|
Post by robeiae on Dec 14, 2016 7:37:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Dec 14, 2016 7:39:32 GMT -5
Close enough, Rob. Thread officially Godwinned.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 14, 2016 7:46:44 GMT -5
You've got to have faith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 7:52:55 GMT -5
I'm never going to dance again.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Dec 14, 2016 7:53:21 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 8:11:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 14, 2016 9:08:29 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with Tillerson, at all. It's not like he's an incompetent boob. And he's going to have to divest himself of some holdings, right? Tillerson knows his way around the world, better than most people in DC, probably. He worked his way up in Exxon by globetrotting, making Exxon and himself a fortune along the way. Does that mean shady stuff? Probably. And it also means he knows how to get things done.
His relationship with Putin and the Russians is a positive, in my mind. Because right now, the US's relationship with Russia sucks. I'm not saying we need to be buddy-buddy with the Russians at all. An adversarial relationship may be almost a given, by and large. But currently, Russia looks much stronger everywhere than does the US. Middle East leaders--including Israel--are more wary of Russia, not the US, when it comes to their decision-making. Tillerson brings something to the table we don't have. The idea that his business dealings with the Russians mean he somehow favors their interests over ours is, imo, ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 9:14:42 GMT -5
His friendship medal and the chumminess with Putin really don't sit well with me, especially in light of the Russian chicanery during the election. I still share the concerns many have expressed.
Still, there's enough there in his favor for me to hold off on the hand-wringing as I hear more and assess his integrity and devotion to his country.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 14, 2016 9:26:59 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with Tillerson, at all. It's not like he's an incompetent boob. And he's going to have to divest himself of some holdings, right? Tillerson knows his way around the world, better than most people in DC, probably. He worked his way up in Exxon by globetrotting, making Exxon and himself a fortune along the way. Does that mean shady stuff? Probably. And it also means he knows how to get things done. Like Duterte? I'm exaggerating obviously, but I personally cannot dismiss "shady stuff" in the interest of "getting things done." (Depending on the shade of the shadiness and what is or isn't getting done.) Except no one said that. It's not a matter of "their" interests vs. "our" interests. It's a matter of monetary vs. ethical/humanitarian/etc. interests. E.g., Russia invades/annexes a country whose people do not want to be invaded/annexed. Does the U.S. shrug and continue profiting from oil deals with Russia?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 14, 2016 9:46:10 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with Tillerson, at all. It's not like he's an incompetent boob. And he's going to have to divest himself of some holdings, right? Tillerson knows his way around the world, better than most people in DC, probably. He worked his way up in Exxon by globetrotting, making Exxon and himself a fortune along the way. Does that mean shady stuff? Probably. And it also means he knows how to get things done. Like Duterte? I'm exaggerating obviously, but I personally cannot dismiss "shady stuff" in the interest of "getting things done." (Depending on the shade of the shadiness and what is or isn't getting done.) Except no one said that. It's not a matter of "their" interests vs. "our" interests. It's a matter of monetary vs. ethical/humanitarian/etc. interests. E.g., Russia invades/annexes a country whose people do not want to invaded/annexed. Does the U.S. shrug and continue profiting from oil deals with Russia? Well, Russia has been heavily involved in Syria and the battle for Aleppo for a while now. What has the current Admin done in that regard, aside from draw a red line, then ignore that line? Again, Russia's influence has been growing. And we've failed miserably--imo--to counteract that. Regardless, there's no reason to suppose Tillerson would operate in the way that you describe, imo. Again, he's not an incompetent boob. Surely, you wouldn't prefer Palin, would you? Tillerson is getting a lot of support from people who know him and know the reality of global politics. They may be mostly conservative, true enough, but it's a Republican administration. People need to learn to accept this. Trump is not going to be appointing people who think or operate like Obama. In this case, he's selected someone who has the resume, the intelligence, the connections, and the temperament to do the job. That's pretty good (and fyi, this is basically my same take on Obama's appointees for eight years now: I was happy when they were competent and capable).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 10:07:25 GMT -5
I'm with you there. I don't necessarily expect to love any of Trump's picks or to agree with their views on all the issues. What I do think is reasonable to demand: competence for the position, intelligence, integrity, a reasonable temperament, and some clear indication they'd put their country's interest before their own interests and their own personal loyalties.
I'm going to save my hand-wringing for appointees who, to me, clearly fall short of those criteria in one way or another. Otherwise, my hands will get mighty tired before this is all over with.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 14, 2016 10:32:09 GMT -5
Well, Russia has been heavily involved in Syria and the battle for Aleppo for a while now. What has the current Admin done in that regard, aside from draw a red line, then ignore that line? Again, Russia's influence has been growing. And we've failed miserably--imo--to counteract that. I'm opposed to drawing red lines that essentially mean nothing, as well. But the economic sanctions are still there, yes? Presumably under Tillerson, who opposed them in the first place, they would be lifted. How would that be a good thing? I'm not saying anything for certain about Tillerson, but there seem to be conflicts of interest. There's no reason to suppose they won't have an effect. What is his opinion on Russia invading other countries/gaining territory/allying with M.E. countries; is he a-okay with Russia/Putin increasing economic and military strength? Etc. And pardon, but these questions have nothing to do with not accepting a Republican administration. Again, not saying Tillerson is going to do anything for certain; nor do I think he is evil. I even mentioned a couple of things that made me feel slightly better about him on a "personal" level. I'm also, like Cass, waiting on the hand-wringing, in case it seems otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 15, 2016 9:26:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 15, 2016 9:30:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 15, 2016 14:35:29 GMT -5
|
|