ADVERTISEMENT

Rex Tillerson to be named Secretary of State

N

NZ Poke

Heisman Candidate
Dec 16, 2007
6,088
7,047
113
So happy it's not Romney.

And enjoying the leftist head explosions re "Russia".....

Am not able to understand why leftists project their self-loathing towards nuclear-armed Russia, while embracing mysogynistic, homophobic, barbaric Muslims (who are diametrically opposed to every modern leftist value, other than restricting free speech).


http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...ired-exxon-ceo-rex-tillerson-secretary-state/





Jennifer Rubin last night (she's Jeff Bezos blogs' resident "conservative"):

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: okstatefan1, WCPoke, Alpha Poke and 2 others
Here's how I know The Trumpmeister is spot on...,the left/libs are all ordering their
wambulances.

From the rodent in chief telling military members to question their orders, to congressdipshits wanting Trump to pay for his own security (even though Biden charged the SS rent when he was at home and they were staying in one of his houses), to the unending fundraising because of these picks to people whining about having 4 generals in his cabinet (the rodent in chief had four also) to finally the press hiding under the covers while the rodent in chief sold Taiwan 1.8 billions in arms and said nothing, while having a complete spaz out when Trump talks to the Taiwanese President. These are awesome times !
 
  • Like
Reactions: imprimis, GunsOfFrankEaton, AC_Exotic and 2 others
Post from another site I read:



"Tillerson is aligned with Trump on Russia and other geopolitical issues, doesn't come from the DC entrenched foreign policy echo chamber, and is a big time negotiator and dealmaker on the international stage

If you know anything about the USA's foreign policy system post-WW2 until present this pick is a total and complete departure from the status quo in DC. This is a drain the swamp pick whether it looks like it from the outside to "regular people" or not, simply because it breaks the mold totally from past SoS picks and turns the beltway foreign policy racket on its head.

John McCain and Lindsey Graham won't be happy. This is basically the best of the Dana Rhorabacher-type policy positions but smarter, more experienced and less wild. Very promising.

I get the issue of branding, but Trump picked for competence and ideological alignment here first and foremost, and the branding isn't nearly as bad as some of the other choices he could have picked anyways. Romney? Corker?

This still modestly beats those guys from a branding perspective and blows them out of the water on everything else."
 
  • Like
Reactions: AC_Exotic, GunsOfFrankEaton and windriverrange
I don't know much about the guy, but the Exxon optics after hiring the Oklahoma AG for the EPA will cause a lot of constipation among the talking heads.

I like that he's an international business guy and not a career politician.
I think Rudi was sacrificed so that Romney's trolling wouldn't be quite as obvious - but I don't think either were ever going to get the job.
Bolton as deputy - solid.

Here's a very interesting breakdown from conservative treehouse.
https://theconservativetreehouse.co...s-secretary-of-state-with-deputy-john-bolton/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AC_Exotic, GunsOfFrankEaton and NZ Poke
Great time to be alive and watching a leader do what he was elected to do. Trump wasn't sent to Washington to kiss globalist and left-wing a$$. He was sent there to defeat globalist and left-wing a$$. Right now those forces will try to slither their way into his administration and I'm happy with the way he's not letting it happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MegaPoke
Watched several former military people on various programs telling about how depleted our military is. They all basically said the Pentagon had been run like a cluster... for the past 8-10 years. It's going to be educational after the inauguration to hear about how deliberately mismanaged our government, especially the military, has been during the Obama reign.

I know little about Tillerson but Trump is serious about putting people who get things done in Cabinet positions. Obama, on the other hand, chose academics and sycophants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulsaaggieson, windriverrange, Medic007 and 3 others
I'm just glad we can remove the last remnants of pretending corporations don't run the country and now Exxon and Goldman-Sachs can just be given appointments to the cabinet.
 
osu_orangestreak said:
No way Tillerson will get confirmed, it will be someone else.
Click to expand...
How's he going to be blocked?

Need 51 to approve and even if you peel off butt buddies McCain and Graham Pence gets to cast the tie breaker.

No way anyone else is going to buck the new President because he has the power to lower the hammer on anyone in his party. I don't think these Republicans want to start in the dog house with Trump. He plays tackle while all these politicians are used to touch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimmyBob, imprimis and NZ Poke
Headhunter said:
How's he going to be blocked?

Need 51 to approve and even if you peel off butt buddies McCain and Graham Pence gets to cast the tie breaker.

No way anyone else is going to buck the new President because he has the power to lower the hammer on anyone in his party. I don't think these Republicans want to start in the dog house with Trump. He plays tackle while all these politicians are used to touch.
Click to expand...

Rubio just ripped him pretty good and I also expect Paul to say no.
 
Unless they have a smoking gun I don't see how he doesn't get approved. The guy is known for his ethics and high standards.

Trump will scorch the earth of anyone who bucks him on this and that's exactly why he won. People are tired of the political games and want someone who actually does what he says he's going to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: windriverrange
SMemmett said:
I'm just glad we can remove the last remnants of pretending corporations don't run the country and now Exxon and Goldman-Sachs can just be given appointments to the cabinet.
Click to expand...
Former production engineer who became CEO of Exxon who has had extensive contact with foreign governments and negotiated numerous contracts and agreements while leading an enormous company

-vs-

Lawyer who was a career First Lady turned New York Senator and lawyer turned career politician.

Very easy to see why Trump is considering Tillerson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ctdub, AC_Exotic, N. Pappagiorgio and 2 others
He'll have to answer whether he would revoke the sanctions applied to Russia following the Ukraine/Crimea conflict. That cost Exxon an estimated $500B partnership with Russia for Arctic drilling and production. If he has a strong answer for how he'll handle this conflict, then he'll be approved easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OSUIvan, JimmyBob, trapped_in_tx and 2 others
MegaPoke said:
I know the answer, but good question.

View embedded media
Click to expand...
Jim Mulva and Rex Tillerson were frequent visitors to Russia once Western companies were allowed to operate. Other majors did the same thing. Operating in the Arctic takes significant experience, expertise and capital. It also takes complicated contractual arrangements with the host country. BP ran afoul and were hampered. Rex and a few others navigated the complex task with greater success. Critics have little to go on and are grasping at conspiratorial straws at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
he spend sometime in Stillwater, from my 68 yearbook, top row pic #2
shs68.jpg
 
He is by definition the most qualified SoS candidate in my lifetime. No prior SOS candidate will have had the experience of negotiating with more foreign powers than T-Rex has. However, let's not pretend that there aren't some potential conflicts-of-interest in regards to his relationship with Russia vs. the perceived US relationship with Russia.
But lets be frank, our current president hasn't really defined our stance with Russia. We want their support against ISIS, but hate that they support a dictator in Assad. They forayed out and invaded a sovereign nation (and NATO ally?) in Ukraine to gain access to a Southern port and our president's response was "Shame on you". This same president was even hot-miced to tell these evil Russians, "we'll have more flexibility after my last election" (or something very close) and during his election debate stated that Russia was an '80s problem. So as a semi-informed US citizen, I'm not real sure what I'm supposed to think about Russia. Are they our enemy? They spy on us (and us on them). They cyberattack us (and us on them). But we do the same to China and they don't seem to be our sworn enemy. Heck, if Snowden is to be believed, we do the same spying on Germany and the UK, and I'm pretty sure they aren't our enemy either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD and Medic007
WCPoke said:
Jim Mulva and Rex Tillerson were frequent visitors to Russia once Western companies were allowed to operate. Other majors did the same thing. Operating in the Arctic takes significant experience, expertise and capital. It also takes complicated contractual arrangements with the host country. BP ran afoul and were hampered. Rex and a few others navigated the complex task with greater success. Critics have little to go on and are grasping at conspiratorial straws at this point.
Click to expand...
Heh... you said Mulva.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith, Medic007 and AC_Exotic
aix_xpert said:
So as a semi-informed US citizen, I'm not real sure what I'm supposed to think about Russia.
Click to expand...

I'm throwing a red flag on this; you, nor most of the rest of us are "semi-informed" when it comes to Russia.
 
aix_xpert said:
He is by definition the most qualified SoS candidate in my lifetime. No prior SOS candidate will have had the experience of negotiating with more foreign powers than T-Rex has. However, let's not pretend that there aren't some potential conflicts-of-interest in regards to his relationship with Russia vs. the perceived US relationship with Russia.
But lets be frank, our current president hasn't really defined our stance with Russia. We want their support against ISIS, but hate that they support a dictator in Assad. They forayed out and invaded a sovereign nation (and NATO ally?) in Ukraine to gain access to a Southern port and our president's response was "Shame on you". This same president was even hot-miced to tell these evil Russians, "we'll have more flexibility after my last election" (or something very close) and during his election debate stated that Russia was an '80s problem. So as a semi-informed US citizen, I'm not real sure what I'm supposed to think about Russia. Are they our enemy? They spy on us (and us on them). They cyberattack us (and us on them). But we do the same to China and they don't seem to be our sworn enemy. Heck, if Snowden is to be believed, we do the same spying on Germany and the UK, and I'm pretty sure they aren't our enemy either.
Click to expand...
Great points. My question to the doubters is should we approach Russia as enemy number one because they've laughed at and shit on 0bama or should we approach them as a legitimate world player who should be negotiated with?

We've seen what reset buttons and ass full of thumbs and after election flexibilty have gotten us. Maybe now is the time for an actual adult sit down to determine areas of common interest and conflict. Working on bettering cooperation on areas of common interest and finding middle ground on conflicting interests seems to be a better starting approach for a new administration than an exercise in butthurt leading to armed conflict because 0bama was a complete foreign policy idiot.

Maybe a new first impression can lead us out of the 0bama declared new cold war. This Exxon guy seems to get it better than Bill's reject and Ketchup Boy have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD
JimmyBob said:
I'm throwing a red flag on this; you, nor most of the rest of us are "semi-informed" when it comes to Russia.
Click to expand...

I'm as informed as any American citizen is. I read both Left and Right wing sites. I follow BBC news. I recognize the various biases. I've also traveled internationally (although not to Russia) so have a better understanding than most of the perception of the US to many foreigners. But in the end, I ask, if I'm not knowledgeable of what my stance should be in regards to Russia, whose fault is that? Can you tell me what the U.S.'s stance towards Russia is? Are they equivalent to North Korea? America worked very hard to lift all the sanctions from Iran, so does that make Russia a bigger enemy than Iran? I mean has Russia actually shot at us recently?

To me, it feels like we are mostly just mad at Putin and Russia because they refuse to follow the "feel-good", globalist policies of Obama, Merkel and the rest of the EU, and instead focus on Nationalistic policies and they make decisions based on what's best for Russia (including invading Crimea and supporting Assad).
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back