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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”?
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.
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.
I never said anything like that and it is pathetic to claim I did.
Yes, he can. Nothing has been cited that I haven’t already responded to. You sound very unsophisticated at forming a coherent thought.
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.
Write it in a coherent way and I will respond to it.
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.
Rachel Maddow discussed Chad. 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.”)