time frame. These are the most worrisome because the impact is beyond our borders and not so easy to undo. I'll do some more digging there to see what the historical norms are.

It is also very normal for the incoming government to block/repeal as much as this as possible from taking effect so that it goes through a more normal review process. In some respects many of these items become more a matter of political symbolism as they are put in then immediately overturned.

The cooperation that you reference during and after the transition has more to do with logistics, advice, and personal support than it does with legislative cooperation. That will not be much different than prior transitions as the outgoing govt will be helping in one way but still pushing for things that are at direct odds with the incoming government.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

Do you think it's ok for Obama to carry out items he knows are in direct contradiction and opposition to the incoming President's plans? Moreover, some of these moves look to intentionally create controversy out of the gate for the incoming administration. I personally think it's very poor behavior of the lame duck administration and continues to show just what kind of leader he really is.

Off the top of my head:
1. Obviously the Israel stuff. How can go along with condemning actions of our closest ally in the region and side with the organization who refuses to acknowledge our ally's right to exist as a nation, let alone the fact they fund and incentivize terror against said ally?

2. I've read the administration plans to place sanction against Russia. Ok fine. Was Trump's administration consulted on this? Are they in-line with this plan?

3. The artic drilling restriction

4. The streams and waterway decision

5. Tonight I read where they decided a National Park designation in Utah which directly impacts drilling exploration.

Do you all really believe this type of behavior is good for the country? These are the exact scenarios I point to when making a statement about how divisive this administration has been for this country. They are literally intentionally setting up obstacles to the incoming administrations plans. Not very Presidential at all considering the assistance Obama lauded G-Dub for providing. Ditto Clinton for Dubya, and H Dubya for Clinton in 92.

Jan 20th can't get here fast enough.

Really? He's still the President and should do what he thinks is best. And if that conflict with the future tweeter in chief, so be it. It is ironic that you wingnuts now want cooperation. Where has this been for the last 8 years while the GOP led Senate and the House have not only stonewalled any Obama initiative, they won't even allow votes. So help me Merritt Garland.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Do you think it's ok for Obama to carry out items he knows are in direct contradiction and opposition to the incoming President's plans? Moreover, some of these moves look to intentionally create controversy out of the gate for the incoming administration. I personally think it's very poor behavior of the lame duck administration and continues to show just what kind of leader he really is.

Off the top of my head:
1. Obviously the Israel stuff. How can go along with condemning actions of our closest ally in the region and side with the organization who refuses to acknowledge our ally's right to exist as a nation, let alone the fact they fund and incentivize terror against said ally?

2. I've read the administration plans to place sanction against Russia. Ok fine. Was Trump's administration consulted on this? Are they in-line with this plan?

3. The artic drilling restriction

4. The streams and waterway decision

5. Tonight I read where they decided a National Park designation in Utah which directly impacts drilling exploration.

Do you all really believe this type of behavior is good for the country? These are the exact scenarios I point to when making a statement about how divisive this administration has been for this country. They are literally intentionally setting up obstacles to the incoming administrations plans. Not very Presidential at all considering the assistance Obama lauded G-Dub for providing. Ditto Clinton for Dubya, and H Dubya for Clinton in 92.

Jan 20th can't get here fast enough.

I can see people getting upset about #1, but don't see how the other 4 are a big deal.

#2 - We already have a ton of sanctions on that ******* and most are by Congress. “There will be bipartisan sanctions coming that will hit Russia hard, particularly Putin as an individual,” Graham told CNN. “I would say that 99 of us believe the Russians did this and we’re going to do something about it.”

#3 - Typical change of party actions for something he believes in.

#4 - No idea what this is, but I'll go ahead and guess you can see #3 for answer

#5 - Who doesn't love a National Park?

 

[Mntneer]

The stupidity of it all is much of it, the Executive Actions, can be undone with one swipe of the pen.

The real shocking stories are some of the sentences he's commuting.

 

[Snow Sled Baby]

Do you think it's ok for Obama to carry out items he knows are in direct contradiction and opposition to the incoming President's plans? Moreover, some of these moves look to intentionally create controversy out of the gate for the incoming administration. I personally think it's very poor behavior of the lame duck administration and continues to show just what kind of leader he really is.

Off the top of my head:
1. Obviously the Israel stuff. How can go along with condemning actions of our closest ally in the region and side with the organization who refuses to acknowledge our ally's right to exist as a nation, let alone the fact they fund and incentivize terror against said ally?

2. I've read the administration plans to place sanction against Russia. Ok fine. Was Trump's administration consulted on this? Are they in-line with this plan?

3. The artic drilling restriction

4. The streams and waterway decision

5. Tonight I read where they decided a National Park designation in Utah which directly impacts drilling exploration.

Do you all really believe this type of behavior is good for the country? These are the exact scenarios I point to when making a statement about how divisive this administration has been for this country. They are literally intentionally setting up obstacles to the incoming administrations plans. Not very Presidential at all considering the assistance Obama lauded G-Dub for providing. Ditto Clinton for Dubya, and H Dubya for Clinton in 92.

Jan 20th can't get here fast enough.

"honest" and " obama" cannot be properly used in the same sentence, paragraph,book,or encyclopedia......

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Doesn't a lot of these answers depend on if you believe in manmade climate change? It's obvious Trump doesn't, and with who he appointed to head the EPA the environment the damage is assured to be done. Maybe he is doing exactly what he thinks is best for this country. Same with Russia, and the Middle East.

It's frankly irrelevant. My point is about making a smooth handover for the incoming guy. No question that Obama inherited a mess but it wasn't like Dubya was intentionally trying to **** him over and throwing additional obstacles in the way.

This is poor form any way you slice it.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

It's frankly irrelevant. My point is about making a smooth handover for the incoming guy. No question that Obama inherited a mess but it wasn't like Dubya was intentionally trying to **** him over and throwing additional obstacles in the way.

This is poor form any way you slice it.

Poor form? How about Tweeting about anything and everything, no matter how trivial,that offends? I can't respect anyone with skin as thin as the tweeter in chief's.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Poor form? How about Tweeting about anything and everything, no matter how trivial,that offends? I can't respect anyone with skin as thin as the tweeter in chief's.

I bet you really entertain the people that agree with everything you believe. Thanks for the simpleton response, given your education, Id expect the level of response from you to be higher. You're providing the low brow CountryRoads type discourse.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Do you think it's ok for Obama to carry out items he knows are in direct contradiction and opposition to the incoming President's plans?

Do you all really believe this type of behavior is good for the country?

Do you think It's ok for Congress to not even give consideration to the President's Supreme Court nominee?

Do you really think this type of behavior is good for the country?

Obstacles and roadblocks? Pffft. Exaggerate much? You are losing touch with reality.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

I bet you really entertain the people that agree with everything you believe. Thanks for the simpleton response, given your education, Id expect the level of response from you to be higher. You're providing the low brow CountryRoads type discourse.

Tough trying to support a complete moron, isn't it?

Get back to that multi-million dollar company you run.

[laughing]

 

[MountaineerWV]

Do you think it's ok for Obama to carry out items he knows are in direct contradiction and opposition to the incoming President's plans? Moreover, some of these moves look to intentionally create controversy out of the gate for the incoming administration. I personally think it's very poor behavior of the lame duck administration and continues to show just what kind of leader he really is.

Off the top of my head:
1. Obviously the Israel stuff. How can go along with condemning actions of our closest ally in the region and side with the organization who refuses to acknowledge our ally's right to exist as a nation, let alone the fact they fund and incentivize terror against said ally?

2. I've read the administration plans to place sanction against Russia. Ok fine. Was Trump's administration consulted on this? Are they in-line with this plan?

3. The artic drilling restriction

4. The streams and waterway decision

5. Tonight I read where they decided a National Park designation in Utah which directly impacts drilling exploration.

Do you all really believe this type of behavior is good for the country? These are the exact scenarios I point to when making a statement about how divisive this administration has been for this country. They are literally intentionally setting up obstacles to the incoming administrations plans. Not very Presidential at all considering the assistance Obama lauded G-Dub for providing. Ditto Clinton for Dubya, and H Dubya for Clinton in 92.

Jan 20th can't get here fast enough.

Well, James Buchanan sat in the White House and did nothing while waiting for Inauguration Day (which was in March) and the nation blew up in Civil War. So, I guess my point is that the current president should run the country and protect it to continue the Oath of Office. Simply doing nothing, or not doing something because you "think" the next president won't agree is not the Oath of Office you swear to.

 

[mneilmont]

Do you think it's ok for Obama to carry out items he knows are in direct contradiction and opposition to the incoming President's plans? Moreover, some of these moves look to intentionally create controversy out of the gate for the incoming administration. I personally think it's very poor behavior of the lame duck administration and continues to show just what kind of leader he really is.

Off the top of my head:
1. Obviously the Israel stuff. How can go along with condemning actions of our closest ally in the region and side with the organization who refuses to acknowledge our ally's right to exist as a nation, let alone the fact they fund and incentivize terror against said ally?

2. I've read the administration plans to place sanction against Russia. Ok fine. Was Trump's administration consulted on this? Are they in-line with this plan?

3. The artic drilling restriction

4. The streams and waterway decision

5. Tonight I read where they decided a National Park designation in Utah which directly impacts drilling exploration.

Do you all really believe this type of behavior is good for the country? These are the exact scenarios I point to when making a statement about how divisive this administration has been for this country. They are literally intentionally setting up obstacles to the incoming administrations plans. Not very Presidential at all considering the assistance Obama lauded G-Dub for providing. Ditto Clinton for Dubya, and H Dubya for Clinton in 92.

Jan 20th can't get here fast enough.

What do you think of reversing all exec priv decisions, carte blanche,made unilaterally over the past 12 months? Perhaps make it SOP for all incoming Presidents. Even consider last 48 months time frame?

It might require a Supreme decision to get it untangled, but it would freeze the childish actions by the worlds most powerful position for a period of time. After the legal decision is made, may then want to go back and consider reinstituting those decisions that were prudent.

 

[dave]

Tough trying to support a complete moron, isn't it?

Get back to that multi-million dollar company you run.

[laughing]

I don't see anyone supporting you ITT?

 

[MountaineerWV]

Hey, maybe Trump will just ask his Republican Congress for something like an "Enabling Act" to be passed, giving him complete power to reverse all these decision for the "good of the country", and then he'll return the power to Congress and the people afterwards.......wait, where have I read about this before????? [thumbsup]

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Do you think It's ok for Congress to not even give consideration to the President's Supreme Court nominee?

Do you really think this type of behavior is good for the country?

Obstacles and roadblocks? Pffft. Exaggerate much? You are losing touch with reality.

No, I don't think it was ok for Congress to do what they did re: Merrit Garland.

No, I don't this is good for the country which is why I raise these points. This is why I said My main issue going into this election was finding the candidate which would bridge the gap the best. Neither proved to be that candidate, so I voted for neither. Once the results were in, I began supporting the outcome, just like I did with Obama. (and don't give me any horseshit about not accepting him. I deployed 4 times under his Presidency to hot locations)

We're past the Merrit Garland issue. What is the left doing currently to help solve the problems they've been bitching about for 8 years. Currently, it looks likes they are just exacerbating the issue by doing exactly what they've bitched about and more, to include inviting violence and chaos with protesters.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Tough trying to support a complete moron, isn't it?

Get back to that multi-million dollar company you run.

[laughing]

No, it's tough trying to get whiny pissy boys like yourself to put the country ahead of your personal little pissyness.

I never once claimed to run the company. I am a small business owner as well as manager working in a F500 company.

 

[mneilmont]

I don't see anyone supporting you ITT?

There goes Dave again. He is still on his game to remove colorblindness. A blessed man of a few (but stinging) words to convey his message. Some of the opposition will learn to duck, dodge, and weave if they have the talent.

 

[Boomboom521]

No, I don't think it was ok for Congress to do what they did re: Merrit Garland.

No, I don't this is good for the country which is why I raise these points. This is why I said My main issue going into this election was finding the candidate which would bridge the gap the best. Neither proved to be that candidate, so I voted for neither. Once the results were in, I began supporting the outcome, just like I did with Obama. (and don't give me any horseshit about not accepting him. I deployed 4 times under his Presidency to hot locations)

We're past the Merrit Garland issue. What is the left doing currently to help solve the problems they've been bitching about for 8 years. Currently, it looks likes they are just exacerbating the issue by doing exactly what they've bitched about and more, to include inviting violence and chaos with protesters.

Balanced response

 

[mule_eer]

No, I don't think it was ok for Congress to do what they did re: Merrit Garland.

No, I don't this is good for the country which is why I raise these points. This is why I said My main issue going into this election was finding the candidate which would bridge the gap the best. Neither proved to be that candidate, so I voted for neither. Once the results were in, I began supporting the outcome, just like I did with Obama. (and don't give me any horseshit about not accepting him. I deployed 4 times under his Presidency to hot locations)

We're past the Merrit Garland issue. What is the left doing currently to help solve the problems they've been bitching about for 8 years. Currently, it looks likes they are just exacerbating the issue by doing exactly what they've bitched about and more, to include inviting violence and chaos with protesters.

I don't think Obama's actions were out of the norm for the last weeks of a President who is ceding the office to someone from another party. That's not to say that I think that the norm should be the norm. The Israel thing aside, you could find similarities in the last weeks of Bush and Clinton presidencies.

 

[Boomboom521]

I don't think Obama's actions were out of the norm for the last weeks of a President who is ceding the office to someone from another party. That's not to say that I think that the norm should be the norm. The Israel thing aside, you could find similarities in the last weeks of Bush and Clinton presidencies.

Once again....a good, balanced voice. I agree, it would be nice to see more of a peaceful transition....it'd be nice to see less party bs too.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I don't think Obama's actions were out of the norm for the last weeks of a President who is ceding the office to someone from another party. That's not to say that I think that the norm should be the norm. The Israel thing aside, you could find similarities in the last weeks of Bush and Clinton presidencies.

I'll concede the environmental and National Parks stuff, but issues of major foreign policy is waaaaay out of line.

Bush 41 actually consulted with Clinton on sending in the 13th MEU (SOC) in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia.

That, in my opinion, is leadership.

 

[Boomboom521]

I'll concede the environmental and National Parks stuff, but issues of major foreign policy is waaaaay out of line.

Bush 41 actually consulted with Clinton on sending in the 13th MEU (SOC) in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia.

That, in my opinion, is leadership.

I can understand that sentiment