Obama certainly could have done a better job at stopping them (and done better at many other things as well), but those drone strikes started under Bush2, along with the rest of the mostly disastrous "war on terror". Given we experienced our first non-peaceful transition of power, it's absurd to pretend anything else in US history compares.
I'm not sure why that is relevant. "Transition of power" describes the period of time when power transitions from one administration to the next. A non-peaceful end of presidency can be followed by a peaceful transition of power.
VPOTUS assuming the presidency absolutely is a new administration. Hard to see how anyone could claim otherwise.
Consider Andrew Johnson, who wasn't even the same party as Lincoln. He was impeached by Republicans and in his run for presidency got his votes mostly from Southern whites. He pardoned basically all confederates. The murder of Lincoln definitely was a violent transfer of power from an abolitionist to a Southern apologist.
> VPOTUS assuming the presidency absolutely is a new administration. Hard to see how anyone could claim otherwise.
I am not claiming otherwise. I'm saying: it doesn't matter if the last president dies.
> Consider Andrew Johnson, who wasn't even the same party as Lincoln. He was impeached by Republicans and in his run for presidency got his votes mostly from Southern whites. He pardoned basically all confederates. The murder of Lincoln definitely was a violent transfer of power from an abolitionist to a Southern apologist.
What violence occurred during the transition of power? Who tried to stop the political processes?
> What violence occurred during the transition of power? Who tried to stop the political processes?
There wasn't supposed to be a transition of power. A violent initiation to the transfer of power when transfer of power was not supposed to occur is a non-peaceful transfer of power.
(Obviously, we had NO idea what was coming.)