Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Might be time for a little dose of reality. Trump has made some extraordinary choices, particularly in the area of national security and defense, but on the domestic side, particularly in the realm of money, Trump's picks run from questionable to disastrous. If Trump is intent on "draining the swamp", he has a very bizarre idea of how to do that. Trump's pick for the top dog on foreign policy is the most disastrous pick of all.

Tillerson supports:

Gays in the Boy Scouts
Planned Parenthood
AGW and Paris accords (moved Exxon Mobile in that direction)
Carbon Tax
Iran nuclear deal
Common core.
Is opposed to economic sanctions,

(No one really knows where he stands on ISIS, Islamic terrorism, Israel, and the Palestinians, and In remarks to the vehemently anti-Trump Council on Foreign Relations in 2007, Tillerson argued against U.S. energy independence—and for more globalist trading when it comes to energy.)

For my part, I will not succumb to drinking the Trumpade and going blindly forth like a lemming. The past 8 years has been a harsh and eye opening lesson seen in the consequences of so many "followers" falling into a cultish admiration of a sweet talking personality rather than maintaining vigilance and challenging or even questioning where the so-called leader is taking us. I understand how that happened, liberal voters are not the most intelligent people on earth.

I do hope for the best, I pray Trump succeeds, but, since he won the election, he has backtracked, even flip flopped, on many of his campaign promises. Much has changed in his policies and who he is appointing to implement them. This choice for SecState is truly troubling, it does not bode well for America in the foreign policy arena. What the hell was Trump thinking? I fear he is approaching running the American government as if it were a corporation, a business--nothing could be further from the truth.

I suggest you all read the following carefully. This is not spin, it is an honest synopsis of Tillerson's business history, his associations, supporters, and his ties to Vladimir Putin, and his strong relationship with Saudi Arabia and Qatar--(Remember, Tillerson is an oil baron.)

When you have finished, you can draw your own conclusions.

Rex Tillerson: Trump’s most disastrous pick

Trump has made his decision on the big cabinet post — secretary of State — and it’s ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson.

There is no way to sugarcoat this: Tillerson is a disastrous pick. Those who share the mentality of transnational corporate leaders like Tillerson are pre-conditioned to supporting the foreign policy establishment mindset on critical issues so as not to upset the applecart and what’s good for business.

While much of his issue portfolio is a blank slate, what we know about him and his past comments is disturbing. These concerns go beyond his ties to Russia, which in fact, should not even be the primary focus of his confirmation hearings. The real concern cuts to the core of what conservatives are looking for in any department head, especially the State Department.


Trump should have appointed a secretary of State who regards the current State Department with as much disdain as Scott Pruitt regards the EPA. The problem we have at the State Department is not a management crisis. We have a moral and intellectual problem with the State Department that has persisted for decades. It stems from a deep-rooted culture of moral relativism and an “America-last” mindset. As such, we needed a man with a strong ideological rudder who understands the issues, is on the right side of them, and willing to bust up the entire State Department structure and the global foreign policy apparatus.

Both sides of this debate are too consumed with Russia — pro and con. Some of the new pro-Russia “conservatives” are praising Tillerson just because he’s close to Putin. Opponents, such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain, are voicing concerns solely because of his ties to Russia. However, there are many other foreign policy issues that are important.

For example, is a man with his background really the type of person to oppose refugees, a Palestinian State, cooperation with Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim Brotherhood? Where does he stand on political Islam? Where does he stand on the Iran deal and reinstating sanctions? Does he support backing “Syrian rebels” in the Syrian civil war, helping Iran in Iraq, or our current involvement in Libya? What would he do about the 15-year disaster in Afghanistan?

To be fair, these are all questions that must be answered by any nominee, but traditionally, we’ve had some sense of direction from the nominee before the Senate confirmation hearings, which don’t take place until the administration is already up and running.

And although we know nothing about where Tillerson stands on these issues, he is absolutely not the type of person who would fight the inveterate players and insufferable mentality within the system that stands opposed to America’s interests. That is why people like James Baker, Condi Rice, Bob Corker, and Robert Gates — the embodiment of the problem with foreign policy — are enthusiastically supporting him.

In that respect, nominees for secretary of State are much like Supreme Court picks. Given the one-directional gravitational pull and inertia towards liberalism within the legal profession, unless someone has absolutely demonstrated a record as a solid originalist willing to buck the system, he will wind up being a David Souter. There is no middle ground. Likewise, with foreign policy, if someone has not demonstrably opposed the Baker/Condi views on open borders, Palestinians, and political Islam, he will be part of the problem.

The most important quality in politics is a strong and fierce ideological conviction to fight the moral relativism in global affairs. Other qualities are important but useless if someone is lacking that ideological rudder to row upstream in this environment. Even someone who is inherently neutral on these issues will wind up downstream in the cesspool of the global foreign policy establishment, much less someone with the connections, mindset, and “pragmatism” of a major transnational CEO.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having no official diplomatic experience, if he understands the issues and policies, and most importantly, subscribes to the right ideology and is willing to fight the global elites to change course on the critical issues.

Tillerson’s past comments in support of Common Core, a carbon tax, the homosexual agenda at the Boy Scouts, and TPP are not mere distractions to his foreign policy views, as some might suggest.

First, we must remember that the State Department has been used as a conduit to support social liberalism for years. But more foundationally, they reveal an establishment mindset that would preclude him from bucking the trend on issues that are clearly within the scope of secretary of State, such as refugees, Syria, Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Tillerson is likely the first nominee for secretary of State ever who has absolutely no political — much less foreign — policy experience. Some supporters laud this fact as a symbol of an “outsiders’” administration. However, these people don’t understand what it means to be a true outsider or insider. There is no greater outsider than one who worked in the system, understands the issues and the politics, and swam upstream to fight the ideology of the political establishment. Conversely, there is no greater insider than someone who never officially worked in the field but subscribes to and is connected to the very essence of the system.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having no official diplomatic experience, if he understands the issues and policies, and most importantly, subscribes to the right ideology and is willing to fight the global elites to change course on the critical issues.

I’d take a guy like Andy McCarthy as secretary of State any day of the week, even though he never worked in the State Department. But Tillerson is not exactly an Andy McCarthy.

As Mark Levin asked last week, if this is just about making deals across the world why not appoint the CEO of 7-Eleven? Indeed, we’ve come a long way from the days of John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, and Edmund Randolph as secretaries of State.

Unless conservatives get positive answers on some of these critical questions, they should not vote to confirm Tillerson. We don’t need another Bob Corker, albeit with closer ties to Putin.

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

I have to agree, this is not a good choice. It would have been far better if Rudy would have been the one to be SOS. But lets see what comes along and how well it works for the USA.

Loki Loc: Georgia

I don't think Tillerson is that great a choice. Not because he can work with the Russians, that would be a desirable quality, but because I think he is too soft on Iran, and is in favor of the TPP which Trump has promised to either tear up or renegotiate. I have not heard anything about him supporting Common Core or gays in the Scouts.
On the plus side, Tillerson supports the Kurds, who have remained our allies in spite of the screwing they got from Obama.

PeterS

Gosh, I knew there was a reason I liked him.

waltmoreno

Of all of Trump's choices to date, Tillerson is by far the most troubling.

Ricko Loc: Florida

walt-ironically Newt Gingrich feels Tillerson is the best catch for the cabinet. I credit Newt with having as much, if not more, expertise than most in government affairs and Trump consulted many advisers before picking Tillerson. I believe we need to see what the man does before dumping on him. Continued criticism of Trump for his cabinet picks, by republicans ,will not alter the decision and is more fodder for the democrats. Good Luck America !!!

Sons of Liberty Loc: look behind you!

emarine

[quote=Blade_Runner]Might be time for a little dose of reality. Trump has made some extraordinary choices, particularly in the area of national security and defense, but on the domestic side, particularly in the realm of money, Trump's picks run from questionable to disastrous. If Trump is intent on "draining the swamp", he has a very bizarre idea of how to do that. Trump's pick for the top dog on foreign policy is the most disastrous pick of all.

Tillerson supports:

Gays in the Boy Scouts
Planned Parenthood
AGW and Paris accords (moved Exxon Mobile in that direction)
Carbon Tax
Iran nuclear deal
Common core.
Is opposed to economic sanctions,

(No one really knows where he stands on ISIS, Islamic terrorism, Israel, and the Palestinians, and In remarks to the vehemently anti-Trump Council on Foreign Relations in 2007, Tillerson argued against U.S. energy independence—and for more globalist trading when it comes to energy.)

For my part, I will not succumb to drinking the Trumpade and going blindly forth like a lemming. The past 8 years has been a harsh and eye opening lesson seen in the consequences of so many "followers" falling into a cultish admiration of a sweet talking personality rather than maintaining vigilance and challenging or even questioning where the so-called leader is taking us. I understand how that happened, liberal voters are not the most intelligent people on earth.

I do hope for the best, I pray Trump succeeds, but, since he won the election, he has backtracked, even flip flopped, on many of his campaign promises. Much has changed in his policies and who he is appointing to implement them. This choice for SecState is truly troubling, it does not bode well for America in the foreign policy arena. What the hell was Trump thinking? I fear he is approaching running the American government as if it were a corporation, a business--nothing could be further from the truth.

I suggest you all read the following carefully. This is not spin, it is an honest synopsis of Tillerson's business history, his associations, supporters, and his ties to Vladimir Putin, and his strong relationship with Saudi Arabia and Qatar--(Remember, Tillerson is an oil baron.)

When you have finished, you can draw your own conclusions.

Rex Tillerson: Trump’s most disastrous pick

Trump has made his decision on the big cabinet post — secretary of State — and it’s ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson.

There is no way to sugarcoat this: Tillerson is a disastrous pick. Those who share the mentality of transnational corporate leaders like Tillerson are pre-conditioned to supporting the foreign policy establishment mindset on critical issues so as not to upset the applecart and what’s good for business.

While much of his issue portfolio is a blank slate, what we know about him and his past comments is disturbing. These concerns go beyond his ties to Russia, which in fact, should not even be the primary focus of his confirmation hearings. The real concern cuts to the core of what conservatives are looking for in any department head, especially the State Department.


Trump should have appointed a secretary of State who regards the current State Department with as much disdain as Scott Pruitt regards the EPA. The problem we have at the State Department is not a management crisis. We have a moral and intellectual problem with the State Department that has persisted for decades. It stems from a deep-rooted culture of moral relativism and an “America-last” mindset. As such, we needed a man with a strong ideological rudder who understands the issues, is on the right side of them, and willing to bust up the entire State Department structure and the global foreign policy apparatus.

Both sides of this debate are too consumed with Russia — pro and con. Some of the new pro-Russia “conservatives” are praising Tillerson just because he’s close to Putin. Opponents, such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain, are voicing concerns solely because of his ties to Russia. However, there are many other foreign policy issues that are important.

For example, is a man with his background really the type of person to oppose refugees, a Palestinian State, cooperation with Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim Brotherhood? Where does he stand on political Islam? Where does he stand on the Iran deal and reinstating sanctions? Does he support backing “Syrian rebels” in the Syrian civil war, helping Iran in Iraq, or our current involvement in Libya? What would he do about the 15-year disaster in Afghanistan?

To be fair, these are all questions that must be answered by any nominee, but traditionally, we’ve had some sense of direction from the nominee before the Senate confirmation hearings, which don’t take place until the administration is already up and running.

And although we know nothing about where Tillerson stands on these issues, he is absolutely not the type of person who would fight the inveterate players and insufferable mentality within the system that stands opposed to America’s interests. That is why people like James Baker, Condi Rice, Bob Corker, and Robert Gates — the embodiment of the problem with foreign policy — are enthusiastically supporting him.

In that respect, nominees for secretary of State are much like Supreme Court picks. Given the one-directional gravitational pull and inertia towards liberalism within the legal profession, unless someone has absolutely demonstrated a record as a solid originalist willing to buck the system, he will wind up being a David Souter. There is no middle ground. Likewise, with foreign policy, if someone has not demonstrably opposed the Baker/Condi views on open borders, Palestinians, and political Islam, he will be part of the problem.

The most important quality in politics is a strong and fierce ideological conviction to fight the moral relativism in global affairs. Other qualities are important but useless if someone is lacking that ideological rudder to row upstream in this environment. Even someone who is inherently neutral on these issues will wind up downstream in the cesspool of the global foreign policy establishment, much less someone with the connections, mindset, and “pragmatism” of a major transnational CEO.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having no official diplomatic experience, if he understands the issues and policies, and most importantly, subscribes to the right ideology and is willing to fight the global elites to change course on the critical issues.

Tillerson’s past comments in support of Common Core, a carbon tax, the homosexual agenda at the Boy Scouts, and TPP are not mere distractions to his foreign policy views, as some might suggest.

First, we must remember that the State Department has been used as a conduit to support social liberalism for years. But more foundationally, they reveal an establishment mindset that would preclude him from bucking the trend on issues that are clearly within the scope of secretary of State, such as refugees, Syria, Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Tillerson is likely the first nominee for secretary of State ever who has absolutely no political — much less foreign — policy experience. Some supporters laud this fact as a symbol of an “outsiders’” administration. However, these people don’t understand what it means to be a true outsider or insider. There is no greater outsider than one who worked in the system, understands the issues and the politics, and swam upstream to fight the ideology of the political establishment. Conversely, there is no greater insider than someone who never officially worked in the field but subscribes to and is connected to the very essence of the system.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having no official diplomatic experience, if he understands the issues and policies, and most importantly, subscribes to the right ideology and is willing to fight the global elites to change course on the critical issues.

I’d take a guy like Andy McCarthy as secretary of State any day of the week, even though he never worked in the State Department. But Tillerson is not exactly an Andy McCarthy.

As Mark Levin asked last week, if this is just about making deals across the world why not appoint the CEO of 7-Eleven? Indeed, we’ve come a long way from the days of John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, and Edmund Randolph as secretaries of State.

Unless conservatives get positive answers on some of these critical questions, they should not vote to confirm Tillerson. We don’t need another Bob Corker, albeit with closer ties to Putin.[/quot



Good post Blade... this is exactly why Trump has to show transparency in his business dealings... you can't read in between the lines when the book is closed... this should be done now not later so we can stay ahead of the curve for once... I have high hopes also but as time moves on Trumps blowing it...

DanceTherapist Loc: NYC, now Oakland, Ca

Tillerson does NOT support gays in the Boy Scouts. He was a boy scout and he is decidedly not gay. He is possibly the worse pick (well, cannot really say that given all the millionaire and billionaire company he is among in the Trump-elect Cabinet). I guess Rick Perry who couldn't remember the name of the 3 agencies he hates didn't cut it. Listen, Jefferson had slaves. I can imagine that Trump would love some slaves of his own. John Jay has a great law school named after him in NYC. Tillerson reminds me a bit of McCarthy (the HUAC-McCarthy). Trump's spokesman (wish I could remember this man's name) just loves Tillerson and praises him and thinks he will do a terrific, "bigly" job to quote the president-elect. His closeness with Putin severely compromises him. Trump's loyal spokesman says inane shite about how this will be so beneficial. How?

Loki Loc: Georgia

Actually, Tillerson is the only one I have a problem with. Mostly because I think he is too willing to cut Iran some slack. While it has been said that he supports other things I disagree with, I don't know if he actually does or not. His stance on Iran is the only one I am sure of.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

You have a gift for psychobabble. If you don't know WTF you are babbling about, why do you persist?

Tillerson’s Assault on Scouting

President-Elect Donald J. Trump recently announced he is considering Rex Tillerson to lead the State Department. Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, was, among other things, the former head of the Boy Scouts of America and one of the people responsible for opening the BSA to homosexuals.

It was Tillerson who lobbied to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the BSA. According to a Dallas News story:

Tillerson was instrumental in lobbying the Scouts’ board to accept openly gay youths, said John Hammer, president of the Washington think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies, of which Tillerson is a board member.

"I can’t get into the intimacy of these conversations. But he agonized over this. He prayed on it, and ultimately he came to the conclusion the only thing that can guide him here is what’s best for the young boys,” he said. "I think he became a key leader in helping the group come to a consensus."

Tillerson pushed the change at the meeting.

“Most of the reasons that organizations fail at change is pretty simple,” he says. “People don’t understand why. They don’t understand the mission. They don’t understand what this means for them. They don’t understand their role.” Now, the most important job is to communicate with Scouting supporters back in each member’s home council, he says.

As the CEO of ExxonMobil Corp., Tillerson is no stranger to the task of making tough decisions or venturing into uncharted territory because of a change in course. “Regardless of where you were on this decision, it’s also very normal for people to feel like there are winners or losers. I’m here to tell you that’s not true. … There are neither winners nor losers. What’s left after we made the decision to change is the mission, and the mission has not changed. But how are we going to implement the change?”

So resistance to change is tied not to a moral absolute, but rather to a lack of understanding, and there are no "winners or losers." The boys lost, but Tillerson fails to see it.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

I did some research on this guy. He has strong ties with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and with Putin. He moved Exxon Mobile toward AGW and "green energy", but apart from the issues, Tillerson is a Globalist. Some argue that he will bring a paradigm shift to the mission of the State Department--the focus being on our global economics interests (Does Hillary Clinton come to mind?) The fact is that economics, global or otherwise, although an important issue, is not the primary mission of State. It is one thing to negotiate business deals with foreign corporations or governments, establishing and maintaining diplomatic relations with foreign governments is quite another. Given Obama's foreign policy disasters in the ME, and if diplomacy does in fact have any role to play in cleaning out that rat hole, we are going to need something more than a global deal maker. Islamic Jihad isn't interested in talking about money. It has all it needs.

IMHO.

CharlesRabb

Loki Loc: Georgia

Jefferson owned slaves at at time when slavery was an accepted and normal fact of life. This has been the case for most of recorded history. Morality did not end slavery, industrialization and mechanization did. You cannot judge people of other times and cultures by the standards of your own. Ethics are determined by circumstances. Much of what is considered cruel or unusual today was perfectly acceptable to most people at one time or another.

robmull Loc: florida

"WE" are all human, Loki, and there will be pros and cons, eventually, about every person in the Trump Cabinet; even Trump himself has {or had} a few bad/unsavory qualities. What I believe is that President-elect Trump has the innate skill to select who will best serve his needs to "restore dilapidated dwellings and end misfortunes" in America. No matter what faults Tillerson {or ANY of Trump's Cabinet choices} has, the only job they are {or will be} selected to do has nothing to do with the "Boy Scouts," or "Common-Core," or "TPP;" even the stupid Iranian "deal" is only in Mr. Trump's "ball-park," and "WE" know Mr. Trump has ONLY America's best interest at heart. Hell, "The Donald," could have retired anywhere in the world, but {some Prophets say}, has been "selected by God," to "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN," and "WE" know who (D)ecided to go against Him, and what happened. They are currently rioting, vandalizing, burning, looting, "PIG" killing, murdering, raping, violently protesting and obnoxiously (D)emonstrating in about every damn liberal "sanctuary" city in America, most probably as a warm-up for the free "road-trip" to NYC, in an attempt to (D)isrupt the Trump Inauguration, and another try to (D)eligitimize PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD J. TRUMP, himself. FAT CHANCE!!! GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD J. TRUMP!!! GOD BLESSED AMERICA AND THE WORLD!!! Now; "DRAIN THAT {RADICAL SECULAR LIBERAL "REGRESSIVE"} SWAMP!!!"