freeman3 wrote:Trump named Rex Tillerson--the CEOof Excon, the guy that made a deal worth an estimated 300 billion dollars with Russia, received a medal from Putin--as Secretary of State. This follows Trump's already cozy relationship with Putin and Russia's interference in our election and hacking into DNC and Clinton campaign emails.

And by the way if we're a weak and powerless country then Russia interfering in our elections is no big deal. Otherwise, why isn't it an act of war when another country tries to manipulate who gets elected in our country? I guess we are so polarized that another country deciding who gets elected in our country is ok so long as it's the guy we like.

All the nonsense about the Clintons being corrupt but there was no indication that they were ever influenced by foreign interests that donated to the Clinton Foundation. The same cannot be said of Trump whose campaign was full of people tied to Russia and now nominates a guy who has huge economic interests that could be affected by what Putin does. How did Trump even get his name? Did that name get suggested by one of his people with ties to Russia? As Trump would say, this is really bad.

I don't think Trump makes it through his 4 year term without getting impeached. Selling out our country so that he can benefit himself and his family. Disgusting. Sure, Tillerson the guy heading the oil company with a 300 billion dollar oil deal with Russia with no diplomatic experience was just a random pick. And there is no outrage. I don't get it.

I'm no trump fan, but yes, you just don't get it. The guy groped a dozen women and admitted it on tape ... he insulted war veterans and parents of gold star veterans and many Republicans ... he was caught lying many times ... he didn't release his tax returns even though everyone knows he avoided taxes for decades? because of other peoples' losses, not his own ... none of that mattered ... the logical conclusion is that he would have gotten elected anyway. (All the Russian did was release e-mails that Democrats wrote, right?)

With the deregulation boom and lower corporate tax rates the U.S. economy will do very well (assuming we avoid a trade war)... $2.5 Trillion may be repatriated by U.S. companies ... Trump will probably be reelected if the economic boom lasts.

At some point Trump and Putin will have a parting of the ways as our national interested diverge. It won't be pretty for Russia.

Ok. Is that we are supposed to conduct outlet foreign policy, based on whether one party was right on the threat posed by Russia in the past? I guess you are arguing that it is just a made up argument because we don't like the fact that Trump won and are still whining about it. Here is a reminder how of closely enmeshed Tillerson is with Putin.http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... end-214515

I feel like the world is turned upside down. Russia just hacked into the Democratic Party's computer apparatus in order to get a Republican friendly to them elected. And now that Republican is seeking to get a Russophile named as Secretary of State, the person primarily responsible for the country's foreign policy. And you guys want to ask skeptically where was this before?

Well, then there was the Ukraine, then there was Syria, then there was hacking into our election. Those facts kind of make the threat more apparent don't they?

I don't really care who Trump nominates for Secretary of State as long as they have some relevant diplomatic or political experience (which Tillerson does not have of course). But nominating a guy beholden to Russia? It's absurd. And arguing that several years ago Democrats did not properly appreciate the threat posed by Russia as a means of insulating the Tillerson nomination from criticism is just not a good argument to put it politely.

We'll see RJ. You're just like the rest of the Republicans who think that Trump will be a rubber stamp for their trickle-down economic theories that have never worked and that they can control Trump. We'll see. You simply cannot know that Trump will break with Putin like you have said a couple of times. Wishful thinking with no actual evidence to support that theory.

freeman3 wrote:I feel like the world is turned upside down. Russia just hacked into the Democratic Party's computer apparatus in order to get a Republican friendly to them elected.

Again, I think you overlook vengeance. Putin had a vendetta against Clinton. There is zero concrete evidence that Russia tipped the scale so heavily that Trump won. There is plenty of evidence that, despite all the David Brock-derived dirt Clinton dumped on Trump, she lost. She was a terrible candidate. There's been no evidence of vote-tampering, has there?

And, I'm not sure how "America first" adds up to "Russia first." If he is as nationalist as Democrats fear, how will that help Putin?

And now that Republican is seeking to get a Russophile named as Secretary of State, the person primarily responsible for the country's foreign policy. And you guys want to ask skeptically where was this before?

I think you are letting your emotions do your thinking. That he gets along with Putin personally does not mean he is going to give away the store. Do you have any evidence that he will?

Well, then there was the Ukraine, then there was Syria, then there was hacking into our election. Those facts kind of make the threat more apparent don't they?

Ukraine and Syria--Obama/Clinton gave Putin the green light.

"Hacking into our election" is garbage. Show that they "hacked into" the "election" (as opposed to DNC emails). Where did they switch votes? Evidence please.

I don't really care who Trump nominates for Secretary of State as long as they have some relevant diplomatic or political experience (which Tillerson does not have of course). But nominating a guy beholden to Russia? It's absurd. And arguing that several years ago Democrats did not properly appreciate the threat posed by Russia as a means of insulating the Tillerson nomination from criticism is just not a good argument to put it politely.

How is he "beholden" to Russia?

Look, you are making many assertions and just ASSUMING their truth. What is the evidence that he's "beholden to Russia?" What does he owe them?

Obama won the Nobel Peace prize. Was he then "beholden" to peace? To the committee?

We'll see RJ. You're just like the rest of the Republicans who think that Trump will be a rubber stamp for their trickle-down economic theories that have never worked and that they can control Trump. We'll see. You simply cannot know that Trump will break with Putin like you have said a couple of times. Wishful thinking with no actual evidence to support that theory.

This is upside-down. You are engaged with your heart and not with your head. As an attorney, this is all wrong.

Again, how does Trump's nationalism fit in with giving Putin whatever he wants? How does all his "we're going to win so much you're going to get tired of winning" rhetoric fit in with rolling over for Putin?

What is known about Tillerson and Exxon?
They deal with many scoundrels besides Putin. They have all kinds of deals with countries around the world. Will they shape his world view? After all, all he knows intimately is oil and extraction of oil.
Will, Exxons deal with VietNam to dril in the South China Sea slant his view of Chinese relations despite the important trade relationship that China and the US have?
Will his deals with Putin blunt his support for the freedom and integrity of the Baltic States and the Ukraine?
Will his current interest in securing Iranian oil reserves for Exxon make him a voice for engagement with Iran. (and part of that is disavowing Trump of the naive notion that the Iranian nuclear deal is "the worst deal ever". )
Will his willingness to engage with Russia and Iran help their influence in the Middle East at the expense of traditional US allies?

Exxon has been a fierce opponent and propogater of false information on the issue of climate change. All because ot affets Exxons bottom line. Tillerson has admitted that climate change is real, at least. Perhaps it will take the declining value of Mara Lago for Trump to understand that real world consequences are already here due to climate change and he is being affected.

In Florida, $69 billion worth of property is at risk of flooding in less than 15 years, and beachfront property in Miami-Dade alone is valued at more than $14.7 billion.

http://therealdeal.com/miami/2016/08/16 ... es-report/

God knows what influences Trump. But for the last 40 years the pursuit of oil deposits and their exploitation have been the single focs of Tillerson. Its hard to think that won't be theway his world view will continue to be shaped..

Fate

With the deregulation boom

And what inevitably follows the deregulation boom?
The deregulation bust. And the mop up from the bust. (see 2008 financial collapse)
What does the US have more of a problem with. Water scarcity or energy scarcity?
EPA: Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/201 ... ce=copyurl

Ray Jay wrote:With the deregulation boom and lower corporate tax rates the U.S. economy will do very well (assuming we avoid a trade war)... $2.5 Trillion may be repatriated by U.S. companies ... Trump will probably be reelected if the economic boom lasts.

I would not be so confident.

Freeman:

I don't really care who Trump nominates for Secretary of State as long as they have some relevant diplomatic or political experience (which Tillerson does not have of course). But nominating a guy beholden to Russia? It's absurd. And arguing that several years ago Democrats did not properly appreciate the threat posed by Russia as a means of insulating the Tillerson nomination from criticism is just not a good argument to put it politely.

Tillerson rose from entry level at Exxon to run an international company with about 75,000 employees. He's traveled extensively throughout the world. I'm guessing he is very talented and knows how to be both diplomatic and hard as nails, depending on the situation.

Assuming he divests his holdings of Exxon, how is he beholden to Russia? Yes, he ingratiated himself to them when he was being paid to do so. Now he would have a different job. Let's give him a fair hearing.

Clarification: hacking into the election was a reference to the hacking of emails not into changing votes.

As for everything else from RJ and DF I am continually amazed at the power of rationalization. We have a president with no experience nominating a Secretary of State with no experience--both of them friendly to an increasingly aggressive Russia and these are the guys that are going to run our foreign policy. It's so ridiculous but people just nod their heads like it's the usual thing to have people running our foreign policy who have no experience and business connections to a country hostile to us. And even if he gets rid of his oil holdings if he does well for Exxon he will get paid eventually. Why take that risk? I don't see how the American people are served by this. We (opponents to Tillerson) are supposed to prove that because Tillerson is close to Putin and has had major business dealings that this means he will side with Russia. That's shifting the burden of proof. The burden should be can you prove to a very high level of probability that his business connections with Russia and closeness to Putin will not affect how he conducts our foreign policy. I don't see how Tillerson can meet that burden of proof.

Intelligence sources say with a high degree of confidence that Putin directed the hacking, that this motivations ranged from a vendetta against Hillary Clinton, to showing corruption in US politics and to split off US allies by discrediting the US as a world leader that could not be relied upon. The CIA believes the intent was to get Trump elected. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s ... ck-n696146

And by the way the Russian effort were not limited to hacking into DNC and Clinton campaign emails. Russian propaganda was sent out over Facebook and over 200 websites to help get Trump elected. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... 136e6a753a

Russia is engaging in a one-sided diplomatic war against us and we're going to appoint Tillerson as Secretary of State....

freeman3 wrote:Intelligence sources say with a high degree of confidence that Putin directed the hacking, that this motivations ranged from a vendetta against Hillary Clinton, to showing corruption in US politics and to split off US allies by discrediting the US as a world leader that could not be relied upon. The CIA believes the intent was to get Trump elected. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s ... ck-n696146

And by the way the Russian effort were not limited to hacking into DNC and Clinton campaign emails. Russian propaganda was sent out over Facebook and over 200 websites to help get Trump elected. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... 136e6a753a

Russia is engaging in a one-sided diplomatic war against us and we're going to appoint Tillerson as Secretary of State....

I'm not arguing with you over Russian attempts to influence the election. They are bastards, and they did it; and I suspect that Trump knew. My argument is that your attacks on Tillerson are over the top. It seems that there are two aspects to your attack:

1. He is loyal to Russia. This is not a good argument. He's an American citizen thru and thru. He has demonstrated loyalty to the U.S. His job has been with a U.S. company with primarily U.S. shareholders. As part of that job he was required to ingratiate himself towards foreign powers, many of whom are unsavory. So what? That was his responsibility to shareholders. Using that as a rationale for not confirming him is unfair. (That's your rationalization, not mine.)

2. He is not qualified. Well, this was a change election. Is there anyone here who thinks we have been well served by our last 4 Secretary of States? Presumably these ex-Academics, Senators, and Military veterans fit your definition of qualified. The Mideast is in flames; Russia and China are flexing their muscles; N. Korea has gone nuclear, etc. Again, you are rationalizing that this Senatorial, academic, or military experience is of paramount importance. However, the results have been awful. Perhaps you are the one who is rationalizing ...

You are a good advocate for him RJ but what about the fact he was a vocal opponent of sanctions against Russia after it annexed Crimea in 2014? https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... ent=safari

On the one hand it can be argued that he was merely arguing for the benefit of Exxon. But as Senator John McCain noted, "it raises morality questions."

I guess I am not happy with the prospect of a Secretary of State whose motto could be what is good for Exxon is good for the country. I am skeptical that a guy whose world-view was shaped through the culture of a oil company through his entire working-life (and where he made his fortune)is going to adapt to having the larger lens of looking out for American interests even if they conflict with those of the oil industry. I also find it...kind of distasteful that he clearly ingratiated himself so much with a dictator in order to make money. I guess others would say that was just good business. But geez..

The experience part, I am not sure. I am a big believer that people hone their talents over time. So someone could be great at being a corporate lawyer but if he were put in a criminal courtroom he would be lost. The question is whether the skills that he acquired at Exxon are transferable to running the State Department and there is no significant learning curve for him there.

Trump names hard-liner ambassador to Israel who wants to move the American embassy fromTel Aviv to Jerusalem, supports settlements, is against a two state solution and so on...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/us ... sador.html

Did he really think this through? What is the upside in doing this? If you're going to change US policy vis-a-vis Israel I would think you would do so in a more subtle manner so as to not upset Muslims in the region. This pick...does not constitute subtlety.I am curious about RJ's reaction.

freeman3 wrote:Trump names hard-liner ambassador to Israel who wants to move the American embassy fromTel Aviv to Jerusalem, supports settlements, is against a two state solution and so on...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/us ... sador.html

Did he really think this through? What is the upside in doing this? If you're going to change US policy vis-a-vis Israel I would think you would do so in a more subtle manner so as to not upset Muslims in the region. This pick...does not constitute subtlety.I am curious about RJ's reaction.

Since you asked: Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people and has been that longer than any other capital on the planet. The U.S. doesn't even recognize West Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It's an outrage. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and will always be. It's not up for negotiation. Given all of the historical complications, the annexation of all of Jerusalem is legitimate and should be recognized by the entire international community. If they don't that's their problem.

Not upset Muslims in the region? That's pretty rich. They are always upset.

From the perspective of U.S. policy, I think there are two things going on. 1. Tillerson, as an oil man, is not considered a friend of Israel and Trump wants to appease the Israel lobby. 2. It's like Taiwan. Show your negotiating strength: move the playing field so that the final compromise is more to your liking. If China fears our reengaging with Taiwan, they may support us more in North Korea. If the Palestinians finally understand that they will lose any chance of ever having a state, perhaps they will come to the negotiating table.

ray jay

Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people and has been that longer than any other capital on the planet. The U.S. doesn't even recognize West Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It's an outrage

.
Jerusalem has been destroyed at least twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times.
To paraphrase Coward. "To be destroyed once is unfortunate. To be destroyed twice, is careless."

Israel demands that its myths be respected as truth and accepted as justification for its unilateral possession of the city. This denies the myths of Islam regarding the City. And much of recorded history.
That the US does not recognize Jeruselum as Israels capital, is not an outrage, when it is joined by almost every other nation on earth in its postion. There is an international sui generis consular corps in Jerusalem. It is commonly referred to as the "Consular Corps of the Corpus Separatum". The states that have maintained consulates in Jerusalem say that it was part of Mandate Palestine, and in a de jure sense, has not since become part of any other sovereignty. The rest all point to the UN resolutions in 48 and the inability of Israel and the palestinian representatives to achieve a resolution to their problems.
If the US did recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and move its embassey there....the US would cease to have any influence in the Middle East. And nothing substantial would chage for Israel.
I'm sure this would please both Iran and Russia immensely.

I think I will sit out debating Friedman's nomination any more.

freeman3 wrote:I think I will sit out debating Friedman's nomination any more.

Good choice.