• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: 79% approve of way Obama is handling transition

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Are you feeling ok?

Seriously.... :roll:
Click to expand...

Seems like the only one having political PMS is you. Are YOU feeling okay?

I believe it was three. That is two days, 23 hours and 53 minutes longer than you people gave bush when he reacted to something.
Click to expand...

Really? It took Bush 3 days to react to an American city being under water and this is what you want to compare it to? The situations are completely comparable.

More personal attacks? Perhaps you should learn some self control.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dr. Rev.

:lol: this speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Unlike your partisanship which is hard to decipher but once read it's crystal clear.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Hatuey, what exactly do you think Obama has done that shows that he is handling the transition well?
Click to expand...

Left of Center appointments, getting filled in on national security issues senators don't usually have access to.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Reverend, what about choosing Hillary as Secretary of State do you not like?
Click to expand...


Simple. I agree with Obama when he said she did not have enough world experience to be POTUS. One would think that same requirement would be for SECSTATE, no?


Furthermore what does he think he is doing? appointing a bunch of clinton re-treads then hillary as SECSTATE? Where do you think at least SOME of those appointments loyalties lie?

I think if **** ever hits the fan for Obama or someone in his administration, its gonna cost him.


And, as a side note, Reverend. If you give a pass to Bush for 9/11, which I certainly do, one would hope that you would be consistent and not get on Obama for his waiting to condemn the Illinois governor...comparatively, something far less serious and less involving of the President.
Click to expand...

That was my whole point in bringing this up.

Though I will say. Obama does not like to make fast decisions. And his 1st instinct is to play Sgt Shultz "I DONT KNOW NOTHING".... how long can he use this technuique before people start noticing?
 
I don't think the average American understands what a transition between two Presidents is so I'm going to call bull**** on this poll. It's just his honeymoon period.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Simple. I agree with Obama when he said she did not have enough world experience to be POTUS. One would think that same requirement would be for SECSTATE, no?


Furthermore what does he think he is doing? appointing a bunch of clinton re-treads then hillary as SECSTATE? Where do you think at least SOME of those appointments loyalties lie?

I think if **** ever hits the fan for Obama or someone in his administration, its gonna cost him.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I think it is a good idea to appoint some from the Clinton administration. Many of those were highly competent, as evidenced by his successful Presidency. However, I agree with you completely on Hillary at State. I would never have chosen her for that position. Not enough foreign policy experience. The appointment was purely political. Nothing more, IMO. Disappointing. And I wanted Hillary to be President, so there is no bias, at all on my part.




That was my whole point in bringing this up.

Though I will say. Obama does not like to make fast decisions. And his 1st instinct is to play Sgt Shultz "I DONT KNOW NOTHING".... how long can he use this technuique before people start noticing?
Click to expand...

OK, but as President, I'd rather see thoughtful decisions than "shoot from the hip" ones.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No reason to get so defensive. Not only was I not referring specifically to you, I didn't see your question, nor did I address anything you said. Calm down.

Yes, I think Bush should get some credit, too. Rather than playing idiotic partisan games, he has been a professional and has assisted with Obama's transition.
Click to expand...
I think you made a blanket statement.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Firstly, I think it is a good idea to appoint some from the Clinton administration. Many of those were highly competent, as evidenced by his successful Presidency. However, I agree with you completely on Hillary at State. I would never have chosen her for that position. Not enough foreign policy experience. The appointment was purely political. Nothing more, IMO. Disappointing. And I wanted Hillary to be President, so there is no bias, at all on my part.
Click to expand...

but his choosing of these insiders is the exact opposite of his campaign promise no?





OK, but as President, I'd rather see thoughtful decisions than "shoot from the hip" ones.
Click to expand...



I think these were not "thoughtful" choices at all. my bet is that they were all advisors and sets him up for potential loyalty issues later.
 
With the help of 1-a slumlord, 2-a pro-communist buddy from the 70's, 3- a fanatic "God Damn America" reverend, 4-a corrupt Illinois governor, 5-a media that won't talk about any of these. I think it's time for a CHANGE
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Firstly, I think it is a good idea to appoint some from the Clinton administration. Many of those were highly competent, as evidenced by his successful Presidency.
Click to expand...

Your ideas about what constitutes "successful" must be, ah....interesting. :2razz:

OK, but as President, I'd rather see thoughtful decisions than "shoot from the hip" ones.
Click to expand...

However, Obama and his supporters relied on his "leadership" skills as one major qualification for his candidacy. Yet, when confronted with the economic mess coming to a head in September, Obama told us he was calling everyone, including Bill Clinton for advice. I can see him seeking advice, but what happens when the next economic crisis hits? How about the red phone ringing at 3am?

I'm not convinced.
 
DeeJayH said:
sometimes if you do not shoot from the hip

you get shot :shrug:
just saying:2razz:
Click to expand...

I don't completely disagree with this. However, it depends on whether a gun is pointed at you or not. At the present time, I do not believe that an analogous gun is pointed at Obama.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
but his choosing of these insiders is the exact opposite of his campaign promise no?
Click to expand...

Depends on how you define "insider". Truthfully, after Hillary was not nominated, I didn't pay as much attention to some of Obama's campaign promises, such as these. He may have said this. He's a politician. Politicians say quite a bit to get elected.

And as far as I'm concerned. I'll believe "change" when he becomes President and he proves it. Until then, he's just another politician, who'll probably screw the rest of us, liberals and conservatives. Just like most of them.


I think these were not "thoughtful" choices at all. my bet is that they were all advisors and sets him up for potential loyalty issues later.
Click to expand...

There is undoubtedly some politics involved, but I don't completely agree. I don't think that Gates was much of an adviser to him.
 
JMak said:
Your ideas about what constitutes "successful" must be, ah....interesting. :2razz:
Click to expand...

And this comment shows that what you believe constitutes "successful is "interesting". :roll:



However, Obama and his supporters relied on his "leadership" skills as one major qualification for his candidacy. Yet, when confronted with the economic mess coming to a head in September, Obama told us he was calling everyone, including Bill Clinton for advice. I can see him seeking advice, but what happens when the next economic crisis hits? How about the red phone ringing at 3am?

I'm not convinced.
Click to expand...
No President can know everything. I think FDR once said something like, "I may not know all the answers, but if confronted with a problem, I will surround myself with people who can find the answers". This is one of the most important jobs of a President. Having advisers around him to help during a crisis.
 
DeeJayH said:
and what proof do you have of this, the highlighted portion of course?
Click to expand...

To bolster Cap'n argument:

Proposed economic spending plans
Proposed energy plans
Picking highly regarded economic and finance experts for his cabinet
Discussing cohesive financial strategy with other countries
 
sometimes if you do not shoot from the hip

you get shot
just saying
Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:
I don't completely disagree with this. However, it depends on whether a gun is pointed at you or not. At the present time, I do not believe that an analogous gun is pointed at Obama.
Click to expand...



I dunno, what does Plaxico think? :shock:
 
obvious Child said:
To bolster Cap'n argument:

Proposed economic spending plans
Proposed energy plans
Picking highly regarded economic and finance experts for his cabinet
Discussing cohesive financial strategy with other countries
Click to expand...




You mean like the token hispanic bill richardson? :lol:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Secretary of state.
Not denouncing hot rod from the get go.
Thats right off the top of my head. :lol:
Click to expand...

I'd bet some of his choices might get the boot pretty early on cause they are going to butt heads with him, and he ain't gonna like it. He has some pretty strong personalities in there with Hillary Clinton as one, possibly gotta think Rahm Emanuel is another.

I also think his honeymoon period has started before he takes office, so it might end sooner, but if the press stays on his side, which you know it will, he'll get a pass on a lot of stuff I would imagine.

He said he's going to work on healthcare right away, so the pick-pocketing is going to start right off the bat. I honestly don't see how we're going to pay for new social programs right now, but let the hemorraging begin.

I think he should work on healthcare, but keep it on the back-burner till he sees how the economy adjusts to all these bailouts.

I also think that a lot of stuff has been set in place that he and the media will be blaming Bush for for the next 4, 8, 12 years depending on who's in office. Some of it may be deserved, but if it gets to be overkill it could get quite nauseating. :(
 
"KEEP THE CHANGE", no one wants it anyway
 
What was the polling like during the Bush 41 transition, the Clinton transition and the Bush 43 transition. Why is the transition suddenly so important? Maybe because the libs want to praise their messiah prior to taking office? And the point is? Likely none, since liberals typically value symbolism over substance.
 
American said:
What was the polling like during the Bush 41 transition, the Clinton transition and the Bush 43 transition. Why is the transition suddenly so important? Maybe because the libs want to praise their messiah prior to taking office? And the point is? Likely none, since liberals typically value symbolism over substance.
Click to expand...
from all reports i have seen/read, Clinton was an utter **** blocking scumbag to Bush in transition
 
I know, but there were no polls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom