-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Exxon CEO Tillerson emerges as frontrunner for Secretary of State
- Thread starter Sultan Of Swing
- Start date
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I think it is only prudent to consider the amount of political experience any individual has for important government positions
Since any time spent in the public sector, is valuable time not spent in the real world- which you're supposed to be looking after, and since the private sector is so much more efficient, since politicians are the least trustworthy people on the planet.. then the more real world experience, and the less 'political experience' the better. seems like a no-brainer?
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
Tillerson has more experience than a number of previous secretaries due to his own international experience and relationships with world leaders.
As long as he is willing to part with his professional ties to Exxon for the duration. Otherwise, the conflict of interest is enormous and might incentivize selfish ambitions over the needs/desires of the people he is appointed to represent.
esmith
Veteran Member
It is required by law that he divest any personal involvement in his current business interest.
Still got a problem?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
The government is not a business and international business relations are not international political relations. He may know people, but that doesn't mean he's skilled at mediation or treaty discussions.
esmith
Veteran Member
WHAT??????
You have got to be joking. The experience a person gains whether it is in business negations or political negations is the same.
I do believe that you might have a negative agenda against anyone that President-elect Trump puts forward and it is clouding your thought process.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
They aren't the same. The state and the business are not the same, and it's folly to think the state should be ran like a business. He knows people, he's negotiated making money, but that is not being the mediator between warring states.
And you don't need a negative agenda when Trump make appointments like putting someone who has never been involved with public education over public education (another example in regards to my "experience necessary" comment).
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
How would the actual deal-making and negotiating be different? It would require concessions from each side, compromises, etc. The principle would be the same.
Its funny how Trump supporters sacrifice all sense of common decency and doing what's right, let alone having their own opinions, to mindlessly parrot and support everything Trump does, get a life, Trump is not going to save you, in fact chances are pretty damn high he's going to be responsible for making your life worse.
I never had a "problem", I just had questions and concerns. I am not ready to write the guy off at face value just because Trump gave him the nod. I am hopeful that he is successful.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Because negotiating your bottom line is not the same as opening up lines of communications to discuss peace and treaties. Negotiating to make money is not the same as negotiating the interests of a state. I have business experience in mediating among people who want to throw high-school insults and drama towards each other, but not when it comes to people who have guns pointed at each other. That situation is much more delicate, and would have far greater consequences if things go bad.
Hard to be upset with someone in this regard when I distinctly remember your weekly rants about Obama over the last year or so.
If decency were a necessary criterion, then both Donald & Hilda would be out.
But we were faced with a choice between them.
So we picked the lesser of....you know.
Negotiating with Americastan's enemies is something where Hillary indeed has more experience.
But this experience is the main reason I voted against her.
She's bad at it, & too pro-war.
Example:
We want Iran to eschew nuclear weapons.
Hillary has threatened to obliterate Iran.
Iran would be crazy to not get nukes.
My business experience tells me she doesn't understand negotiation.
Last edited:
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
I wanted Tillerson to get the job from back when they said they were considering him over a week ago. I would have been disappointed with the others, Romney, Giuliani, etc. though perhaps Rohrbacher would have been alright.
Bolton is a super neocon and especially would have made me throw up in my mouth a little, and I would find myself questioning why I wanted Trump to win in the first place if Bolton had got the job. He's apparently likely to land the deputy job, but that's nowhere near as bad as actual Secretary.
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
That criticism doesn't work for us non-believers.
No devil.
No angels.
And I don't care who's a Xian & who isn't.