Little Marco Caves (Again)
So Little Marco caved on Rex Tillerson.
Like Yakov Smirnov used to say about Bayst Waystern, he had reservations but he went anyway.
Something about not wanting to create “unwarranted political controversy.” Huh?
I predicted Little Marco would vote no. I watched Little Marco’s extensive questioning of Tillerson — questioning that actually seemed to create some “political controversy” as I recall, but I guess he thought it was “warranted” — and I thought: wow, it seems like these principles of freedom and support for dissidents really move Little Marco at his core. (Look at me! I still thought he had a “core”!)
And somehow, even though Little Marco said Donald Trump might lead us to a nuclear holocaust, and then later followed around Trump like a puppy dog, the questioning of Tillerson had me thinking he was going to vote on principle. So I predicted he would. I’ll admit: I also wanted to be the only guy on the planet who predicted it, because, you know, literally nobody else did.
But especially after Corker said Tillerson was moving to the floor no matter what, it seemed like a signal that Rubio was going to vote no. It was a free vote of conscience: everyone would know it’s meaningless, so why not?
I said I’d stop calling him “Little Marco” if he actually voted no. In the end, he remained (and remains) Little Marco to me, forevermore.
I did hedge my bets though. I compared myself to Charlie Brown kicking the football. And I watched and read those cartoons, same as you did. If you’re old I mean. I saw what happened in those cartoons.
Ah, well. Rex Tillerson’s not so bad. The only problem with him, really, is that he’s buddies with a ruthless, murderous, totalitarian dictator. And who among us can truly say they aren’t? I ask you.
Plus, Rex likes that oil. And Putin’s got a lot of that.
[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]
Ding.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/24/2017 @ 7:33 amOverlooking the fact that Mr. Tillerson is an excellent choice, how can slicked-up panting overexcited lil roob roob NOT vote for Mr. Rex after he voted for John freaking Kerry
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/24/2017 @ 7:59 amTilletson leans one way but pompeo and mattis, another, and general Lynn and mcfarland have shown they will react strongly when warranted.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/24/2017 @ 7:59 amTilletson promised to reverse the eo’s on Cuba.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:08 amRex likes that oil.
but does he like rubbing it all over himself and doing a happy dance like lil roob roob
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:14 amNo chance at all that he voted the way he felt?
He had to have caved and voted against conscience?
“Buddies” with Vlad eh?
And who’s Tilletson?
harkin (afc7a6) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:16 amDoes publicly referring to Senator Rubio as “Little Marco” comport with the new civility?
And is he even “little”?
He’s about 5’10” and is the only candidate from this past election who actually played some college football.
I don’t have time to research the precise Senate nominating rules, but I’m under the impression that if Senator Rubio were to vote “NO,” then Tillerson’s nomination wouldn’t have the requisite votes to get out of Committee and onto the floor for a full vote.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:19 amMy understanding of the process is that at this juncture, Senator Rubio is voting to bring a vote to the Senate floor.
I,m more concerned about Marco’s reticence re Obama’s denial of wet foot/dry foot.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:24 amGreetings:
Porque no Marchito ??? No habla eSpañol ???
11B40 (6abb5c) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:25 amOverlooking the fact that Mr. Tillerson is an excellent choice, how can slicked-up panting overexcited lil roob roob NOT vote for Mr. Rex after he voted for John freaking Kerry
I think in the end that was the major point for Rubio. If he wants a future run at the Presidency, how does he explain to GOP voters that he voted to confirm John Kerry as Secretary of State but against confirming Rex Tillerson?
JVW (6e49ce) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:30 amHow could Rubio not recommend Tillerson, a man who’s worth any number of Trumps, when he endorsed Trump, a man worth maybe half a Woody Allen?
nk (dbc370) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:33 amMy understanding of the process is that at this juncture, Senator Rubio is voting to bring a vote to the Senate floor.
Mitch McConnell can bring the vote to the entire Senate even if it fails in committee, so it’s not as if Rubio would have been sinking the nomination. In fact, I think McConnell had announced that he would do just that.
I always though that Rubio’s quest against Tillerson was kind of Quixotic unless he actually tried to convince some other GOP Senators like Collins or Alexander to vote with him and ensure there would be 51 votes against confirming.
JVW (6e49ce) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:33 amAnd that’s what this first committee vote is, CS. A recommendation. Whether the nomination will go to the floor is a separate vote. (Or the chairman’s prerogative?)
nk (dbc370) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:36 amFast-fingered JVW beat me.
nk (dbc370) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:37 amOTOH, Ajit Pai as FCC Commissioner should thrill Patterico.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/01/23/new-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-no-net-neutrality-fan/96967372/
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:54 amTillerson is competent. Big change from the last 8 years.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:55 amI always though that Rubio’s quest against Tillerson was kind of Quixotic
And quixotic quests in the face of a President who notices slights might not be the best long-term strategy.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:57 amNice to know that within days of ushering in a new civility, Patterico commits to name-calling someone he disagrees with for the rest of his life.
Harkin (fabf46) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:05 amNot reinstating wet/foot dry foot is the moral salve needed to move forward with mass deportation. Its like Alabama police beating an East Indian grandfather and detaining a German-German Mercedez Benz executive for driving without a license.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:10 amI don’t much care for Rubio either, but is it really fair to single him out for merely joining the ranks of McCain, Graham and so many other spineless, two-faced Republicans? The only difference is that, at one time, I thought Rubio was a man of substance. I was wrong; I misread the man. He’s just like the rest of them.
The business of America is business or, at least, it once was. Tillerson moves us back in that direction. I’m all for him.
ThOR (c9324e) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:33 amI never had any illusions about Rubio. He’s like every Illinois politician I know. In many ways, like Obama too.
nk (dbc370) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:38 amI’m drafting a complaint right now asking the International Criminal Court to posthumously prosecute Roosevelt and Churchill for their complicity with Stalin.
Shipwreckedcrew (b867aa) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:39 amThere is a remarkable commonality to politicians of all stripes, the absence of core principles being a particularly prominent feature.
Put another way, their sole core principle is I, me, mine (Thank you Lord Food Stamp!).
ThOR (c9324e) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:54 amI caught a piece of an interview on the Hugh Hewitt show where the person he was interviewing said something along the lines of “Rubio asked the right question, and Tillerson gave the right answer.”
Apparently, diplomacy is a field taught by Arthur Murray and Tolkien’s elves.
Karl Lembke (e37f42) — 1/24/2017 @ 10:12 amI would like to think that Sen. Rubio voted in favor of Rex Tillerson because he decided, after consideration of Mr. Tillerson’s testimony and other materials, the man is qualified for the job. However one feels about the President, Cabinet appointees ought to be given consideration based on their own merits. Mr. Tillerson appears to be fully qualified.
I haven’t seen any evidence (yet) that he will be a stooge for Putin, or for that matter, a cowardly lackey for Trump, or that he will be co-opted by the deep state/State Department bureaucracy.
His business experience is a positive. He apparently did an effective job at the subtle game of working with various world leaders to get good results for his company. He did what ExxonMobil’s shareholders needed him to do. With his background/experience, he has the capacity to do a good job as SecState and the capacity to stand up for what’s right (and he acutely understands the conflicts of interest Trump has). I don’t know that he will do what’s right, but I’m sure that he can. That’s about as much as we can say about any potential SecState.
Who would you pick for SecState? Who is it that Trump overlooked for the position, who is obviously so much better than Mr. Tillerson, that the choice illustrates Trump’s badness? I like Mitt Romney for that position, but I can’t say that he obviously outshines Mr. Tillerson.
Daryl Herbert (7be116) — 1/24/2017 @ 10:14 amGive him a break.
He only does what McCain tells him to do.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 1/24/2017 @ 10:40 amsomebody needs to talk to him about his attitude problem
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/24/2017 @ 10:47 amTillerson worked his deal to drill in the Russian arctic at the same time the Obama administration was jerking Shell around in the Alaskan arctic. There is no way Exxon Mobil was going to take a shot in the US arctic.
Shell’s lease was about to expire, and if did because of US delaying tactics, Shell could possibly have financial recourse for the $6 billion it had spent. So Obama allowed drilling, but shortened the season by a month to November 1. The arctic ice doesn’t clear until mid July and it takes about a month to move the rig from Seattle and position it. In the short time they had they did 3 test wells with meager results and then gave up.
Tellerson’s relations with Putin may not be as good a as people think. After sanctions were placed on Russia in 2014, Exxon was not able to operate the rig. But they couldn’t remove it because Putin said he would seize it. So the leased rig just sits there costing Exxon mucho bucks.
Corky Boyd (d7b434) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:10 amCorky Boyd (d7b434) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:10 am
What he’s guilty of is flattering Putin, by implication if not verbally.
He’s probably well aware of the Magnitsky affair.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20626960
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky
Magnitsky wasn’t even the first victim. He was a lawyer hired by the person from whom the government of Vladimir Putin had stolen his company from.
Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:23 amthis is so delicious
i love america!
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:24 amFusion gps was working against the magnitsky act.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:35 am31. Now who was paying them to do that?
So now we have: Fusion GPS is pro-Putin, but it is anti-Trump, and probably more simply pro-Hillary.
Does this make sense? I think it it does, according to my understanding.
You have to remember the Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, and Putin’s hostility to Hillary Clinton dates from 2014 and the MAiden Revolution in Ukraine – not 2011 like they are trying to convinnce people. If you say 2011 you have a problem – more than one problem. The uranium deal also took place later.
In 2012 there was no inconsitency between supporting Putin and supporting Hillary.
Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:41 amMaybe the CDC lknew ths had nothing much to do with protecting anybody’s health.
Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:43 amThey are pirates, sammeh they’ll work for anyone who will pay them, primarily the dnc and Russian oligarchd
narciso (d1f714) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:51 am‘Little Marco’ did what his donors told him to do.
He has the courage of their convictions.
“Rick, I hope you’re more impressed with me, now. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ll share my luck with your roulette wheel.” – Ugarte [Peter Lorre] ‘Casablanca’ 1942
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:57 amThis is a twofer. Marco confirms that (regarding amnesty) siding with Schumer was his true position, not just a spasm of bad judgement.
Also it’s Pat adopting President Trump’s nicknaming convention.
There’s a whole lot of win in this post.
I’m not even close to tired of it yet.
papertiger (c8116c) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:57 amTrue position should read true character.
Most likely Rubio doesn’t have positions as we think of them.
papertiger (c8116c) — 1/24/2017 @ 12:03 pmMarco admitted it when late in Obama’s first term or early in his second, OMFG! you can’t trust Obama!
Who knew?
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 1/24/2017 @ 12:05 pmAh, well. Rex Tillerson’s not so bad. The only problem with him, really, is that he’s buddies with a ruthless, murderous, totalitarian dictator. And who among us can truly say they aren’t? I ask you.
And I tell you, from personal experience, that petroleum executives at Tillerson’s level are cautiously conservative. And highly pragmatic.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 12:34 pm@Patterico: The only problem with him, really, is that he’s buddies with a ruthless, murderous, totalitarian dictator. And who among us can truly say they aren’t? I ask you.
Plus, Rex likes that oil. And Putin’s got a lot of that.
I think this criticism is akin to criticizing a defense attorney for representing a murderer, sex offender or any other criminal. There are unethical ways to zealously represent a client, true, but the case must be made by much more evidence than the fact of representation.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/24/2017 @ 2:14 pmNot exactly, when your president acts by diktat to close off oil exploration in the primary areas you have to find your opportunities somewhere else.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/24/2017 @ 2:40 pmWHOOOP WHOOOP WHOOOP — FLASHING RED LIGHTS:
OT: Stuart Taylor Jr., exceptionally well regarded investigative journalist/lawyer, along with co-author KC Johnson, have dropped initial excerpts from their new book “The Campus Rape Frenzy.”
The thesis of the book is:
Gonna need to buy more popcorn.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/24/2017 @ 3:09 pm“I predicted Little Marco would vote no.”
The rest of us predicted that in the end, Little Marco would do whatever
Tom Servo (ceddb8) — 1/24/2017 @ 3:51 pmBig John and Ms. Lindsey told him to do. Once they both said they were
behind Tillerson, his opposition was over.
“Most likely Rubio doesn’t have positions as we think of them.”
Oh I think he has some positions he’s gotten real good at, especially
Tom Servo (ceddb8) — 1/24/2017 @ 3:53 pmwhenever he’s with Big John and Ms. Lindsey.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:51 am
But they can’t really take clients – or work for them anyway – whose goals are opposed to each other. (if the clients know)
Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/24/2017 @ 4:01 pm“I think this criticism is akin to criticizing a defense attorney for representing a murderer, sex offender or any other criminal. There are unethical ways to zealously represent a client, true, but the case must be made by much more evidence than the fact of representation.”
He didn’t even “represent” Putin. He dealt with the leaders of a country to do business in that country. I have not heard anything about Tillerson enabling Putin or anyone in Russia to do anything unlawful or evil.
Harkin (fabf46) — 1/24/2017 @ 4:03 pmRussia’s gangster government is financed with petro-dollars and petro-euros. It’s the same as if Exxon-Mobil were drilling in Iran.
nk (dbc370) — 1/24/2017 @ 4:18 pmOn the other hand, China’s military is financed with every Mattel toy I buy at Toys ‘R Us so ….
nk (dbc370) — 1/24/2017 @ 4:19 pmRosneft doesn’t have large exposure in Iran or Syria, however the oligarchs ate like fmr govt department, backed up by battalions by special forces.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/24/2017 @ 4:32 pmFirst this young, conservative ideologue was elected, said he hated his job, hardly showed up for work, cratered a presidential run trying to out-Trump, Trump and insisted he’d not run for his Senate seat again. Then he did. And Floridians re-upped him. Fools. Now he does a ‘redline in the sand’ thingy, showboats and sinks.
‘Little Marco’ has certainly made his mark in the book of American political life: a colon.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 5:11 pmThey have proferred another squirrel, from that bag of tricks, a Russian translator serge Milian.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/24/2017 @ 5:16 pm@nk: Well, since you responded to yourself already, I hate to pile on…
As you acknowledged, though, an international corporation has to deal with governments, good and bad, corrupt and honest, democratic or tyrannical. It can do so, of course, ethically or unethically, but merely being in the market requires that people like Tillerson not throw drinks in Putin’s face on state occasions no matter how he feels privately, just like a diplomat has to.
And while Iran is SO bad it was, until recently, illegal to buy their oil, the same is not true for Russia, or at least that was the view of our governments. Even in the Soviet times we still bought from and sold to them.
And how would Patterico’s characterization of Tillerson not go double for George W. Bush? If Tillerson hosted Vladimir Putin in his own home I have not heard of it. And of course Bush, having been in the oil business, loved him some oil and Putin had plenty of it.
I mean, this is how Michael Moore and Code Pink talked about Bush and Cheney….
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 5:47 pmbush had weirdo daddy issues
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/24/2017 @ 5:48 pmWho wants to tell him?
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/24/2017 @ 5:50 pmI try not to explain things more than once.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/24/2017 @ 5:53 pmAnyway, I don’t have any power to read Tillerson’s mind or his heart–unlike Bush claimed he had with Putin when Putin visited him in his private residence–but I just have not seen the evidence.
The evidence I’ve seen indicates that part of Tillerson’s job was to deal with foreign governments and represent to them the interests of Exxon’s shareholders. And if that’s a disqualification for public office, then very few businessmen in multinationals will ever be qualified.
National office should be left to the professionals I suppose–and the lawyers, who feel that their job to represent their clients should not be assumed to reflect their inner character any more than a diplomat’s job, or an actor’s, does.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 5:53 pmThen you’ve not been reading my posts, Cruz Supporter, because Corker already announced that’s not the case here, and I blogged about that before (and mentioned it in this post too).
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/24/2017 @ 5:55 pm@Patterico:Who wants to tell him?
You can tell me too. I’ve been asking you to.
What evidence have you that Tillerson is “buddies” with Putin–and why that evidence would not also convict George W. Bush of the same thing?
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 5:55 pmAnd if that’s a disqualification for public office, then very few businessmen in multinationals will ever be qualified.
I have very strong reservations about multinationals and to whom they owe their loyalty, and that is really the source of my skepticism about Tillerson who in every other respect is a person of enviable qualities.
nk (dbc370) — 1/24/2017 @ 5:56 pmas long as it’s not that creepy fascist Pepsi ceo chick i think we good
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:00 pm@nk:I have very strong reservations about multinationals and to whom they owe their loyalty, and that is really the source of my skepticism about Tillerson who in every other respect is a person of enviable qualities.
I would say their loyalty is to their shareholders and customers. But surely when a person leaves a career and does something else they are not assumed to still remain personally loyal to their former business, are they?
Because, then, what about lawyers? Most people holding office at the national level are lawyers.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:03 pmtwittertrash at failmerica’s fascist veteran-hating National Park Service want you know that there are many, many carbon dioxides
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:06 pmVlad and Friend of Russia Award Winner Rex Tillerson in a tree…
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:09 pm@Harkin:He didn’t even “represent” Putin.
I didn’t intend that. He represented Exxon, its shareholders and customers, of course, to Putin.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:11 pmIf you want to do business with Russia, especially in oil, you have to be close to Vladmir Putin. There is a reason Tillerson won a Friend of Russia award. To win that, you have to be on good terms with Putin. If you don’t understand that, then let me suggest Kasparov’s book to you.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:12 pmTillerson is smart to not go into his first meeting as Sec State with Putin dragging the ball and chain of having just called him a war criminal in a Senate hearing. Not very diplomatic.
Stupid would be more like it.
I remember Cruz was a big favorite here and he caddied, carried water etc for TX guy Tillerson throughout the hearings. To me, Cruz seems smaller than Rubio, but is he also now known around here as Short Lying Ted?
steveg (5508fb) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:12 pm@Patterico: Yes, I can see Tillerson is not scowling or spitting in Putin’s face.
And Bush looks awful friendly with Putin here, so do you have something where Tillerson is not acting in his professional capacity?
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:13 pm@Patterico: To win that, you have to be on good terms with Putin.
In what morally culpable way, that wouldn’t apply to George W. Bush?
If you don’t understand that, then let me suggest Kasparov’s book to you.
Yes, I know about Putin and his government. Wouldn’t any multinational dealing with Russia have the same problem? If it’s so awful why does our government permit any trade with Russia at all–or with the Soviet Union, which they did of course.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:15 pm@Patterico: Isn’t every multinational that deals with Russia, or China, just as bad? Is every CEO irredeemably tainted? II am asking you, not assuming that you hold this view, but asking if it is your view and if not, what is so different between Putin’s government and China’s that makes the difference?
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:18 pmBaker and kissinger recommending him write reasons for concern.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:31 pmThe assumption seems to be I don’t think Bush was way too friendly to Putin.
Had you asked, I could have told you I think he was.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:34 pm@Patterico:Had you asked, I could have told you I think he was.
Okay. So would you agree with this statement:
“George Bush’s not so bad. The only problem with him, really, is that he’s buddies with a ruthless, murderous, totalitarian dictator. And who among us can truly say they aren’t? I ask you.
Plus, George likes that oil. And Putin’s got a lot of that.”
If you wouldn’t agree with that, why not, and how is it different Tillerson?
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:37 pm@Patterico: And of course whatever you thought of Bush, that doesn’t answer my questions about China vs Russia, or is every CEO tainted by working for multinationals that trade with these governments. Which is fine, you know, one thing at a time. I’m trying to understand the principle behind it.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:40 pmThe recognition was to- and for- Exxon. And both men know it.
The ‘Corporate Cosmology of Arthur Jensen’ is alive and well.
“You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today!…
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies… The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business… It has been since man crawled out of the slime.”
Arthur Jensen [Ned Beatty] ‘Network’ 1976
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:41 pmBecause, then, what about lawyers? Most people holding office at the national level are lawyers.
The rules about lawyers’ conflicts of interest or breach of the duty to exercise independent judgment on behalf of each client, and the potential discipline and/or money damages for their violation, would curl your hair.
nk (dbc370) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:42 pmNo.
I don’t have time to list all the reasons that analogy does not work, but see if you can guess what I would say if I did.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:48 pmIt’s so terrible doing oil deals w/t Ruskies. Guess we shudda stuck to doin’ wheat deals instead.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:50 pmWell Bp’s tony Hayward was frustrated enough with no knowing politics, he pregetted to take his chances with tank.Strikingly the Russians were not impressed and turned him down.
narciso (d1f714) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:54 pmAlso Tillerson is wishy washy on global warming, hoping to leverage the bogus into a prohibitive entry fee the way other countries use government owned oil companies.
With you Pat. Hope Rex gets Borked.
Borkasaurus Rex.
papertiger (c8116c) — 1/24/2017 @ 6:59 pm@77. Petroleum is ubiquitous, once its flowing into the marketplace. Much of these ‘deals’ has little to do w/t product itself but assembling the infrastructure to access, refine and transport it. And, unbeknownst to most people, the maintenance of same. The stuff grows old and wears out faster than you’d think.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 7:00 pmThen he did. And Floridians re-upped him.
Kishnevi (5cc98a) — 1/24/2017 @ 7:06 pmGiven the choices running against him, especially the one proffered by the Democrats, Rubio was the clearly superior choice. This is the state, after all, which produced Augustus Sol Invictus.
“With you Pat. Hope Rex gets Borked”
Ted Kennedy is smiling somewhere.
Harkin (eda32e) — 1/24/2017 @ 7:07 pmWith President Trump the chances of new refineries being built has increased. Better odds than with any other President we’ve had since the 70’s, including the oil soaked Bush dynasty.
papertiger (c8116c) — 1/24/2017 @ 7:10 pmGiven the choices running against him, especially the one proffered by the Democrats, Rubio was the clearly superior choice.
Now why does that have such a familiar ring to it?!
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 7:14 pm@82. Depends on where. Been that way in America for decades. A new and odorous refinery down the street is likely not going to enhance your property values as well as a neatly manicured Trump golf/hotel resort.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 7:29 pm@Patterico:see if you can guess what I would say if I did.
My track record on this is not very good.
Anyway, if you have evidence that Tillerson did something morally reprehensible, or if you think any possible CEO of Exxon who did business with Russia would have been equally reprehensible merely for having done so, I’d be delighted to hear that.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 7:35 pm@nk:The rules about lawyers’ conflicts of interest or breach of the duty to exercise independent judgment on behalf of each client, and the potential discipline and/or money damages for their violation, would curl your hair.
I’m sure they would. And yet some of them manage to stray here and there.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 7:36 pmYeah, those are not the only possible criteria. If you want to try harder to understand what my real objection might be and phrase it in a way that doesn’t make it sound stupid, I’ll discuss it.
Otherwise, I’m not interested.
Patterico (6879ca) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:01 pm@Patterico:If you want to try harder to understand what my real objection might be
I have been asking you about it, asking you what makes his case different from others similarly situated.
So, again, since I clearly don’t understand it, and asked some questions indicating some of what I don’t understand, and inviting you to explain, I guess I don’t know what else to do. I don’t think my guessing at what you think, after saying I don’t understand, is going to lead to anything productive.
I checked over the other site, to see if you’d said anything there, and saw that quite a few of the commenters you like and respect are pro-Tillerson, and you hadn’t said anything there.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:32 pm“If you want to try harder to understand what my real objection might be and phrase it in a way that doesn’t make it sound stupid, I’ll discuss it.”
They had their picture taken together so they both support ruthless, murderous, totalitarian regimes?
Nevermind, that sounds incredibly stupid.
harkin (afc7a6) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:32 pm@88. You’re a pragmatist, GH.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:46 pm@DCSCA:You’re a pragmatist, GH.
No sir. I am quite the ideologue. There’s just not a lot of people sharing my ideology.
Most of the things I believe in are things that most people in this country reject, though they might pay lip service to a few of them. And because of that, all I can ever expect to see out of elections is nudges in directions I generally approve of, and every choice available to me involves a compromise with one of my principles, it’s just a question of which one.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:50 pm@91. Then your POV view has to reject Tillerson. He’s a pragmatist.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:53 pm@DCSCA:Then your POV view has to reject Tillerson.
There is almost no one I could support for any public office, if I went that far. A pragmatist might want to do some of the things I think ought to be done. He’d be more likely to listen to an ideologue like me than a different of ideologue might be.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:54 pm@91. GH, if your ‘ideology’ is malleable, that is to say, subject to interpretation and adaptation on an issue by issue, individual by individual basis, then you’re being pragmatic.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 8:56 pm@DCSCA: The ideologues, if they have sense, try to work with the pragmatists to get half a loaf, or a quarter. That is, if they ever want to see any of their ideas in practice they do.
I’d like to introduce you to George Savile, if you don’t know him. His nickname was “Trimmer” and it was a word of warm praise, not abuse, which is difficult for an American to understand, since we are an ideological people.
I could get a man like George Savile to listen to me about free trade, or abolishing public schools and prisons, or any of the other bees in my bonnet. He’d listen politely, wonder to himself that such lunatics are allowed out of Bedlam, and if he saw any advantage to himself or his career or his party in anything I’d said, he’d do a hundred thousand times more to advance it than anything I could do.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:01 pm@DCSCA: your ‘ideology’ is malleable
It’s not. But I have to act in the real world, with society as I find it. I act as consistently as I can and try to get a net motion in roughly the right direction. If I were less out of step with society I could get more done with fewer compromises.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:03 pm@93. GH, voting for the lesser of two evils– say, a crumbbum like Trump over the alternative, a stale loaf of 1975 New York rye like Hillary– is being pragmatic. Devout ideologues would likely not do that. And if you have read the commentary here for the past few months, most of them didn’t.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:05 pm@DCSCA:Devout ideologues would likely not do that.
Sorry I’m not living down to your True Scots Ideologue. I think we’re arguing about labels now.
I would say a pragmatist is someone not bothered by consistency. He wants to see things done, and the things he wants to see done do not form a unified system of beliefs. “Don’t let the government take away my Medicare” types. Ideologues are consistent in what they think should happen. But both live in the world as they find it, and some are willing to compromise and some not, and that cuts across idealogue/pragmatist lines.
My vote was #NeverHillary. Any of the evils presented in that race was lesser than her. There was no alternative open to me that was worse. I waited as long as I could to find the non-Hillary candidate most likely to receive some of my state’s electoral college votes–and that did end up happening but they didn’t go to anyone on the ballot.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:12 pm@95. The ideologues, if they have sense, try to work with the pragmatists to get half a loaf, or a quarter.
Which makes them pragmatic.
@96- You may believe your ideology is not ‘maleable’ –perhaps that’s too ‘visual a term’ but it is… well… plyable. Pragmatic. How you describe yourself and your approach- seeking consensus- indicates it is– at least to me. Not that there’s anything wrong with it. It’s pragmatism. But the point is, devout ideologues would not even go that far. Your POV sounds Buckley-esque– at least to me.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:12 pm@DCSCA: We cross-posted. We’re arguing about definitions, which is boring. You may say my behavior makes me a pragmatist, or you may say it makes me Queen of Roumania, but it’s just a label.
I say that not to be a jerk, just saying that we’d need to have common terms to sort that out and we don’t. But you understand me perfectly well, I think, whatever you choose to call that.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:15 pm“GH, voting for the lesser of two evils– say, a crumbbum like Trump over the alternative, a stale loaf of 1975 New York rye like Hillary– is being pragmatic. Devout ideologues would likely not do that. And if you have read the commentary here for the past few months, most of them didn’t.”
I have not voted for a presidential nominee from either of the two major parties since Ronald Reagan. I never considered this was because I was a devout ideologue, but simply because I refuse to vote for someone I deem unfit for office., meaning a person must rise to a standard before I endorse him/her. I just call this being reasonably picky.
harkin (afc7a6) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:16 pm@100- No, not definitions, but actions. And in modern life, the pragmatist and the ideologue are defined by degree and by action. I’ll respect your POV that you’re an ideologue. But in my eyes, you’re suggesting pragmatist which to a devoted ideologue is taboo. And it’s only IMHO, but I suspect Patterico’s avoidance to engage w/you over Tillerson may have root in that. T-Rex is a pragmatic business man who, as CEO of Exxon Mobil, accepted a ‘Friend of Putin’ award. Remember your Godfather. It’s no personal. It’s business. But to an ideologue, abandoning principle to the pragmatism of doing business with a bad guy is reprehensible.
To a pragmatist, it’s not personal… it’s business– or in this case global commerce benefiting the stockholders and customers of Exxon-Mobil. So what do you do, stop buying gas at Exxon and Mobil stations (most of which are not company owned anyway)… That would be an ideologues pleasure but not very pragmatic id you’re riding on E.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:27 pm@100. There’s always an outlier or two.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:29 pm@DCSCA:T-Rex is a pragmatic business man who, as CEO of Exxon Mobil, accepted a ‘Friend of Putin’ award.
Funny you mentioned that. I looked up that award. Some other people who got it:
Archbishop of Canterbury (Williams)
Governor General of Canada (Clarkson)
Prime Minister of Canada (Chretien)
Lee Kuan Yew
Prince Michael of Kent (the Queen’s cousin)
and figure skaters, pianists, architects, gymnasts, businessmen…
and while none of these people are saints of course, I find it hard to believe they are all morally culpable for having accepted the award or that it makes them “buddies” with Putin.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:38 pmOops. 103 meant for Harkin/101. 60+ million went for the two major candidates and there was cross over. Picky is fine bit those pillions not only picked but chose, many holding their noses.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:40 pm@104- Steven Seagal is his pal, now, too. We must start a bonfire and torch all is films, tapes and DVDs. 😉
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:45 pmGabriel Hanna 104.
“……….and figure skaters, pianists, architects, gymnasts, businessmen…
and while none of these people are saints of course, I find it hard to believe they are all morally culpable for having accepted the award or that it makes them “buddies” with Putin.”
Bravo – well said.
The derangement is truly astonishing.
Harkin (eda32e) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:49 pm@DCSCA:Steven Seagal is his pal, now, too.
I lost respect for him long before, when he ditched Zen Buddhism for Tibetan and started keeping pet lamas when everyone else in Hollywood did. But the Dalai Lama recognized him as a reincarnation of something or other, which I then didn’t expect. Well, maybe he saw something I didn’t, but let me tell you I have some doubts about the Dalai Lama now too.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:50 pm@107/104. The derangement is truly astonishing.
Not to an ideologue deeply devoted to principle. And that’s the transition, at least to me, that’s going on now. Like a fever breaking.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 9:54 pmFaulty line of reasoning.
The standard here isn’t “Exxon CEO” or “athlete”. It’s Secretary of State. We need someone who is not conflicted about which nation comes first. And I think anyone who is friends with a murdering dictator, getting high awards as part of his way of getting insider deals, can be questioned on that issue. Skepticism of those in high places of power is a great and healthy thing.
The absolute lowest, weakest standard a partisan can apply is ‘but but but he’s better than the democrat’s boogeyman in that position’. Yes, I know Rex is a lot better than John Kerry and apparently Marco realizes it too.
But Russia’s government is not our friend. It is close to the opposite of our friend. Particularly if you are better than a mere patriot and care about the principles of our founding, which I do.
I’m sure Rex is very skilled at the opposite of ‘Draining the Swamp’, and this skill implies a cunning and connection that could be useful on the world stage in the short term. And that is better than John Kerry. But I am concerned that China and Russia both are well poised to take advantage of the mistakes America will be making over the next few years.
There’s nothing wrong with holding their feet to the fire. If by some miracle Trump’s administration is effective, it’s going to be because of politics, not skill or morality. It’s going to be because of the pressure the good guys place on the administration. That’s going to take a hell of a lot of nerve for the GOP congressmen. Marco found the occasion and did not rise to it.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/24/2017 @ 10:04 pmWe need someone who is not conflicted about which nation comes first.
See #73. You best bone up on your Arthur Jensen, “Mr. Beale.”
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/24/2017 @ 10:17 pm#106
I’m in.
steveg (5508fb) — 1/24/2017 @ 10:22 pmI’d put it this way.
An award accepted by a CEO of ExxonMobil is different than that same award accepted as Sec State. A friend in a business context may not be a friend in a political context.
Saying this regarding Tillerson requires a giant leap: “We need someone who is not conflicted about which nation comes first.” because we do know that Tillerson didn’t sell out ExxonMobil interests to BP just because some KGB guy dished him some hardware and you could make a good case that what came first to Tillerson then was his loyalty to his company. Not to Putin. I highly doubt that Tillerson is more loyal to Putin than to the US and its interests and allies.
steveg (5508fb) — 1/24/2017 @ 10:51 pm@Dustin: We need someone who is not conflicted about which nation comes first
Evidence, please. Is everyone working for a multinational so conflicted? If not why not?
think anyone who is friends with a murdering dictator
Evidence, please. How do you know he is a “friend” of Putin? And if he is, is George W. Bush exempt from that criticism and if so why?
getting high awards as part of his way of getting insider deals
Evidence please. What insider deal did the Archbishop of Canterbury get? Should Canadians consider their Governor General and Prime Minister tainted as crooked, or presumed to have divided loyalties too?
But Russia’s government is not our friend. It is close to the opposite of our friend.
True, though it is not powerful enough to be a rival. But once a nation gets above a certainl level of power, it has to be treated with politeness, and sometimes we have to pretend it is respectable. What did Tillerson do that went beyond this? No one can tell me when I ask. I just keep hearing about this award, and that he was the CEO of Exxon and Exxon has business in Russia.
Particularly if you are better than a mere patriot and care about the principles of our founding, which I do.
Interesting. Then I’m sure you recognize this:
“America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.”
It’s going to be because of the pressure the good guys place on the administration.
I agree, but that pressure needs to be in response to stuff that is not ginned up out of animus, or it doesn’t work. I’m really not seeing a case being made to convict Tillerson, even when I ask directly.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:04 pmAlso I was watching Itzhak Perlman at Disney Hall.
Also I am tried of people trying to make my position look stupid rather than understand it. I think the existence of the other board has made that clearer to me. It’s a waste of time talking to people not actually trying to understand your position, and that’s most people.
Anyone who has read my posts on Tillerson who was arguing in good faith could easily articulate a conception of my position eith which I would agree. But it would be a harder position to ridicule and where is the fun in that because Internet.
Patterico (6879ca) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:05 pmThat’s so obvious that someone actually trying to understand rather than score points would see it immediately, among many other obvious points.
Patterico (6879ca) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:07 pmAn interesting account of the Bushes taking Putin fishing at Kennebunkport. Some nice pictures too.
When Putin arrived on July 1, 2007, Dad met his plane at the airport in New Hampshire and accompanied him on the helicopter ride to Walker’s Point. Then he took both of us for a speedboat ride… Although initially startled by the idea of a eighty-three-year-old former President driving the boat at top speed, Putin loved the ride… The next morning, we had a long conversation about missile defense, in which we found some common ground. We then went fishing. Fittingly, Putin was the only one who caught anything.
Are the Bushes unfit to serve in any national office on account of this? If not, why not? Has Tillerson ever socialized with Putin to this extent?
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:14 pm@Patterico: I am tried of people trying to make my position look stupid rather than understand it.
Are you saying that I was doing this? I was trying to be very careful not to assume what you thought, but to ask you about it, precisely to avoid being accused of this very thing.
But it would be a harder position to ridicule and where is the fun in that because Internet.
Where did I ridicule you?
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:16 pm@Patterico:Anyone who has read my posts on Tillerson who was arguing in good faith could easily articulate a conception of my position with which I would agree.
And if I try this, and get it wrong, can I expect to be assumed to have made a good faith effort or will I be accused of manufacturing a strawman?
Because I get accused of that a lot. And I said here not long ago that I would make an effort to ask people what they mean to make it clear, as part of my effort in improving the tone of the comments.
I’d like to know what sets Tillerson apart from all the other CEOS who have business in Russia, or all they all unqualified, or what is it exactly you think? And what evidence supports his being “buddies” with Putin as opposed to someone who has to make nice to unpleasant people in order to effectively represent his shareholders and customers–not unlike what diplomats or lawyers have to do?
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:21 pmPutin sized up W as a chump who could be rolled. It’s tough to read Decision Points (which I liked) and not see W as a chump when it came to Putin.
Hence the tanks rolling into Georgia in 2008.
Patterico (6879ca) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:24 pm@Patterico:Hence the tanks rolling into Georgia in 2008.
I’m a little more charitable to Bush than you are here… I think it was that Bush was being bogged down, both at home and abroad, due to Iraq and Afghanistan and Putin judged that Bush had no political capital with which to respond in any meaningful way and that Americans would be too distracted with Iraq and Afghanistan to bother about it. Had we not stayed in those countries to nation-build, might not have worked out that way, but who can say.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:28 pmYou’re looking for a characterization of my position you can attack rather than understanding it.
Why don’t you try to articulate what my position is? I have already said most of what I have to say in posts so it should not be hard.
And please stop asking questions I already answered. Makes me feel like you’re not listening. The fact that you don’t like my answers or think you have disposed of one of my points because a dancer got a medal shows you are not listening and not trying to understand. I have lost patience with that attitude in online discussion. It’s that simple.
Patterico (6879ca) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:28 pmThe issue is not the response to Georgia. It’s the chump attitude that made Putin think he could get away with it BE-FORE it happened. Tillerson is a chump re Putin just like W was.
Patterico (6879ca) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:29 pmI was irritated by the question about Bush, frankly. It’s so obvious that there are many aspects to being Presidnt that do not apply to SOS for one thing. It felt like a gotcha rather than an attempt to understand.
Honestly: try telling me why I think what I think, in a way that I would agree with it. That would show an attempt to understand.
Patterico (6879ca) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:33 pm@Patterico:You’re looking for a characterization of my position you can attack rather than understanding it
This is not true, and we won’t be able to talk about anything if you won’t credit me for good intentions.
Why don’t you try to articulate what my position is?
Because I don’t want to get accused of manufacturing strawmen if I get it wrong.
I have already said most of what I have to say in posts so it should not be hard.
Okay. I’ll go review them there.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:33 pm@Patterico:try telling me why I think what I think, in a way that I would agree with it. That would show an attempt to understand.
All right, and I will tell you that this is what I am trying to do, and I hope you won’t accuse me of manufacturing strawmen if I don’t get it right.
But it will be on another topic and on another occasion. I am afraid we are primed at the moment to misunderstand one another.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:36 pmDCSCA, I am pretty sure you were referencing a psychiatrist but I do not understand your reference.
Obscure references to obscure academic stuff only means you have internet access. It does not mean you are intelligent. I would love to understand your argument if you respected the discussion enough to clearly articulate it.
Gabriel, your response to be is unsatisfactory. I argued for skepticism of those in power. I argued for standards on a basic level. I did not argue that Rex is disloyal or favors Russia, but argued that it’s healthy to scrutinize based on his proven record of close ties to a human rights abusing dictator who murders critics. As usual, your response to me burns a strawman.
It’s not hard to have an argument with someone you disagree with. It is impossible to have an argument with someone who will just confuse other points of view every single time in order to make them absurd. In fact I have seen you do this dozens of times and can never recall you ever stating accurately and respectfully articulating a point of view you do not agree with. The problem, of course, is that you do not have a moral or ethical compass. You have only partisanship. Maybe that wasn’t so bad when there was a clear moral difference between the political parties, but today that isn’t the case. You’re going to have to think harder about the many interests and perspectives out there or you’re just going to be a boring and predictable element of harassment that anyone criticizing your grand old party has to ignore.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:37 pmI also see only alternative facts that point to Tillerson being more loyal to ExxonMobil than to the US.
Though I would grant that having a very strong ExxonMobil is very good for the US economy, there are no facts that say Tillerson won’t continue sanctions against the Russian because of ExxonMobil even though I know that Tillerson is on the record saying the sanctions hurt US companies while not hurting Russia at all. Because our European allies need the fuel so badly, they are willing to play fast and loose with those sanctions.
I also do not see our new Sec State as a guy who would enter the Middle East with the intent of leading from behind. The best sanctions on Russia would be to isolate its middle east play to Assad’s Syria.
steveg (5508fb) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:39 pmProduce and deliver energy cheaply around the world and undercut Putins break even $105 a barrel even further.
We can hurt Russia economically by out competing them in the energy sector. No sanctions or wrist slappings… just a flat out energy economy ass kicking
After thousands of words and comment comment comment spamming the thread, you refuse to do this? You’re too busy now? Come on, Gabriel, do it. Explain Patterico’s position as though you were arguing for it. Show good faith.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:41 pmExcellent point. It’s the natural response and those who aren’t making it are just not understanding the arguments.
No doubt, but it’s not just about USA vs Russia. They are tiny. It’s about the implications for all the bad guys out there that Russia influences. If a guy like Rex set himself to destroying Russian influence, I imagine he would be incredibly successful and the world would become a safer, better place. And I imagine a lot of Rex’s actual friends do not expect this to happen.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:44 pm@Dustin: Same to as to Patterico. If you cannot credit me with good intentions, it is impossible to discuss anything.
The problem, of course, is that you do not have a moral or ethical compass. You have only partisanship.
This is just a personal attack–you don’t know me, my morals, or my ethics–and you can’t even name what party I am a partisan of. You are assuming a great deal about me which you cannot possibly know.
I am, in general, far more civil to any commenter I disagree with, than any who disagrees with me. I have lost count of the number of times Patterico has used “f—” to me and a lot of the regulars are almost as bad.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:45 pm@Dustin:you refuse to do this? You’re too busy now?
Not what I said. And commenting is not “spamming”. You’re using emotionally-loaded language, making personal attacks on me, and so we are primed for pointless misunderstandings.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/24/2017 @ 11:48 pmI’m glad you are concerned with what it takes to have a real discussion. Good faith in your understanding of the other point of view is definitely a good place to direct this desire you have to seek out an earnest back and forth.
In my job, I often paraphrase what a person told me. It is not unusual for them to tell me I missed an important facet that they did not explain or I did not understand initially. This is where a lot of the discussion happens. If I did it the way you do, rolling my eyes and giving them a version of their perspective that is idiotic, I would be counterproductive. Empathy and compassion are not genuine without understanding, and that’s a two way street. I cannot expect people to work with me and understand me until I understand them.
Point being, you are frustrated that your point of view and good intentions are unknown, but the mechanism to show it has been presented to you and you have declined.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/25/2017 @ 12:15 amActually one of the definitions is repeated electronic messaging, and therefore your commenting is often literally spamming.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/25/2017 @ 12:16 amThe Franz Stigler incident.
https://dirkdeklein.net/2016/08/20/the-ye-olde-pub-incident/
I’m normally not inclined to the whole “Old enemies become best friends” genre. I knew too many Pearl Harbor vets.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 1/25/2017 @ 12:43 amTo the French, who remember.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mquH77FXHas
I will be eternally grateful to the French for maintaining our graves.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 1/25/2017 @ 12:48 am@127 =yawn= It’s been clearly articulated throughout the thread, D. You were late to the chatter. Catch ‘Network’ Dustin. Then you’ll catch on.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/25/2017 @ 1:06 amAwesome video Steve57.
DCSCA, thanks for the mature response. I’m super impressed! You’re truly the international man of… what was it again? My feeble mind couldn’t remember.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/25/2017 @ 1:24 amI am nothing, Dustin.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 1/25/2017 @ 1:36 amThe men who spent their lives on the beaches of Normandy or Tarawa, on the other hand…
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 1/25/2017 @ 1:39 am@138. Just tried to help, Dustin. It seemed the pragmatic thing to do.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/25/2017 @ 2:01 amSee actually you aren’t trying to help. I asked you to clarify your obscure point and you got more obscure and preening. That’s what actually happened. I realize that on the internet there’s some kind of victory in how you’re behaving, particularly because you’re getting a reaction. Enjoy that, because I’m sure the sort of person who does is in real need of something good in their lives.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 1/25/2017 @ 3:22 amLet me do my best to sum up at least part of Gabriel’s position.
Everybody knows Vladimir Putin is a bad guy. Rex Tillerson at least has some personal experience in dealing with Putin, which will be useful in navigating diplomatic waters with Russia. We shouldn’t be excluding CEOs from the list of possible diplomats, and Tillerson’s refusal to call Putin a war criminal is not evidence of a lack of moral clarity, but rather is a wise refusal to put an unhelpful label on somebody with whom Tillerson will have to deal in the future.
That paragraph may not sum up Gabriel’s opinions in their entirety, but what I’m doing is making an actual genuine effort to articulate his position in a way that I truly believe he might agree with it. If he doesn’t, at least it’s not because I didn’t try.
Patterico (0a74c4) — 1/25/2017 @ 8:14 am@142. Actually, it was clarified, Dustin. Have yourself a fine day.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/25/2017 @ 11:25 am