Should/will Rex Tillerson be confirmed as Secretary of State?

[TriPolar]

@Little_Nemo

But Trump doesn’t appear to have the knowledge or inclination to directly handle the details of foreign affairs. He needs an expert in that position.

Do you think it matters who he has in that position though? He’ll either listen or he won’t. And whoever has the job Trump might be getting his advice from someone else. I find it doubtful he’ll pick someone with that kind of expertise.

[TriPolar]

@Itself

Do you actually know what the Secretary of State or the State Department in general does? It’s not just serving as a proxy for the president in foreign countries or joining the funeral circuit. The portfolio of the SoS is pretty much anything related to international affairs and diplomacy: trade agreement, the National Security Council, etc. With the exception of the Chief of Staff, the SoS is probably second only to the president in terms of (hard or soft) power.

There’s plenty of advising in that list which a president may or may not listen to. The more serious and actual authority of the SoS is running the State Department which I think most of them delegated anyway. When it comes to negotiations a corporate CEO may be better qualified than an academic foreign policy adviser. It still comes back to the president’s call on what our policies will be.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@TriPolar

It still comes back to the president’s call on what our policies will be.

“Which policy will make more money for me?”

[TriPolar]

Some talking head said on the news that sources say John Bolton will be Trump’s choice. Better start digging a fallout shelter.

[BobLibDem]

@Euphonious_Polemic

“Which policy will make more money for me?”

His inauguration speech may include the line “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what your country can do for me”.

[Little_Nemo]

@TriPolar

Some talking head said on the news that sources say John Bolton will be Trump’s choice. Better start digging a fallout shelter.

The rumors I’ve heard is that Trump wants Tillerson as Secretary of State and Bolton as his Deputy. Tillerson will be the man in charge (after Trump) while Bolton will run the State Department on a day-to-day basis.

[ataraxy22]

@Little_Nemo

The rumors I’ve heard is that Trump wants Tillerson as Secretary of State and Bolton as his Deputy. Tillerson will be the man in charge (after Trump) while Bolton will run the State Department on a day-to-day basis.

I would imagine Tillerson and Bolton would clash alot. Also, I think Bolton won’t get confirmed.

I think ratcheting down tensions with Russia is not the worst thing in the world, although an highly skeptical of Trump being able to sustain that tracking.

With regards to Tillerson potentially using the SoS position to advantage Exxon over its competitions, how would that impact the average American? And if he did indeed do this, would other oil companies have grounds to pursue legal actions?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[WillFarnaby]

Whenever politicians, from Dick Cheney to Barack Obama, talk about “American interests” in the Middle East, they’re actually talking about oil companies’ interests. Let’s be real. We already have a foreign policy that revolves around oil. It’s been this way for quite a while now. Trump picks an oil man as Secretary of State. This is almost like Trump is smacking the American people in the head with a logic stick. Yes it is crony capitalism, but I prefer it this way so there is less confusion for the masses.

[LonghornDave]

Exxon stock is down 0.8% today. My simple mind thinks that’s because oil is down $0.62 and the overall market is down slightly. Weekly inventory report came out slightly negative. Almost every other oil stock is also down.

What do the conspiracy theorists here think though? Must be something to do with Rex Tillerson and Trump I guess.

[Little_Nemo]

@ataraxy22

I think ratcheting down tensions with Russia is not the worst thing in the world, although an highly skeptical of Trump being able to sustain that tracking.

I’m all in favor of better relations with Russia. But we have to remember we’re not the problem. The Russians are the ones who are creating this tension by invading other countries. Tensions won’t ease if the United States gives them a green light. Tensions will only ease when the Russians decide to respect the sovereignty of their neighbors.

[Little_Nemo]

@WillFarnaby

Whenever politicians, from Dick Cheney to Barack Obama, talk about “American interests” in the Middle East, they’re actually talking about oil companies’ interests. Let’s be real. We already have a foreign policy that revolves around oil. It’s been this way for quite a while now. Trump picks an oil man as Secretary of State. This is almost like Trump is smacking the American people in the head with a logic stick. Yes it is crony capitalism, but I prefer it this way so there is less confusion for the masses.

That explains why our closest allies in the region are Turkey and Israel with their vast oil reserves.

[WillFarnaby]

@Little_Nemo

That explains why our closest allies in the region are Turkey and Israel with their vast oil reserves.

Turkey and Israel are important allies because of their proximity to the reserves of the Middle East. Of course having “allies” is only one aspect of foreign policy, and your omission of Saudi Arabia was an honest mistake.

[Ravenman]

AIPAC is influential due to their representation of the interests of a country that is in the neighborhood of oil. Suuuuure.

ETA: Saudi Arabia has close relations with the US, but it is not an ally. Turkey is a NATO ally, and Israel is one of 17 named non-NATO allies. But I’m sure you knew that.

[WillFarnaby]

Yes Saudi Arabia is one of those non-allies that we allow to purchase huge arsenals from our companies, I forgot.

I won’t get dragged into global conspiracy mongering over AIPAC

[WillFarnaby]

I was hoping I wouldn’t have to recount 150 years of geopolitics for you but here:http://www.cfr.org/oil/timeline-oil-dependence-us-foreign-policy/p24322

[WillFarnaby]

For the past few centuries, a global economic and political system has been slowly taking shape under first British and then American leadership. As a vital element of that system, the leading global power—with help from allies and other parties—maintains the security of world trade over the seas and air while also ensuring that international economic transactions take place in an orderly way. Thanks to the American umbrella, Germany, Japan, China, Korea and India do not need to maintain the military strength to project forces into the Middle East to defend their access to energy. Nor must each country’s navy protect the supertankers carrying oil and liquefied national gas (LNG).

For this system to work, the Americans must prevent any power from dominating the Persian Gulf while retaining the ability to protect the safe passage of ships through its waters. The Soviets had to be kept out during the Cold War, and the security and independence of the oil sheikdoms had to be protected from ambitious Arab leaders like Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. During the Cold War Americans forged alliances with Turkey, Israel and (until 1979) Iran, three non-Arab states that had their own reasons for opposing both the Soviets and any pan-Arab state.

When the fall of the shah of Iran turned a key regional ally into an implacable foe, the U.S. responded by tightening its relations with both Israel and Turkey—while developing a deeper relationship with Egypt, which had given up on Nasser’s goal of unifying all the Arabs under its flag.

Today the U.S. is building a coalition against Iran’s drive for power in the Gulf. Israel, a country which has its own reasons for opposing Iran, remains an important component in the American strategy, but the U.S. must also manage the political costs of this relationship as it works with the Sunni Arab states. American opposition to Iran’s nuclear program not only reflects concerns about Israeli security and the possibility that Iran might supply terrorist groups with nuclear materials. It also reflects the U.S. interest in protecting its ability to project conventional forces into the Gulf.

http://www.cfr.org/energy-policy/why-were-gulf/p15139

[drad_dog]

@LonghornDave

Exxon stock is down 0.8% today. My simple mind thinks that’s because oil is down $0.62 and the overall market is down slightly. Weekly inventory report came out slightly negative. Almost every other oil stock is also down.

What do the conspiracy theorists here think though? Must be something to do with Rex Tillerson and Trump I guess.

The short termers already had a heads up, (because we know how secretive don the con is about what he thinks and does)? Then by the time you know about something the players made their play and you’re going to be the greater fool? Just a guess.

Yes that does have something to do with Tillerson and Trump. Why do you ask?
BTW don’t sell that stock. The ride is just beginning.

[drad_dog]

@WillFarnaby

Whenever politicians, from Dick Cheney to Barack Obama, talk about “American interests” in the Middle East, they’re actually talking about oil companies’ interests. Let’s be real. We already have a foreign policy that revolves around oil. It’s been this way for quite a while now. Trump picks an oil man as Secretary of State. This is almost like Trump is smacking the American people in the head with a logic stick. Yes it is crony capitalism, but I prefer it this way so there is less confusion for the masses.

Spoken like the illegitimate spawn of JD Rockefeller and Karl Marx. Odd.

[Ravenman]

@WillFarnaby

Yes Saudi Arabia is one of those non-allies that we allow to purchase huge arsenals from our companies, I forgot.

You said that the other poster left Saudi Arabia off the list of allies. He did, on the basis that they aren’t an ally.

But you knew that, of course. Which is why you insisted that Little Nemo amend his correct statement with… something.

[Bridget_Burke]

@drad_dog

Spoken like the illegitimate spawn of JD Rockefeller and Karl Marx. Odd.

The Modern Libertarian!