Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump considering ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson for Sec. of State?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by jonny87kz View Post
    Better to jaw jaw than to war war.
    Better to make billions for your company drilling for oil in the Russian Arctic when your own government is preventing you from drilling in your own Arctic.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Deltapooh View Post
      I think he would have a tough time getting confirmed. Trump is going to have to make a strong case for a softer position with Russia before he can expect much support. He hasn't come close to doing that. In fact, he might be falling behind.
      I agree, I doubt that he could get confirmed, Trump needs to go in a different direction here.
      Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
        I agree, I doubt that he could get confirmed, Trump needs to go in a different direction here.
        Who's going to block him?
        In an interview with Fox News, the former GOP nominee and chairman of the Senate armed services committee said, "I don’t know what Mr. Tillerson’s relationship with Vladimir Putin was, but I’ll tell you it is a matter of concern to me. You want to give the president of the United States the benefit of the doubt because the people have spoken. But Vladimir Putin is a thug, a bully and a murderer, and anybody else who describes him as anything else is lying."

        http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...y-state-232467
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          Tillerson supported a carbon tax under the assumption that the US government was going to impose some manner of decrbonization measures. Ad bad as it would be, a carbon tax is the least bad option... particularly since it would have a positive effect on natural gas consumption.

          Almost all oil companies have been forced to at least pay lip service to the global warming myth.

          ExxonMobil's support for a carbon tax will fade quick after Trump Takes office.

          He opposes sanctions because they are bad for our US companies who do business with Russia and not having any positive effect on Putin's behavior.
          He opposed them as a whole, not specifically sanctions against Russia. Which means no more sanctions against countries like North Korea, instead we should work to bolster their economy?

          Sanctions won't ever change anyone's behavior, but they have stifled many economies, effectively hindering the power and ability of our enemies.

          Tillerson is nothing short of a globalist, he's the exact type of person that will put global business interests over that of his country.
          "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
          - Benjamin Franklin

          The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
            He opposed them as a whole, not specifically sanctions against Russia. Which means no more sanctions against countries like North Korea, instead we should work to bolster their economy?
            No he didn't...
            “We do not support sanctions, generally, because we don’t find them to be effective unless they are very well implemented comprehensively and that’s a very hard thing to do,” Tillerson said at a May 2014 shareholder meeting.

            http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/ne...-of-state.html

            He opposes ineffective sanctions.

            Originally posted by TactiKill J
            Sanctions won't ever change anyone's behavior, but they have stifled many economies, effectively hindering the power and ability of our enemies.
            They don't appear to have hindered Russia's power and the collapse in oil prices stifled their economy far more than any sanctions could have.

            Originally posted by TactiKill J
            Tillerson is nothing short of a globalist, he's the exact type of person that will put global business interests over that of his country.
            The economy is a global thing. The US economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Tillerson is certainly more of a free trader than Wilbur Ross. However, he never put "global business interests" ahead of ExxonMobil's business interests. There's no reason to expect him to run the State Department in a philosophically different manner than he ran ExxonMobil.
            The news that President-elect Donald Trump is expected to nominate Rex Tillerson, the chairman and chief executive of ExxonMobil, as his Secretary of State is astonishing on many levels. As an exercise of public diplomacy, it will certainly confirm the assumption of many people around the world that American power is best understood as a raw, neocolonial exercise in securing resources.

            Tillerson figures prominently in “Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power,” a book I wrote about the corporation that came out in 2012. He declined my requests to interview him for that project, but I turned up at several public appearances he made and asked him a few questions from the reporters’ gallery. I also studied his public remarks, reviewed accounts of his activities reported in State Department cables obtained by Freedom of Information Act requests or released by WikiLeaks, and conducted interviews with other ExxonMobil executives, retirees, friends, competitors, civil-society activists and business partners from Asia to Africa to the Middle East.

            [...]

            The main themes of “Private Empire” involved the ways that ExxonMobil saw itself as an independent, transnational corporate sovereign in the world, a power independent of the American government, one devoted firmly to shareholder interests and possessed of its own foreign policy. Exxon’s foreign policy sometimes had more impact on the countries where it operated than did the State Department. Take, for example, Chad, one of the poorest countries in Africa. During the mid-two-thousands, the entirety of U.S. aid and military spending in the country directed through the U.S. Embassy in the capital, N’Djamena, amounted to less than twenty million dollars annually, whereas the royalty payments Exxon made to the government as part of an oil-production agreement were north of five hundred million dollars. Idriss Déby, the authoritarian President of Chad, did not need a calculator to understand that Rex Tillerson was more important to his future than the U.S. Secretary of State.

            [...]

            In Kurdistan, during the Obama Administration, Tillerson defied State Department policy and cut an independent oil deal with the Kurdish Regional Government, undermining the national Iraqi government in Baghdad. ExxonMobil did not ask permission. After the fact, Tillerson arranged a conference call with State Department officials and explained his actions, according to my sources, by saying, “I had to do what was best for my shareholders.”

            The goal of ExxonMobil’s independent foreign policy has been to promote a world that is good for oil and gas production. Because oil projects require huge amounts of capital and only pay off fully over decades, Tillerson has favored doing business in countries that offer political stability, even if this stability was achieved through authoritarian rule. As he once put it, “We’re really thinking about, well, what is it going to be fifteen, twenty years from now, and so what are the conditions in some of these countries likely to be?” The corporation maintains a political-intelligence and analysis department at its headquarters in Irving, Texas, staffed by former government officials, which tries to predict the stability of countries many years into the future by analyzing demographics, employment, political control, and other “fundamentals.”

            [...]

            http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...ate-department
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
              No he didn't...
              “We do not support sanctions, generally, because we don’t find them to be effective unless they are very well implemented comprehensively and that’s a very hard thing to do,” Tillerson said at a May 2014 shareholder meeting.

              http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/ne...-of-state.html

              He opposes ineffective sanctions.
              You originally stated that he was against Russian sanctions and are now backtracking. As you can see from the quote he was discussing sanctions in general and not sanctions specifically targeted towards Russia. To that, he opposes them as a whole because they are difficult to implement effectively.

              Have sanctions against North Korea been effective or not?

              They don't appear to have hindered Russia's power and the collapse in oil prices stifled their economy far more than any sanctions could have.
              You don't feel cutting a country off from major financial markets and the largest economies in the world has an impact? Is that your argument? The data would 100% prove you wrong.

              The economy is a global thing. The US economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Tillerson is certainly more of a free trader than Wilbur Ross. However, he never put "global business interests" ahead of ExxonMobil's business interests. There's no reason to expect him to run the State Department in a philosophically different manner than he ran ExxonMobil.
              It is, however that does not mean the interests of our sovereign nation should play second fiddle. If he wants to lift sanctions I have every reason to believe that's exactly how he will act.
              "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
              - Benjamin Franklin

              The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                You originally stated that he was against Russian sanctions and are now backtracking. As you can see from the quote he was discussing sanctions in general and not sanctions specifically targeted towards Russia. To that, he opposes them as a whole because they are difficult to implement effectively.
                He opposed the Russian sanctions because they cost ExxonMobil about $1 billion.

                He was discussing sanctions, in general, and only supported them when they were effective ("very well implemented comprehensively").
                “We do not support sanctions, generally, because we don’t find them to be effective unless they are very well implemented comprehensively and that’s a very hard thing to do,” Tillerson said at a May 2014 shareholder meeting.

                Why anyone would think it's a good idea to support ineffective sanctions?

                Originally posted by TactiKill J
                Have sanctions against North Korea been effective or not?
                Since those sanctions have been as close to ""very well implemented comprehensively" as is humanly possible, I would say they have been fairly effective.


                Originally posted by TactiKill J
                You don't feel cutting a country off from major financial markets and the largest economies in the world has an impact? Is that your argument? The data would 100% prove you wrong.

                (Data laughing at you.)
                Sanctions to have little impact on Russia in 2016, US says

                By ANDREW RETTMAN

                BRUSSELS, 13. JAN, 09:28
                Western sanctions will have a negligible effect on the Russian economy this year, after a “one-off” blow last year, but long-term effects will also hurt, the US says.

                The sanctions, imposed by the EU and US in mid-2014, prompted the Russian economy to contract by 1 to 1.5 percent more than it would have done in 2015, a State Department official told press in Brussels on Tuesday (12 January).

                They also led international investors to write down the vaue of Russian assets by some 10 percent and saw Russian-linked deposits in certain European banks, for instance, in Austria, to go down sharply.
                The Russian economy shrank 4 percent in total in 2015.

                In normal circumstances, it might have grown by up to 5 percent, the US official said.

                The slump in world oil prices, which coincided with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, was the main factor, costing at least 4 percent of GDP.


                [...]

                https://euobserver.com/foreign/131812

                Collapse in oil prices ---> -4% to Russian GDP.
                Sanctions ---> -1 to 1.5% to Russian GDP.

                Originally posted by TactiKill J
                It is, however that does not mean the interests of our sovereign nation should play second fiddle. If he wants to lift sanctions I have every reason to believe that's exactly how he will act.
                He won't "act" any way that President Trump won't want him to act. His advise to Trump will probably be to try to improve relations with Russia.
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Well, it's unlikely he'll list travelling as an accomplishment...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    He opposed the Russian sanctions because they cost ExxonMobil about $1 billion.
                    And for him Exxon is more important than the United States.

                    He was discussing sanctions, in general, and only supported them when they were effective ("very well implemented comprehensively").
                    Something he doesn't feel is possible.

                    Why anyone would think it's a good idea to support ineffective sanctions?
                    The problem is he thinks all sanctions are ineffective, as he puts it they're too difficult to implement well. His excuse for lifting them so companies like Exxon can profit at the country's expense.

                    Since those sanctions have been as close to ""very well implemented comprehensively" as is humanly possible, I would say they have been fairly effective.
                    Then they must not be as difficult to implement appropriately as Tillerson has led on.

                    [INDENT]Sanctions to have little impact on Russia in 2016, US says


                    He won't "act" any way that President Trump won't want him to act. His advise to Trump will probably be to try to improve relations with Russia.
                    Their way of pushing for further sanctions, that does not mean the current ones were for not. It also does not mean we should drop them altogether when we know for a fact they can be extremely effective. If the current measure hasn't yielded the desired results, up the dose.

                    There's no doubt that the two of them would want to lift the sanctions and go softer on Russia, and exactly why should that be given their current actions especially against Ukraine?
                    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                    - Benjamin Franklin

                    The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                      And for him Exxon is more important than the United States.
                      As the CEO of ExxonMobil, it was his job to act in the best interests of ExxonMobil's shareholders. This is actually the primary responsibility of every employee of publicly traded companies.


                      Originally posted by TactiKill J
                      Something he doesn't feel is possible.
                      Learn to read...
                      “We do not support sanctions, generally, because we don’t find them to be effective unless they are very well implemented comprehensively and that’s a very hard thing to do,” Tillerson said at a May 2014 shareholder meeting.

                      Originally posted by TactiKill J
                      The problem is he thinks all sanctions are ineffective, as he puts it they're too difficult to implement well. His excuse for lifting them so companies like Exxon can profit at the country's expense.
                      Abject nonsense.

                      He clearly stated that he only opposes ineffective sanctions.

                      Profiting from the production of Russian oil is profiting at Russia's expense.

                      Originally posted by TactiKill J
                      Then they must not be as difficult to implement appropriately as Tillerson has led on.
                      North Korea is extremely isolated: politically, economically, diplomatically and geographically... It is the poster child for successful economic sanctions.

                      Originally posted by TactiKill J
                      Their way of pushing for further sanctions, that does not mean the current ones were for not. It also does not mean we should drop them altogether when we know for a fact they can be extremely effective. If the current measure hasn't yielded the desired results, up the dose.
                      They haven’t been successful against Russia. If anything, they pushed Russia into cooperation with OPEC.

                      Originally posted by TactiKill J
                      There's no doubt that the two of them would want to lift the sanctions and go softer on Russia, and exactly why should that be given their current actions especially against Ukraine?
                      Because the sanctions aren't effective and aren't helping the Ukraine. If we were serious about helping the Ukraine, we would have gone to war with Russia.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I thought the Cold War was over.

                        And where was all this hatred for Russia a month ago? Its only since the Hillabeast crashed and burned that the snowflakes are up in arms about Russia.

                        Russia has kept their paws off the Ukraine. They're not exactly impressing anyone with their mighty armada lurching about the Med.

                        With the PRC bumping its chest it wouldn't be bad to have another enemy keeping an eye on the buggers.
                        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                          Russia has kept their paws off the Ukraine. They're not exactly impressing anyone with their mighty armada lurching about the Med.
                          All it took was for Russia to issue a few threats, do some drills, flyovers, show nuclear blast footage and nuclear torpedo blueprints on state tv and you caved in. That's a major victory, smokey armada notwithstanding.

                          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                          With the PRC bumping its chest it wouldn't be bad to have another enemy keeping an eye on the buggers.
                          I doubt the current Russian and Chinese regimes will be fooled into being played one against the other like that.
                          You'd have to change either one or both for this to work. But you can't, rather they appear to be influencing/changing yours.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Imperial View Post
                            All it took was for Russia to issue a few threats, do some drills, flyovers, show nuclear blast footage and nuclear torpedo blueprints on state tv and you caved in. That's a major victory, smokey armada notwithstanding.



                            I doubt the current Russian and Chinese regimes will be fooled into being played one against the other like that.
                            You'd have to change either one or both for this to work. But you can't, rather they appear to be influencing/changing yours.
                            This does beg the question... Are there rifts between Russia and Red China that the US could exploit? There clearly are rifts, the question is if the nature of those rifts is amenable to US exploitation.
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                              I thought the Cold War was over.

                              And where was all this hatred for Russia a month ago? Its only since the Hillabeast crashed and burned that the snowflakes are up in arms about Russia.

                              Russia has kept their paws off the Ukraine. They're not exactly impressing anyone with their mighty armada lurching about the Med.

                              With the PRC bumping its chest it wouldn't be bad to have another enemy keeping an eye on the buggers.
                              What world do you live in?
                              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                              “To talk of many things:
                              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                              Of cabbages—and kings—
                              And why the sea is boiling hot—
                              And whether pigs have wings.”
                              ― Lewis Carroll

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                                What world do you live in?
                                If you don't count Crimea and the Russian-backed insurgents and some missiles... And Russia doesn't technically have paws...
                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X