Jump to content
Science Forums

Tillerson


Deepwater6
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/donald-trump-rex-tillerson-north-korea/index.html

 

Does anyone know what SS Tillerson's political aspirations are? I've read many similar stories concerning him and Trump and the differing approaches to foreign policy they have. Even if Trump was to get rid of Tillerson for going rogue against him, he will still have imprinted on the GOP what appears to be a more moderate if not traditional approach to the office. 

 

Do you think the republican party would be interested in him as a candidate for the next election?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tillerson's only really expressed two policies: 1) Get the sanctions lifted on Russia so his trillion dollar deal for Russian oil with Exxon goes through, and 2) Keep a lid on Trump's seeming propensity to raise his middle finger to our allies who all think he's a "moron." Tillerson apparently agrees with them.

 

No wealthy capitalist likes war. It's messy and can result in nationalization of your assets. Sure there are a few war profiteers, but that's a niche market. As a result, Tillerson, in spite of doing horrendous damage to the State Department because he's not used to having a large, distributed knowledge and policy-making base (something that you don't need even in a gigantic oil company where decision-making is highly concentrated and focused almost exclusively on maximizing profitability), is really only slightly to the right of say, John Kerry.

 

Because of the fact that he's not really a dyed-in-the-wool neo-con, and nobody in the Republican party really likes him (and thus, no one is thinking about him as a potential presidential candidate, and his tenure at SoS has basically proven he cant run even a single government department), it's unlikely he'll have any lasting effect on Republican foreign policy thinking.

 

 

I think that one of our most important tasks is to convince others that there's nothing to fear in difference; that difference, in fact, is one of the healthiest and most invigorating of human characteristics without which life would become meaningless, :phones:

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm by no means a proponent of Tillerson making a run. I just have the sense that the GOP would embrace someone who is more moderate on policy. As you said Trump's F/U to our allies and talk of imminent nuclear war with NK to name a few, is ugly and embarrassing to the US. That would leave Tillerson to emerge as a familiar face to the voters. I agree that he has an obvious mission to close enormous business deals, but I wonder about his aspirations. People that have made it to the top of large corporations are usually very driven and sometimes prone to seek more and more power. That's how they were propelled to such a high level status in some companies. Also with his background and his powerful friendships with many wealthy friends I don't think he would run short on campaign funds.

 

I'm not a republican and trying to look at this through unbiased eyes he seems to present a more traditional politician and someone with much more presidential like mannerisms than his boss. I struggle to find any bright spot in this entire administration. Of course the latest evidence of that was the fuster cluck of Trumps nominee for a judge position. Most amusing about that, it was a republicans line of questioning that really made the nominee look like a fool. Very scary to think about the people running this country.

 

So if the party is not keen on Tillerson who do you think would be a viable candidate next time around? Or do you think the GOP will be forced to endorse Donald for a second term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm by no means a proponent of Tillerson making a run. I just have the sense that the GOP would embrace someone who is more moderate on policy. As you said Trump's F/U to our allies and talk of imminent nuclear war with NK to name a few, is ugly and embarrassing to the US. That would leave Tillerson to emerge as a familiar face to the voters. I agree that he has an obvious mission to close enormous business deals, but I wonder about his aspirations. People that have made it to the top of large corporations are usually very driven and sometimes prone to seek more and more power. That's how they were propelled to such a high level status in some companies. Also with his background and his powerful friendships with many wealthy friends I don't think he would run short on campaign funds.

 

I'm not a republican and trying to look at this through unbiased eyes he seems to present a more traditional politician and someone with much more presidential like mannerisms than his boss. I struggle to find any bright spot in this entire administration. Of course the latest evidence of that was the fuster cluck of Trumps nominee for a judge position. Most amusing about that, it was a republicans line of questioning that really made the nominee look like a fool. Very scary to think about the people running this country.

 

So if the party is not keen on Tillerson who do you think would be a viable candidate next time around? Or do you think the GOP will be forced to endorse Donald for a second term?

Tillerson is clearly not a dummy: running Exxon is about as serious as business can get. But often one finds businessmen don't make great politicians. Too used to getting their own way within the organisation they command - esp. in the US, where, as I know from personal experience, senior managers are a lot more dictatorial than they are in Europe. And in some ways the goal is simpler (shareholder return, basically) than in politics.  I think the GOP could do worse than a man like Tillerson as a candidate, but I"m not sure he'd be right. Also I doubt he wants it. I suspect his comments about wanting to spend time with his grandchildren on his ranch in Texas are the simple truth.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely used to getting their own way. I've had numerous arguments with the senior executives that surround my companies CEO. I think it goes beyond the usual "yes-men" and or "*** kissers." For a CEO to effectively do his job he must have a true sense of what's really going on within the company.

 

I've witnessed first hand how the CEO is treated at meetings and other company functions. My ***** has always been the lack of an honest assessments given to him by his underlings. It seems no one wants to be associated with bad news and they refuse to give him negative information on the real state of the company. They fear it will hinder their efforts to climb the ladder. As a result the CEO gets inundated with positive news and only positive news. He effectively lives in a cocoon thinking everything is running fine within the company.

 

My argument with the upper executives is, how can you expect the CEO to run the company effectively if he never hears the problems? He can't fix what he doesn't know is wrong. I suspect something similar goes on/ went on with Tillerson and many other high powered executives. The difference now is that his actions are critiqued by the media, and the media asks questions about these problems so he's forced to address them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...