# Should/will Rex Tillerson be confirmed as Secretary of State? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 13, 2016, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603 "2016-12-13T07:03:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/141 "2016-12-15T18:17:01Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > This just hit me, but do you not understand the difference in the relationship that Trump has to his company compared to Tillerson to Exxon? Trump owns the Trump companies, which own highly illiquid assets. He can quit being active in the management, which he may not be much more than a figurehead as it is, but that does nothing to change his ownership. It is very difficult for him to cut ties in a short term basis without selling assets at a fire sale price. > > Tillerson is just a manager at Exxon. If he doesn’t perform, they fire him, if he wants to leave/retire he quits. He owns stock that he’s received as incentive compensation over the years, but it is easily saleable and could be liquidated in a day without much effect on the price. It is incredibly easy for him to cut ties. Really, the Trumpimping here is becoming so thick and incoherent it’s a serious problem just to log in. So his ties are so thin that they are negligible? His ties are the reason he’s been nominated though. There are financial ties but there are also personal ties to Exxon and Putin, and there are philosophical ties to the oil industry. (Unless you think what’s good for his pals is not a positive for him as a man. That would be unique to say the least) Or do you think that don knew it should be this man, because of his “other” qualities, out of all the people in the world? Because don knew him? He didn’t. They just met recently. Keep dreaming. ---
**Author:** ![squidfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a87d85/32.png) [@squidfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squidfood)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/142 "2016-12-15T18:22:49Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > If you were accused of producing too much broccoli (which is to say,any) Careful there, these sentiments cost GHWB an election… ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/143 "2016-12-15T18:48:06Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > No, it’s a conspiracy theory that this move was done to benefit Exxon. Well, it would be a conspiracy theory if anyone had made that assertion ---
**Author:** ![rooostra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@rooostra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rooostra)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/144 "2016-12-15T19:26:00Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Again, he would naturally want to sell his stock. Nobody would want their entire net worth tied up in their former employer. Even without the Secretary of State deal, he would almost certainly wind down his exposure to Exxon with his upcoming retirement. > > Having said that, of course him retaining his stock would be a conflict of interest. That’s 95% of the conflict of interest that exists. If he retained his stock he could make decisions that would benefit himself personally at the expense of the U.S. He wouldn’t be clean at all if he retained the stock. But, why would he want to? Wouldn’t he much more naturally want to diversify it away from one single country that he no longer works for? Somewhere around 1.3 million shares of Tillerson’s Exxon stock don’t vest until 2025. That conflict of interest will sit there during the entirety of his tenure as Secretary of State if he is confirmed. > **[3 Ways Rex Tillerson Could Deal with His $245 Million Exxon Windfall](https://fortune.com/2016/12/14/rex-tillerson-exxon-stock-donald-trump/)** > > Trump's State Department pick and his company are facing tough choices--none great. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/145 "2016-12-15T21:51:18Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Really, the Trumpimping here is becoming so thick and incoherent it’s a serious problem just to log in. > > So his ties are so thin that they are negligible? > > His ties are the reason he’s been nominated though. > > There are financial ties but there are also personal ties to Exxon and Putin, and there are philosophical ties to the oil industry. (Unless you think what’s good for his pals is not a positive for him as a man. That would be unique to say the least) > > Or do you think that don knew it should be this man, because of his “other” qualities, out of all the people in the world? Because don knew him? > > He didn’t. They just met recently. Keep dreaming. I don’t even understand what you are trying to say here. In what way have I said his ties to Exxon are thin. I haven’t said that at all. The guy is the CEO, Chairman, and a shareholder of $240 million or so dollars of stock. How could his ties to Exxon be thin? I’ve said that his ties are easy to cut in contrast to Trump’s, which is absolutely true. He retires as CEO and Chairman and he sells his stock. That’s pretty easy to do. As far as why he’s been nominated, the guy has clearly been nominated because of his overall resume. He’s a highly thought of CEO of one of the world’s largest companies with a tremendous amount of relationships with many heads of state and other high ranking officials in dozens of countries including some of the most sensitive, active areas of the world including Russia and Putin among dozens of other leaders. He’s got a history of going head to head with dictators like Maduro. He’s got relationships with nearly every noteworthy Middle Eastern country. He has relationships all over Europe, Asia, Central America, Africa, and elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/146 "2016-12-15T21:55:23Z")
> [@rooostra](#): > > Somewhere around 1.3 million shares of Tillerson’s Exxon stock don’t vest until 2025. That conflict of interest will sit there during the entirety of his tenure as Secretary of State if he is confirmed. > > [Rex Tillerson: Trump's Cabinet Pick Has a Exxon Stock Problem | Fortune](http://fortune.com/2016/12/14/rex-tillerson-exxon-stock-donald-trump/) Something they’ll need to find a way to deal with. Perhaps they could set up an offsetting hedge position that effectively cancels out any future prices changes related to those non-vested shares. That would in effect “liquidate” them at today’s prices even if they aren’t sold until a future date. Alternatively they could petition Exxon to allow them to vest earlier so he could divest now. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/147 "2016-12-15T21:56:43Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Well, it would be a conspiracy theory if anyone had made that assertion I’m pretty sure this thread is filled with people making exactly that assertion. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/148 "2016-12-15T22:00:55Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > I’m pretty sure this thread is filled with people making exactly that assertion. I’m pretty sure you’re wrong. Why don’t you cite a few? ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/149 "2016-12-15T22:05:54Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > If the point of the Arctic deal was to get more producing wells, then how is the _current_ number of producing wells in Russia relevant? If you were accused of producing too much broccoli (which is to say,any) but you helpfully point out that you aren’t producing that much disgusting, repulsive broccoli…but skip past the part where you are trying to make a deal to plant a few million acres more… > > Huh? No, I’m pretty sure the accusation is that they’ve had this close relationship for years and how intertwined Exxon and Russian interests are. These sanctions have existing against Russia for only roughly 2.5 years. The way this is being portrayed it’s like Tillerson was Putin’s best man at his wedding and they’re trying to figure out a way to unleash a flury of pent up activity in Russia by Exxon. Exxon has had activity in Russia for years now. It’s somewhat impaired by sanctions, but it really wasn’t all that big prior to the sanctions. That is evidenced by the fact that their assets in Russia don’t make up very much of Exxon’s holdings. Exxon is massive and active just about everywhere in the world. They are far more tied to almost every other continent on Earth than they are in Asia, and specifically Russia. On a relative basis, Exxon’s not currently, not been in the past, and won’t be in the future that tied to Russia. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/150 "2016-12-15T22:24:55Z")
So, then, all those stories about cooking up a big ass oil deal with Russia, what got squashed by sanctions, that’s all a bunch of lies? ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/151 "2016-12-15T22:31:55Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > I don’t even understand what you are trying to say here. In what way have I said his ties to Exxon are thin. I haven’t said that at all. The guy is the CEO, Chairman, and a shareholder of $240 million or so dollars of stock. How could his ties to Exxon be thin? I’ve said that his ties are easy to cut in contrast to Trump’s, which is absolutely true. He retires as CEO and Chairman and he sells his stock. That’s pretty easy to do. > > As far as why he’s been nominated, the guy has clearly been nominated because of his overall resume. He’s a highly thought of CEO of one of the world’s largest companies with a tremendous amount of relationships with many heads of state and other high ranking officials in dozens of countries including some of the most sensitive, active areas of the world including Russia and Putin among dozens of other leaders. He’s got a history of going head to head with dictators like Maduro. He’s got relationships with nearly every noteworthy Middle Eastern country. He has relationships all over Europe, Asia, Central America, Africa, and elsewhere. You are saying it’s thin enough to be unconcerned. That’s thin to us here. His resume consists of being a boy scout, and working for exxon. That’s it. He cannot sever ties to exxon as easily as you are saying. It’s been cited already. Try to incorporate it into your argument, if you can. You sound very unsophisticated about corporate compensation. He goes head to head against the US as well as other countries in his capacity as exxon chairman. Lots of practice in skirting laws and going against US interests. See Chad. No comments on the rest of my post I see. Just “I can’t understand”? ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/152 "2016-12-15T22:57:49Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, then, all those stories about cooking up a big ass oil deal with Russia, what got squashed by sanctions, that’s all a bunch of lies? There’s a big difference between exaggeration and a lie. The media goes overboard trying to develop a narrative sometimes. This reminds me of when all of a sudden there are 10 news stories about shark attacks and it seems like sharks are attacking humans non-stop and then you’ll find out that statistically it is the same frequency as any other year. It just becomes the hot story all of a sudden. Russia is the big story right now and there is a push to act like the Trump is an agent of the Kremlin. Every single possible connection is pushed as hard as possible. I’m not saying that Trump isn’t to blame for a lot of it. They are not responding in a reasonable manner to legitimate worries about Russian tampering in the election, for example. He is certainly signalling a massive change in tone towards Russia. Having said that, this idea that Rex Tillerson is such good personal buddies with Putin and that Exxon is so tied in with Russia is bullshit. He’s probably got a friendly business relationship with the guy and has spent some time with him as he finalized some material deals with their state controlled oil companies over the years. I’m guessing that’s a pretty common occurrence for Rex Tillerson. If the story had been about Iraqi tampering in the election then it would be about Tillerson’s connections to Iraq. The numbers I posted are directly out of Exxon’s 12/31/15 10K SEC filing. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/153 "2016-12-15T23:06:19Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > You are saying it’s thin enough to be unconcerned. That’s thin to us here. What the fuck are you talking about. I’ve explained it numerous times. The CEO of a company obviously doesn’t have a thin relationship with the company. I have never said anything even remotely similar to that. I have said that the CEO of a company can break their ties with a company easily. That is an absolute fact. The first breaking of the ties has already begun. He is retiring as CEO and Chairman at the end of the year. The second breaking of the ties occurs when they deal with his stock. > [@drad\_dog](#): > > His resume consists of being a boy scout, and working for exxon. That’s it. I never said anything like that and it is pathetic to claim I did. > [@drad\_dog](#): > > He cannot sever ties to exxon as easily as you are saying. It’s been cited already. Try to incorporate it into your argument, if you can. You sound very unsophisticated about corporate compensation. Yes, he can. Nothing has been cited that I haven’t already responded to. You sound very unsophisticated at forming a coherent thought. > [@drad\_dog](#): > > He goes head to head against the US as well as other countries in his capacity as exxon chairman. Lots of practice in skirting laws and going against US interests. See Chad. No, he owes a duty of loyalty to his employer. He is required the same as anyone else to adhere to laws. If he has broken a law, which I have never seen a person make the claim that he has, then he should be prosecuted for it. He may have put Exxon interests ahead of U.S. interests, but that was his job just the same as it is when Steve Jobs opened a factory overseas instead of in the U.S. His job wasn’t to maximize value for the U.S.; it was to maximize value for Apple. For Tillerson, his new job will be to work in the best interests of the U.S. > [@drad\_dog](#): > > No comments on the rest of my post I see. Just “I can’t understand”? Write it in a coherent way and I will respond to it. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/154 "2016-12-16T00:08:53Z")
LHD: respond to one thing I stated clearly and we can talk. You are contradicting yourself in each line. Go back and look at your parsing. I know it’s hard to struggle your way out of a straitjacket. You’re not even reading what I wrote or what anyone else has cited. Anyone here not know what I said besides you? Anyone here know what you’re trying to say? You can’t be this naive, therefore I reckon you are in it for the yocks. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/155 "2016-12-16T00:14:12Z")
Let me be clear about this one thing: “His resume consists of being a boy scout, and working for exxon. That’s it.” You responded: “I never said anything like that and it is pathetic to claim I did.” I said it. You didn’t. It’s true. Got it? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/156 "2016-12-16T15:17:06Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > You can’t be this naive, therefore I reckon you are in it for the yocks. Do not appear to accuse others of trolling in this forum. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/157 "2016-12-16T15:33:31Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > There’s a big difference between exaggeration and a lie… Semantic distinction duly noted. > [@](#): > > …The media goes overboard trying to develop a narrative sometimes… . Sure took their sweet time about it, don’t you think? > [@](#): > > …Russia is the big story right now and there is a push to act like the Trump is an agent of the Kremlin. Every single possible connection is pushed as hard as possible… Not me. Said before, say again, I don’t think Putin told Trump shit. > [@](#): > > …I’m not saying that Trump isn’t to blame for a lot of it… > [@](#): > > …Having said that, this idea that Rex Tillerson is such good personal buddies with Putin and that Exxon is so tied in with Russia is bullshit. He’s _probably_ got a friendly business relationship with the guy and has spent some time with him as he finalized some material deals with their state controlled oil companies over the years. _I’m guessing_ that’s a pretty common occurrence for Rex Tillerson… (Emphasis added) Very reassurng. > [@](#): > > …If the story had been about Iraqi tampering in the election then it would be about Tillerson’s connections to Iraq… Maybe. But it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2016, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/158 "2016-12-24T20:42:55Z")
[Rachel Maddow discussed Chad.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgtFBI2I0eM) The discovery of oil quintupled their GDP! Yet the country still ranks near the very bottom on the Development Index. Why? Because a certain Rex Tillerson said “Screw the people of Chad; screw the U.S.A.; screw international treaties. I smell profit for Exxon!” Dear Tillerson wasn’t too greedy to share some of his illicit wealth with Chad’s dictator: he helped him buy $4 Billion of weapons to help repress the starving people of Chad. While American soldiers were dying in Iraq, Exxon defied the U.S. and bypassed the Iraqi government in its oil dealings. Simply put: Exxon’s foreign policy is not the foreign policy of the U.S. Or rather, _wasn’t_ the same; our dear new President may have corrected this discrepancy! :smack: :eek: (By the way, the years 1990-1999 are called “the nineteen-nineties”, but what do you call the years 2000-2009? Ms. Maddow calls them the “the two thousandsies.”) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2016, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/159 "2016-12-24T22:09:48Z")
The Noughts. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2016, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603/160 "2016-12-24T23:34:25Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I’m surprised people care that much who the SoS is. This isn’t the early 19th century when the president’s representative was sent abroad and incommunicado for weeks at a time. We have Skype now. I think Romney was an excellent choice, he looks good in a suit and the position is basically a sales rep. Tillerson could be fine in the job. All this nonsense about cabinet positions should simply focus on Trump and whether or not he’s going to get his cabinet to represent his positions. Whatever it is they do he has to take the blame or the credit. :dubious: So, you don’t remember Reagan’s cabinet? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-will-rex-tillerson-be-confirmed-as-secretary-of-state/774603.md?page=9)