Exxon’s Rex Tillerson Is The Candidate for Secretary of State

[CostinR]

Tillerson needs to get in front of the world and eviscerate Russia, Vladmir Putin and Russia's actions since 2006. If he does that... if he basically denounces Putin's Russia in an existential way, then we should give him a shot. If not, then I don't think so.

People like Obama, Graham and McCain have been doing that idiotic shit for years.

It does not work.

Doing it just angers the regular Russian public and makes it seem you're out to get them, and it's not like they like Putin. Ever sit down and talk to a young person from Moscow and they'll tell you they want Putin's head on a pike.

Tillerson got Russia to implement corruption reforms by playing smart, that's how you get Russia on it's knees, you play it smart.

On one hand, they could be making the pivot that some have, that the US needs to confront China sooner (as opposed to my previous position, and the orthodoxy of the foreign policy community up to this point, which is later), and should seek to divide China from Russia again by playing nice with Russia.

One the other hand, they could know a Rex Tillerson who, once Russia fucks with him... and it will... will make them pay for it.

Russia likes to fuck with every foreign company, don't think that somehow Tillerson got deals with Putin done beause they're friends, he got deals because he was the meanest and smartest asshole in the room, Tillerson probably has had to deal with his fair share of nonsense and he's capable at dealing with it. This is a guy who at 3 AM forced the dictator in Yemen to back the fuck off when he tried ripping off a deal they had just signed.

What needs to happen regardless is for China and Russia to be split as far apart as possible.

P.S. This exact situation is why I thought Trump was the best choice for president: He listens, and listens to smart people. He listened to Bob Gates and his closest advisors ( Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon who are both very smart ) told him to go with Tillerson.

That said, just counting the likely votes so far, I have a hard time seeing him getting 51 votes.

It's all down to McCain, Rubio and Graham. They've been getting calls from Bob Gates, James Baker and Condi Rice and from the whole oil industry.

Then Gates and Rice got George Bush and Dick Cheney to pick up the phone to push for Tillerson, he's getting through unless something big happens, mark my words.

Assuming of course every Demcorat votes against him. I don't buy the Democratic party unity.

Neither would EVER advocate for closer America-Russia ties unless it was for a specific reason

Maybe it's that China and Russia are one step away from creating a new military alliance aimed at the west.

[Grummgug]

I've been thinking about this since it was announced. I honestly don't know what to think.

On the one hand, I deeply distrust Tillerson's ties to Russia. Very deeply. We must have an antagonistic relationship with Russia, not a friendly one. In fact our relationship is on course to be antagonistic no matter WHAT Trump does, so even trying to play nice just plays right into Russia's hands. Unless the US gives up the holiest of holies... and it won't, we're on a collision course.

America must have an antagonistic relationship with EUROPE, not Russia. Europe has lost the will to live. Its culture is poisoned. America must sever ties with Europe and let it go. Russia is more suitable partner.

[Redwyrm]

The right wing worship of Russia and Putin is really frightening.

It's real easy imagine these same people saying this unfortunately.

"America must have an antagonistic relationship with EUROPE, not 1940's GERMANY. Europe has lost the will to live. Its culture is poisoned. America must sever ties with Europe and let it go. 1940's GERMANY is more suitable partner. "

[Caolela]

????

He stated on public record that he acknowledges human's impact of the climate. He was/is in support of the carbon tax that many conservative are opposed to. He may be the CEO of the company that takes part in our effect of the environment, but the Exxon simply supplies the oil and gas while everyone else uses it. Tillerson is by no means a denier. If anything, he is a realist when it comes to environmental impact.

This is not to mean that Exxon as a company put forth maximum effort to fighting climate change, some on the board still questioned the science behind global warming.

Being "in support of the carbon tax" means nothing when Exxon has done no lobbying to push for a carbon tax or otherwise. It's all doublespeak BS coming from Tillerson.

Here's the NY Attorney General's response when asked by Judy Woodruff of PBS about Exxon's claims:

ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN: Another area that — where they have been active and we’re concerned about is overestimating the costs of switching to renewable energy. They have issued reports, one as recently as last year in response to shareholder requests and public requests, estimating that switching over to renewables by the end of this century would raise energy costs, to the point that they would cost — they would be 44 percent of the median income of an American family.

We want to see how they arrived at that conclusion, which we believe to be vastly overstated.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you draw a line between ExxonMobil doing research and talking openly about the debate out there about what is known about climate change, and on the other hand advocating for policies that they think are going to be better for their own bottom line?

ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, there’s nothing wrong with advocating for your own company.

What you’re not allowed to do is commit fraud. You’re not allowed to have the best climate change science that you’re using to build — in your planning of offshore oil towers in the Arctic, where you have to take into account rising sea levels and the melting of the permafrost and things like that. If you’re using that internally, but what you’re putting out to the world, directly and through these climate denial organizations, is completely in conflict with that, that’s not OK.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/exxon...ange-research/


There are plenty of internal documents, memos, and interviews that show Exxon has been defrauding the public for decades on this, easily searched at Inside Climate News, the investigative journalists that originally broke the story.

Tillerson's latest PR spin is simply more of the same, very similar to what the tobacco companies did in the 90s and we all know how badly that turned out for them.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Unions had a place at a time but not anymore. Right now they're just a business that parasitically attaches itself to another business.

I always find the union hate amusing. People believe that if we get rid of unions that businesses will just play nice and continue to give employees good pay and benefits out of the goodness of their hearts, even in the absence of union group-negotiation.

Bahahahaha.

[Mayhem]

I always find the union hate amusing. People believe that if we get rid of unions that businesses will just play nice and continue to give employees good pay and benefits out of the goodness of their hearts, even in the absence of union group-negotiation.

Bahahahaha.

Unions: preventing fair pay and benefits

The more you know.

[Cthulhu 2020]

This is the most asanine logic and ultimately ignores the fact climate change is a global problem.that requires much more than the actions of individuals. He uses petroleum because he lives in a world where petroleum is used in almost every day life. Their isnt a single fucking person on the entire planet who hasnt used some form of peteoleum or co2 fossil fuel at some point. A collective solution is required to combat the problem that will move away from fossil fuels. To single out individuals users is asanine.

Yeah this "YOU USE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS YOU HYPOCRITE" argument has got to be one of the most asinine, ass backwards, mentally deficient arguments ever. It's pretty difficult to live in the modern world without using any petroleum products at all in your daily life. So the counter question becomes: "Why do you people insist on blocking the rest of us from coming up with alternatives to using petroleum?" Whenever the question of research, funding or even usage of some kind of petroleum alternative comes up, the oil freak conservatives go "NONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!"

- - - Updated - - -

Because this attitude is the legal requirement of his prior job. Do you not understand that corporations are bound by law to seek profit, as they see fit???

Do you think ANY OTHER company is acting any differently???

Liberals are just so hard to understand when you start talking business with them. Not only are against it, but they seem to not understand in any way how it functions on a basic level.

Businesses are run in a way to make money, even if it comes at the expense of the public good. I realize that Republicans want government to act against the interests of the public good most of the time, but isn't insisting that it should be run like a business taking it a bit too far? "Fuck the people so long as we're making money" isn't a mantra I want on capital hill.

[Deleted]

America must have an antagonistic relationship with EUROPE, not Russia. Europe has lost the will to live. Its culture is poisoned. America must sever ties with Europe and let it go. Russia is more suitable partner.

Dear Grummgug,

thank you for having taken your time to provide us with your valuable feedback relating to your outside view of our continent. We are sincerely concerned and apologise that we fell short on your expectations in some area. Your helpful comments are much appreciated, and your feedback will help us to continually improve the standard of our culture and purity of our individual populations.

Sincerly:

[Zmaniac17]

And what happens when you just print more money to cover debts?

I think people are a bit blinded by money and what it actually represents. Money is the grease the keeps the economic wheels turning. It has no value. Resources are the fuel that feeds the machine. They have the real value.

The real questions should be at what point will we be unable to grow any further and start to contract back towards a sustainable level of resource spending? How abruptly will we run out of resources? And when will we realize collectively that we are running out? How will resource scarcity be managed? Will the middle class disappear again? Money doesn't factor into any of these questions because it isn't a limited resource.

[SirBeef]

Being "in support of the carbon tax" means nothing when Exxon has done no lobbying to push for a carbon tax or otherwise. It's all doublespeak BS coming from Tillerson.

Here's the NY Attorney General's response when asked by Judy Woodruff of PBS about Exxon's claims:




http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/exxon...ange-research/


There are plenty of internal documents, memos, and interviews that show Exxon has been defrauding the public for decades on this, easily searched at Inside Climate News, the investigative journalists that originally broke the story.

Tillerson's latest PR spin is simply more of the same, very similar to what the tobacco companies did in the 90s and we all know how badly that turned out for them.

This has been common since they said lead in the gas is safe. But Exxon has also been making billions in profits while getting government subsidies and tax refunds.

[Skroe]

In a weird turn of events, Trump's proposed Army Secretary is a very, very good choice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6d738438123f

Also a big proponent of Cyberwarfare and advanced next-gen weapons.

[Thepersona]

In a weird turn of events, Trump's proposed Army Secretary is a very, very good choice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6d738438123f

Also a big proponent of Cyberwarfare and advanced next-gen weapons.

The funny thing is, can you imagine the inner conflicts between the secretaries? this cabinet will be in constant combat lol

[Skroe]

The funny thing is, can you imagine the inner conflicts between the secretaries? this cabinet will be in constant combat lol

Nothing about Trump's picks many any kind of sense. You have the inspired (this guy, Kelly), the acceptable (Mattis), the question marks (Tillerson), the WTF (Ben Carson), the "I don't even know...." (Rick fucking Perry, Nuclear Weapons Czar). You got the OMB director who is a founder of the budget-crazed Freedom Caucus and voted for the government shutdown. There is no unifying ideology. There is no unifying plan. It's not even an all star team.


You know when like you play a video game and go into character creation mode, and click "Randomize"? I feel like Trump has basically done that with his team.

On the plus side, although it hasn't been confirmed yet, the most likely (indeed the ONLY Choice) for Navy Secretary is going to be Randy Forbes, who is THE authority on rebuilding the Navy to 355 ships and will fix Obama's hack Ray Mabus' reign of error. That said, Randy Forbes would have been the best choice even if Jill fucking Stein got elected President.

Trump has a lunatic in National Security Advisor-designate Flynn. He has a question shrouded in an enigma in Tillerson. He has a solid choice in Mattis, but his Army and Navy Secretaries should be good. It could be a relatively reasonably good National Security team surprisingly so long as the following happens.

- The Deputy Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of State are rock solid choice. Asking Robert Work to stay on at Defense, which some Republicans have floated, would be extremely wise. Obama's defense team since Ash Carter took over is generally rock solid and DoD generally needs continuity (plus more money), not shake up.

- Trump asks for, and Congress approves, a $60 billion defense supplemental in April or May to fund weapons buys and modernization. This is fairly likely.

- Thanks to the ruinous tenure of Obama's best friend forever, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, the National Security Council is being shrunk from 200 to 400 people thanks to the 2017 NDAA and Congress having enough of Rice's shit. This should make Flynn significantly less powerful than any of his predecessors going back to the mid 1990s as he will no longer have a "Second Pentagon+State Department" under him. If power goes back to the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State, and the National Security Adviser is more strategic and less operational, then the national defense should be in good enough hands. The problem is that Flynn is an operations, not strategy guy. This is why I kind of wonder how long he'll last.

[NYC17]

Nothing about Trump's picks many any kind of sense. You have the inspired (this guy, Kelly), the acceptable (Mattis), the question marks (Tillerson), the WTF (Ben Carson), the "I don't even know...." (Rick fucking Perry, Nuclear Weapons Czar). You got the OMB director who is a founder of the budget-crazed Freedom Caucus and voted for the government shutdown. There is no unifying ideology. There is no unifying plan. It's not even an all star team.


You know when like you play a video game and go into character creation mode, and click "Randomize"? I feel like Trump has basically done that with his team.

On the plus side, although it hasn't been confirmed yet, the most likely (indeed the ONLY Choice) for Navy Secretary is going to be Randy Forbes, who is THE authority on rebuilding the Navy to 355 ships and will fix Obama's hack Ray Mabus' reign of error. That said, Randy Forbes would have been the best choice even if Jill fucking Stein got elected President.

Trump has a lunatic in National Security Advisor-designate Flynn. He has a question shrouded in an enigma in Tillerson. He has a solid choice in Mattis, but his Army and Navy Secretaries should be good. It could be a relatively reasonably good National Security team surprisingly so long as the following happens.

- The Deputy Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of State are rock solid choice. Asking Robert Work to stay on at Defense, which some Republicans have floated, would be extremely wise. Obama's defense team since Ash Carter took over is generally rock solid and DoD generally needs continuity (plus more money), not shake up.

- Trump asks for, and Congress approves, a $60 billion defense supplemental in April or May to fund weapons buys and modernization. This is fairly likely.

- Thanks to the ruinous tenure of Obama's best friend forever, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, the National Security Council is being shrunk from 200 to 400 people thanks to the 2017 NDAA and Congress having enough of Rice's shit. This should make Flynn significantly less powerful than any of his predecessors going back to the mid 1990s as he will no longer have a "Second Pentagon+State Department" under him. If power goes back to the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State, and the National Security Adviser is more strategic and less operational, then the national defense should be in good enough hands. The problem is that Flynn is an operations, not strategy guy. This is why I kind of wonder how long he'll last.

It seems to me that Trump's haphazard selection process is a result of how childishly impressionable he is. He's that guy that talks endless shit about someone, until he's in a room with them, then they're suddenly great people. It seems like the last person to meet or speak with him is who he gravitates towards until the next person comes along. That's what makes an appointment like Flynn's so dangerous.

As for Flynn, it's his selection to begin with that call's into question the decision making ability of the person who picked him. Whatever level of power he ends up having is irrelevant to the very simple fact that he should never have been considered in the first place. The idea that Mattis has to be counted on as a counterweight to a delusional conspiracy theorist doesn't bode well for the strength of his cabinet.

[Skroe]

What the Navy plans to build (or rather, their requirement by 2030)

http://warontherocks.com/2016/12/a-q...re-assessment/



Short version, the big plus ups:

-Another carrier (which would be accomplished by going back to the pre-Obama 4 year build plan for carriers and keeping the Nimitz in service for another few years past its 2024 retirement date, which is money not age driven) to go to 12.

- Going from 88 to 104 Large Surface Combatants, which means building 3 destroyers a year rather than 2.

- Going from a requirement of 48 to 66 attack submarines, which would be accomplished by building 3 Virginia Class submarines a year rather than 2, and delaying the retirement of the newer Los Angeles class submarines by a few years each (again, money not age driven).


There is zero coincience the Navy produced a document that reflects essentially what the Heritage Foundation proposed last year, a month before Trump takes office, his Navy plans (among others) being essentially direct adaptions of those Heritage Foundation proposals (Heritage people, being deeply involved in his national security campaign team). It also reflects again, yet another pressing of the Big Red Undo Button of the Presidency of Barack Obama who two years ago seriously considered cutting a carrier and stealth retiring 10 cruisers (large surface combatants).


But here's the rub. This is an EXTREMELY aggressive defense procurement plan. This would make the US military at, by far, its most comprehensively potent since the Cold War in terms of numbers. It is exactly the kind of military you'd want if your foreign policy was of military interventionism, policing the world... that sort of thing. In fact the ENTIRE PURPOSE of more carriers, large surface combatants and attack submarines is to police far distant areas of the world in force.

Which is to say, it's in direct conflict with Donald Trump's America First policy and any kind of talk of retrenchment and focusing on national matters at home.

It legitimately makes no sense. It's the budgetary and planning equivalent of the guy who says "I'm going to lose weight, get healthy and get my blood pressure down" and then proceeds to eat Big Macs and Deep Dish Pizza every day.

Oh yeah, and the Freedom Caucus leading OBM Director, will have a thing or two to say about such spending. The Freedom Caucus has been all to happy to slash defense to shrink the role of government too.

Everything about Team Trump is schizophrenic.

[Elegiac]

Which is to say, it's in direct conflict with Donald Trump's America First policy and any kind of talk of retrenchment and focusing on national matters at home.

And here's the million dollar question; who wins in this case?

There's a considerable amount of inertia in the executive departments (one of the reasons I'm less concerned about the EPA head being a dipshit since the entire department is staffed with greenies), and the Navy is certainly not going to back down on this issue. All things being equal, Trump's lack of ability and lack of political experience should render him pliant to the procurement demands of the Armed Forces - but that discounts his ego and stubbornness.

Moreover, which side do McConnell and Ryan choose to back.

[Thepersona]

Nothing about Trump's picks many any kind of sense. You have the inspired (this guy, Kelly), the acceptable (Mattis), the question marks (Tillerson), the WTF (Ben Carson), the "I don't even know...." (Rick fucking Perry, Nuclear Weapons Czar). You got the OMB director who is a founder of the budget-crazed Freedom Caucus and voted for the government shutdown. There is no unifying ideology. There is no unifying plan. It's not even an all star team.


You know when like you play a video game and go into character creation mode, and click "Randomize"? I feel like Trump has basically done that with his team.

On the plus side, although it hasn't been confirmed yet, the most likely (indeed the ONLY Choice) for Navy Secretary is going to be Randy Forbes, who is THE authority on rebuilding the Navy to 355 ships and will fix Obama's hack Ray Mabus' reign of error. That said, Randy Forbes would have been the best choice even if Jill fucking Stein got elected President.

You know, his cabinet picks are like when you use a RNG program to pick a pokemon team, and then go with said team to the global championship. it could be acceptable, or horrible, but most times is the second part.
I really think that this military stimulus is part of the "making america great" in a sense that defense spending has always been a staple of your economy, in order to function properly. But then i dont know how he can distance himself from Hillary in the hawkish sense, if he's the one who puts more money in more military hardware.

[NYC17]

Which is to say, it's in direct conflict with Donald Trump's America First policy and any kind of talk of retrenchment and focusing on national matters at home.

You think Trump has any clue on what an America first policy entails beyond his slogan and Ego Trip? There's a reason it's schizophrenic; he's clueless and impressionable.

On a side note, there seems to be serious push back regarding Bolton becoming state's #2, apparently including from Tillerson himself.

[Skroe]

And here's the million dollar question; who wins in this case?

There's a considerable amount of inertia in the executive departments (one of the reasons I'm less concerned about the EPA head being a dipshit since the entire department is staffed with greenies), and the Navy is certainly not going to back down on this issue. All things being equal, Trump's lack of ability and lack of political experience should render him pliant to the procurement demands of the Armed Forces - but that discounts his ego and stubbornness.

Moreover, which side do McConnell and Ryan choose to back.

I think, going back to my prior posts on this topic, the "Establishment" wins so to speak... those who want to preserve, even expand, America's global role.

Defense spending is extraordinarily popular in Congress. More money goes to Democratic states (and Liberal States) than most of the Redest of the Red States. And between Sequestration and Obama's hostage taking of the defense budget, there has formed an emerging Congressional consensus over the last few years that the US armed force is significantly under resourced... probably on the order of $60 billion a year as a start, but upwards of $100 billion if you want the full featured package. In fact, both those numbers are what Obama and then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates agreed to in 2010 as part of the White House's 10 year plan on defense spending, before Gates quit and Obama ended up lying to his face on what money would be requested (something Gates is rather bitter about).

Over the last few years, everyone in Congress except the Freedom Caucus and the very-left has wanted raise Defense spending significantly. The details matter, and Democrats sometimes played hardball with spending on Domestic matters, but particularly the last two years, the budgets put to the President essentially in no way reflected his defense priorities because, like on many issues, the Congressional Consensus was wildly off team Obama's.

With Obama gone, Trump will likely easily sign (especially at Mattis' behest) something that Congress has been wanting to put before the President for years... your 355 ship Navy, your 520k+ man army, that sort of thing.

This just gets back to what I said yesterday: John Bohner's Congressional Earmark ban coupled with the Obama Administration's bizarre budget requests has forced Congress to produce budgets that are more consistent year-to-year because they reflect the ongoing development of congressional consensus rather than Administration priorities. I regard this as generally a very good thing.

I sincerely doubt the election of Trump (coupled with the end of Harry Reid's disastrous tenure) will upend the Congressional defense consensus that has been counting the days to the end of Obama's reign since at least 2014. Remember, this is the Congress that overwhelmingly voted to increase fighter production, freeze ship retirements, give Ukraine lethal arms, authorize heavy weapons to Syria and so forth... things that the Obama Administration tried to block unilaterally despite his own party disagreeing with him. And that's the point worth repeating: Not even other Democrats think Obama was right on defense. Many haven't for years and years.

[Elegiac]

I sincerely doubt the election of Trump (coupled with the end of Harry Reid's disastrous tenure) will upend the Congressional defense consensus that has been counting the days to the end of Obama's reign since at least 2014. Remember, this is the Congress that overwhelmingly voted to increase fighter production, freeze ship retirements, give Ukraine lethal arms, authorize heavy weapons to Syria and so forth... things that the Obama Administration tried to block unilaterally despite his own party disagreeing with him. And that's the point worth repeating: Not even other Democrats think Obama was right on defense. Many haven't for years and years.

This, along with the Congressional push to keep NASA on track, is one of the few silver linings about the coming government.

How likely, do you think, is the Pentagon to intentionally scuttle any attempt to buddy buddy with Russia or try to neuter a premature challenge to China?