Rex Tillerson

Rex Tillerson Nominated for Secretary of State: Climate Activists' Heads May Explode

'The top U.S. diplomat responsible for everything from negotiating international climate agreements to resurrecting the Keystone XL Pipeline'

|

RexTillersonWikimedia
Wikimedia

My inbox filled today with urgent missives from environmental activists outraged by Donald Trump's nomination of ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to be the next Secretary of State. While some national security state supporters are worried about just how cozy Tillerson might be with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, the activists are much more concerned about what Tillerson's nomination says about the Trump administration's future climate change policy. A few tidbits below:

Appointing Rex Tillerson to be our chief diplomat is an affront to global progress and will place the US economy, our security, and our standing in the world in the same failing predicament Exxon is in right now. The global community continues to send a strong, collective message that it is ditching fossil fuels for clean energy. Rex Tillerson hid climate science so it could cash in on disaster, instead of transitioning his company to a position of true leadership… He has led his company and his industry to double down on an energy source that is literally poisoning the world and making it harder for humans to survive on it.—Greenpeace Executive Director Annie Leonard.

Rex Tillerson and his company are disproportionately responsible for unconscionable backsliding and delay on climate action. A lifelong employee of Exxon, Tillerson has overseen the company's aggressive attack on state Attorneys General who are investigating Exxon's deception regarding climate science. His company is a main sponsor of the false debate that climate change-denying EPA appointee Scott Pruitt and others are using to slow crucial progress.—Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen

Under Tillerson's leadership, Exxon committed what could be the biggest case of corporate fraud in history by denying climate change. He's shown that he will lie to the public to protect Exxon's profits… Meanwhile, here in the U.S., Tillerson has fought for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. As Secretary of State, he'd have the power to carry out Trump's threat to build the pipeline that President Obama rejected. If Trump gets his way, Tillerson will be the top U.S. diplomat responsible for everything from negotiating international climate agreements to resurrecting the Keystone XL Pipeline.—Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica

If confirmed, Tillerson would wield incredible power to unleash oil production around the globe: he could resurrect the Keystone XL pipeline; he could push to ease sanctions on Russia, which would benefit Exxon's oil development there; and he could pull us out of climate deals like the Paris accords (emphasis his). The stakes to stop Trump's cabinet of fossil fools couldn't be higher. And we desperately need your support to fund our Senate campaign to stop Tillerson, Pruitt and the rest of Trump's Big Oil cabinet picks.—Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune

Whatever else Tillerson might end up doing as Secretary of State, he is right now a fund-raising bonanza for environmental activist groups.

NEXT: Maryland Police Association Director Resigns Over Prostitution Charges

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Climate Activists’ Heads May Explode”

    Best way to reduce CO2 emissions really.

    1. Fool! Do you know how much CO2 is released from each Climate Activist Head Explosion*? Those balloonlike cranial sacs are where they keep all the hot air that comes pouring out their mouths all the time!

      *excellent band name

        1. Agree, great movie. Anal scene at the end is nice, but they cut it off too soon (I know, phrasing).

      1. Do you know how much CO2 is released from each Climate Activist Head Explosion*?

        Not much. The bulk of their cranial cavities are filled with sulphur dioxide.

        -jcr

        1. hydrogen sulfide?

      2. Balloonlike Cranial Sacs

        Great band name as well.

  2. he could resurrect the Keystone XL pipeline; he could push to ease sanctions on Russia, which would benefit Exxon’s oil development there; and he could pull us out of climate deals like the Paris accords

    So win-win-win?

    1. The immediate reaction seems to be that he will continue to work for Exxon, albeit as some sort of government lobbyist on a far reduced salary? Has it occurred to anybody that he might be loyal to the interests of whomever he is working for at the moment? That once he is sworn as Secretary of State he will put America’s interests ahead of Exxons?

      Maybe not, but why can’t we even give people the benefit of the doubt.

      1. Given how many Democratic party apparatchiks have moved on to other things, but never changed their loyalties, this may, in fact, be a foreign concept to them.

      2. Of course he will. Once they divest themselves, ex-CEOS are no more loyal than you are to your last employer.

        1. The same is true before they divest themselves.

          Ask yourself this. If forced in the course of your job duties to chose between a course of action that would benefit you personally or the company which would you chose?

          Sure the company might win out on the little things but if it is anything even minorly significant you are looking out for #1. I once sat in a meeting where we were discussing which testing tool to buy, and evey single person in the room was bending over backwards trying to come up with an excuse to buy the product which we knew we didn’t need and cost twice as much as the competing product which was better anyway because the more expensive but weaker option was the defacto industry standard tool and we all wanted in on our resumes.

          We could have saved the company half a million dollars and gotten a better tool (one which was already in heavy use by another part of the company and I was an expert user of so we’d have had some inhouse expertise) but we went with the one that made our resumes look best.

          Same with CEO’s and for that matter Secretaries of State. Sure they are going to be loyal to their current employer when it doesn’t cost them anything, but if they have any personal skin in the game they are going to do what is best for them.

        2. The same is true before they divest themselves.

          Ask yourself this. If forced in the course of your job duties to chose between a course of action that would benefit you personally or the company which would you chose?

          Sure the company might win out on the little things but if it is anything even minorly significant you are looking out for #1. I once sat in a meeting where we were discussing which testing tool to buy, and evey single person in the room was bending over backwards trying to come up with an excuse to buy the product which we knew we didn’t need and cost twice as much as the competing product which was better anyway because the more expensive but weaker option was the defacto industry standard tool and we all wanted in on our resumes.

          We could have saved the company half a million dollars and gotten a better tool (one which was already in heavy use by another part of the company and I was an expert user of so we’d have had some inhouse expertise) but we went with the one that made our resumes look best.

          Same with CEO’s and for that matter Secretaries of State. Sure they are going to be loyal to their current employer when it doesn’t cost them anything, but if they have any personal skin in the game they are going to do what is best for them.

          1. Actually that is a really good point.

    2. Yea, that letter sounds like they wrote him a new resume.

      Surprised Reason’s Exxon representative took so long to write about this.

  3. Can these people ever give a statement that does not sound like the hyperbolic ranting of a toddler throwing a tantrum?

    1. an energy source that is literally poisoning the world and making it harder for humans to survive on it.

      I don’t kow what you mean. This is a perfectly measured response.

      1. Almighty’s question applies to pretty much every journalist post election.
        Can’t they even pretend to be objective?

      2. and making it harder for humans to survive on it

        I eagerly look forward to this person surviving without plastics, analgesics, and sulfa drugs, as well as all the other oil-derived industrial feedstocks.

      3. Don’t forget

        false debate

        How dare you question the assumption that plant food is poisoning the world. There is no debate. It’s a false debate!

    2. Can these people ever give a statement that does not sound like the hyperbolic ranting of a toddler throwing a tantrum?

      No.

  4. As Secretary of State, he’d have the power to carry out Trump’s threat to build the pipeline that President Obama rejected. If Trump gets his way, Tillerson will be the top U.S. diplomat responsible for everything from negotiating international climate agreements to resurrecting the Keystone XL Pipeline. — Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica

    WE MUST GIVE THE GOVERNMENT MORE POWER TO STOP THESE ABUSES!

    1. Remind me again why the SecState would be involved in the Keystone XL pipeline that Canada has already approved the building of?

      1. Something about it crossing an international border, IIRC. I guess open borders are not for everything.

        1. so the issue of it crossing an international border would presumably be that it is not harming our relationship with Canada (and vice versa if Canada were the one spearheading the pipeline), which since Canada has already approved, is not an issue.

          So remind Brett, again, one more time, why the SecState is involved in the processes at this point.

  5. how cozy Tillerson might be with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin

    Trump and Co. are just sleeper agents for the mighty Russian government! We are going into Red Dawn territory here, with progressives forming bands of wolverine-like freedom fighters to battle against the Red Menace. Pajama boy can become a sleeper agent, getting state secrets from the less masculine Russians who want to get their dirty communist hands on some sweet hipster booty. Hillary will be the commander of the righteous rebels who shall, once they inevitably win, make the Empress of the world.

    1. So now the left will start supporting the 2nd Amendment.

      1. No, they’re just going to angrily hold up signs. But this time they really mean it.

        1. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve suggested that women carry sidearms if they’e really worried about being attacked, only to have the snowflakes freak out on me.

          -jcr

        2. They’re assault signs!

        3. But how will they hold up those signs without arms?

          1. They might oppose bear arms, but I think they’re okay with noodle arms.

      2. They will fight using blog posts and paper-mache giant heads. Also, smashing shop windows.

      3. So now the left will start supporting the 2nd Amendment.

        Yes, a return to the 1960s/70s. If anybody needs a review, check old videos of Angela Davis, (some newer too of) The Black Panthers, Tom Hayden’s “Red Family”, and many more.

    2. “Avenge me!”
      Harry Dean Stanton’s greatest line?

  6. I heard this on the radio this a.m. and laughed to myself, knowing I was going to hear an awful lot of whingeing about this today. Rick Perry seemed an odd choice, I think he called Trump a “cancer of conservatism” early on the election.

    1. I think he called Trump a “cancer of conservatism” early on the election.

      Bah, that is just “Good Morning” in NYC!

  7. And we desperately need your support to fund our Senate campaign to stop Tillerson, Pruitt and the rest of Trump’s Big Oil cabinet picks.

    Well, so much for getting money out of politics.

    1. Hey now. We’re fighting money with money!

    2. Why exactly does getting Senators to vote a certain way require a bunch of fundraising, again?

      1. Read Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets by Peter Schweizer

      2. Don’t you know? Politicians only vote for whomever gives them the most money. Democrats/Leftists say that all the time. They must have witnessed it somewhere.

    3. …so much for getting money out of politics.

      The only way they’ll ever get money out of politics is to get politics out of money. And that’s not going to happen.

      1. Separation of Commerce and State.

      2. The watermelons would love to just ban money.

        1. It’s fun to ask a communist why communist countries never abolished money.

      3. Money and power will always find each other.

        It is known.

  8. Remember how closely critiqued all of Obama’s cabinet positions were?

    I was just recalling the other day how Geithner -the guy who wanted to threaten China for currency manipulation-was so carefully vetted by the media that his failure to pay $35K in taxes disqualified him from the -oh he was approved anyways?

    Ah.

    Spare me the feinting spells with these nominations.

    YOU LOST. GET OVER IT.

    1. Spare me the feinting spells with these nominations.

      Apparently they’re just faking it.

    2. Feinting spells? Is this where they keep dodging the question?

      1. ITS ALL A RUSE!!

        1. “A … roose?”

      2. something magic something wand

    3. Little Timmy Geithner was the guy feeding Obama information about fed goings on before the 2008 election, but did not do the same for McCain. Covered quite well in a Frontline special on PBS about the 2008 “financial meltdown” and IIRC, this is it.

  9. …he is right now a fund-raising bonanza for environmental activist groups.

    Right on.

  10. Trump isn’t even in office yet and his troll skills are turnt to 11. Lol. Come on peeps, this is the gift that we didn’t ask for but is turning out to be gold. It probably won’t last so enjoy for now.

    1. Indeed. It just makes me smile. Half the country thinks Trump is doing fine, and the other half thinks he’s Super-Racist MegaHitler who will destroy the planet.

      My guess: he’ll do decently well for two years, and in 2018 when there are 25 Democratic Senate seats up for grabs, and only 8 GOP seats, the GOP will increase their margin in the Senate. More teeth-knashing will ensue.

      However, there is a chance of a big international economic crisis. If that happens, Trump gets blamed and all bets are off.

      1. You heard it here first, folks.

      2. Do you think they’ll revise their views if global temperatures go down in the next 4 years?

        1. If temperatures go down, the alarmists will simply explain it away.

        2. That is a good question for alarmists.

          What evidence would convince you that the current supposed consensus position on climate/global warming is wrong?

          It’s like people base their whole identity and existence on predictions of doom and I just don’t get it. Why do people like doom and gloom so much? It’s like people are offended if you try to tell them that maybe climate change isn’t such a big deal or that Trump isn’t literally Hitler.

          I’m willing to accept as a working hypothesis that human activity has contributed to a warming trend. But I’m always open to, and hoping for, evidence that it’s not as bad as people say, or that they just don’t understand climate well enough to make good predictions (and I see a lot of evidence for the latter).

          I’m not saying everyone should go around being all Pollyannaish all the time, but a little optimism, at least being open to good news, is a good thing sometimes.

          1. It would probably take a tire iron and a sound proof room. Ok, maybe not a tire iron, just Hillary laughing over and over,.

            It’s victimhood in a way. People want to feel they have control. Things can’t just happen. So some people want to blame others (Because they see themselves as perfect little angels) and be able to control everything. Earth is the victim here because temperature can’t go up unless we caused it.

            Same as species going extinct, or corporations making a profit (can’t have that on the backs of workers right?) or everyone is an idiot but me.

            It’s all what feels right like cops killing someone because they are bad, and when the facts come out they don’t matter.

  11. he is right now a fund-raising bonanza for environmental activist groups.

    Any republican administration would be.

    Here’s the thing tho = what is “Climate Policy” exactly? people refer to it like its a thing, and it matters.

    What it is seems to mostly be is a combination of ‘deferential rhetoric to climate alarmists’, and useless gestures in politically-approved directions.

    The latter being “subsidies thrown at green-tech” (which would have zero impact on climate change), and “very high-profile treaties signed” (which would have zero impact on climate change)

    Anyone not partially lobotomized knows that the developing world is the actual “problem” (if there is one)… and none of these electric cars or hemp grocery bags or Energiewende-style meddling in one’s electricity-production markets even adds up to a tiny fraction of the new-emissions that the developing world is going to produce.

    So unless your “Climate Policy” is to guarantee that the entire developing world is deprived of any development at all…. (iow, force China, India, etc. at the point of a gun to stop buying cars and building electricity infrastructure and otherwise joining the 20th century)…

    …there’s no way anything the developed world does makes any fucking difference anyway. In that respect, I don’t see how Rex Tillerson is the slightest bit different than John Kerry or anyone the greenies may have fawned over.

    1. What it is seems to mostly be is a combination of ‘deferential rhetoric to climate alarmists’, and useless gestures in politically-approved directions.

      This.

    2. The latter being “subsidies thrown at green-tech” (which would have zero impact on climate change), and “very high-profile treaties signed” (which would have zero impact on climate change)

      Has the US been a signatory to any climate treaty?

      1. None that have been ratified, that I’m sure of.

        1. Ratification is just another stupid obstacle that white slave owners put into the constitution in order to give obstructionist Republicans the power to stop the first black president from saving the planet!

          1. “Dead Honky!!”

    3. All true. The killer argument against most climate “solutions” is cost/benefit. Most cost billions of dollars and are estimated to (e.g.) reduce the overall temperature in 50 years by .00001 degrees or something. Almost all of it is feel-good, “We must do something!!” emoting.

    4. You don’t understand. The only reason the developing world is still developing is because western capitalists are holding them down. These capitalists move into these countries and force people to toil in factories and buy products that make the greedy capitalists rich. Meanwhile these capitalists are making profits by exacerbating climate change, while standing on the backs of the poor. Only when these evil capitalists are reigned in by benevolent governments, and the wealth is distributed fairly, can we have any real discussion about climate change. Capitalism must be dismantled because in its relentless quest for profits is makes people poor while destroying the planet. Duh.

      /green on the outside, red in the middle

      1. That’s right. IF not for capitalists, all those poor people would be living perfect lives in harmony with nature and everything would be great for everyone.

        1. Exactly. We should all live on communal farms in total equality, trading only with local farms. That is natural. Capitalism is not. Especially global capitalism. Nothing is worse than that.

        2. After all, dropping dead by 30 from diseases that are trivially curable by modern medical technology is living in perfect harmony with nature.

          -jcr

          1. +1 Logan’s Run

  12. Well, when you put it that way, I’m in favor.

    1. Seconded!

  13. “Appointing Rex Tillerson to be our chief diplomat is an affront to global progress and will place the US economy, our security, and our standing in the world in the same failing predicament Exxon is in right now.”

    You bet! why, look at what falling oil prices have done to those poor Venezuelans!

  14. “This man is a crony capitalist! He might do things to benefit his former and future private-sector employers!”

    Yeah, shame about that. Maybe we should reduce the government’s role in directing and subsidizing private-sector businesses so this isn’t a problem.

    “You’re just a Koch brother stooge! We need big government to stand up to Big Business!”

  15. Can we stop with the whole ‘climate change’ bs and go back to calling it global warming? Cuz that’s what they’re really talking about even tho that brand sucks. If we’re truly talking about ‘change’ then the slope direction could go the other way (or no way at all).

    1. If we’re truly talking about ‘change’ then the slope direction could go the other way (or no way at all).

      That’s the beauty of it. Everything is caused by climate change. Unseasonably warm or cold, wet or dry, sunny or cloudy, whatever. It’s all because of climate change. And the only solution is to dismantle capitalism and usher in total and complete government (which is The People, not those greedy, dirty, nasty, evil corporations) control over every minute aspect of our lives.

      1. Because communist governments have a really great environmental record.

        1. They have good intentions and that’s all that matters.

  16. an energy source that is literally poisoning the world and making it harder for humans to survive on it.

    On the one hand, fossil fuels might contribute to higher global temperatures. On the other, human beings no longer have to have to hack it out in the wilderness hunting and gathering food, an especially daunting challenge in the winter months.

    I think oil has actually made life easier for the people living on this planet.

  17. We thought we’d put the fainting couch to rest in the 20th century. The snowflake left has revived it.

  18. I have to say that right now, granting that we’re still six weeks from him taking office, Trump has already created more threats to the Administrative Branch of the federal government than I would have hoped from a Rand (or Ron) Paul win. Sure, there’s Sessions as AG and the GS guy to Treasury, but if you were going to put together a cabinet to roll back Imperial Federalism, this is a pretty good team.

    1. This idea that several of the nominees may want the destruction of the agencies they’re being appointed to lead. . .hard not to like that.

      1. We always need more Ron Swansons.

  19. How can he have the best interests of the nation at heart, if he hasn’t devoted his life to working for the government?

  20. So a big wig with ties to people in the Russian government disqualifies that person from serving as Secretary of State.

    The lack of self-awareness with these people never ceases to amaze me.

    1. “and he could pull us out of climate deals like the Paris accords.”

      Of which the Senate has not yet approved, and therefore carries absolutely NO WEIGHT. (Nor should it).

    2. The lack of self-awareness with these people never ceases to amaze me.

      Redundantly or recursively even. Not just how could everyone not agree with me perfectly, but how could they disagree with me such that the elect someone who appoints someone like this.

      The CEOs of actual companies have to deal with people who have a difference of opinion or seek to mutually profit with companies that directly undermine their businesses (Exxon funded a number of pro-AGW think tanks and studies on Rex’s watch). These people get to sit in their tax-exempt non-profit CEO positions and be perpetually aghast and aggrieved like they were The Pope or something.

  21. “The global community continues to send a strong, collective message that it is ditching fossil fuels for clean energy.”

    If that were true, there would be no need for billions in subsidies for “clean energy”.

    1. What does the “global community” mean anyway? It certainly isn’t the unwashed masses. Most likely the limousine liberals that Trump was elected specifically to fuck over.

    2. “Global elites and the parasitic class continue to send a strong, collective message that they are fucking idiots who think that people are going to give up reliable, affordable energy because bad things might happen in 100 years.”

      More accurate. Probably still needs work.

    3. Trump & Perry standing behind lectern: “…and that is why we will be building 50 terrawatts worth of clean, nonpolluting nuclear thorium salt reactors in 44 states with the money that used to go to funding the DOE.”

      1. Let’s open up asteroid mining, too.

        1. Not cost effective but already de facto if not de jure legal.

          And we don’t need thorium for at least a thousand years. Why bother with all the reprocessing headaches including proliferation? Just stick to the molten salt part and be happy.

      2. The freakout over that would be the greatest thing in the world.

    4. My thought was “great. You all go ahead and ditch, that should make it really easy to get cheap fossil fuels for us.”

  22. “Tillerson has overseen the company’s aggressive attack on state Attorneys General who are investigating Exxon’s deception regarding climate science.”

    —-Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen

    If the environment is every destroyed by climate change, it will be because of people like Trip Van Noppen.

    “What these attorneys general are doing is extremely important. These brave members of this coalition are doing their job like they did in the tobacco case,” said Vice President Gore, comparing fossil fuel companies to the tobacco companies of the 1990s that fell under intense scrutiny over misstatements about cancer and heart disease risks associated with cigarette smoking.”

    —-Al Gore

    http://tinyurl.com/jpfkg39

    Bookmark that statement.

    The Climate Reality Project is Al Gore bringing attorneys general together to coordinate a government takeover of the oil industry using the exact same tactics they used to take over the tobacco industry–and that’s according to Al Gore.

  23. Another Trump article? Reason just can’t seem to stop itself. Maybe write something about Hillary Clinton for a change!

    1. Disgusting pandering. They are just hoping for an invite to Trump Tower.

  24. IF IF IF climate change is a problem that requires effective solutions, those effective solutions will only be implemented by free people making choices for themselves through markets. And those effective solutions will not happen if the attorneys general succeed in taking over the oil industry through litigation (and federal protection from lawsuits a la the tobacco industry). In that situation, the oil industry would quickly become the most protected, crony industry in the country–far more so than it is today.

    How would it serve the long term interests of climate change alarmists if the government were protecting the oil industry from future technological innovations?

    How will it serve the long term interests of climate change alarmists if the American people realize that these groups are trying to impose themselves through mass litigation and to force us to sacrifice our standard of living against our will?

    1. It worked for the Gays.
      They’re just moving from win to Win!

      1. They turn to the courts when they can’t win at the polls, that’s for sure.

        Gay rights didn’t belong at the polls in the first place, though. Despite what Tony says, people’s rights shouldn’t be determined by way of a popularity contest–we fought a war over that question and the good guys won.

        My opinion of whether gay people should be allowed to do something really shouldn’t matter any more than their opinion of whether I should be allowed to get married. That really should be a question of justice–not a question of policy.

        These attorneys general are doing the reverse. They’re trying to turn climate change into a question of justice when it should be a question of policy. Can people be forced by the courts to forego their standard of living because what they do in burning fossil fuels has negative impacts on other people?

        1. we fought a war over that question and the good guys won.

          The problem with this assertion and the gay rights movement is the distinct moving of the goalposts. Homosexuals should be as free from lynchings as the next group of people. That doesn’t, or shouldn’t, guarantee any of them any sort of protected employment status. There is no right to be preferentially employed over the next guy.

        2. Alleged negative impacts.

          Personally, my neighbors roses are still in bloom and lovely to look at.

      2. They turn to the courts when they can’t win at the polls, that’s for sure.

        Gay rights didn’t belong at the polls in the first place, though. Despite what Tony says, people’s rights shouldn’t be determined by way of a popularity contest–we fought a war over that question and the good guys won.

        My opinion of whether gay people should be allowed to do something really shouldn’t matter any more than their opinion of whether I should be allowed to get married. That really should be a question of justice–not a question of policy.

        These attorneys general are doing the reverse. They’re trying to turn climate change into a question of justice when it should be a question of policy. Can people be forced by the courts to forego their standard of living because what they do in burning fossil fuels has negative impacts on other people?

      3. They turn to the courts when they can’t win at the polls, that’s for sure.

        Gay rights didn’t belong at the polls in the first place, though. Despite what Tony says, people’s rights shouldn’t be determined by way of a popularity contest–we fought a war over that question and the good guys won.

        My opinion of whether gay people should be allowed to do something really shouldn’t matter any more than their opinion of whether I should be allowed to get married. That really should be a question of justice–not a question of policy.

        These attorneys general are doing the reverse. They’re trying to turn climate change into a question of justice when it should be a question of policy. Can people be forced by the courts to forego their standard of living because what they do in burning fossil fuels has negative impacts on other people?

  25. Elections have consequences.

    *snicker*

  26. Greenpeace Executive Director Annie Leonard.
    Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen
    Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica
    Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune

    I’m confused are CEOs not to be trusted because of their motivations or simply taken at their word? I mean, if CEOs in charge of government-y type stuff is the problem then the U.N. Global Compact is a big(ger) fucking problem, No?

    I do enjoy how all of this kinda makes Citizens United look like a low-level pissing match.

  27. Pissing and moaning about this guy’s stance on Climate Change is really burying the lede. Maybe focus on the fact he’s another Russian tool like the rest of this administration.

    1. Of course. The central topic of discussion in his and Trump’s conversation was Moose and Squirrel.

    2. Because doing business all over the world and with one of the largest countries with unknown untapped oil potential is just fucking horrible.

  28. he could resurrect the Keystone XL pipeline; he could push to ease sanctions on Russia, which would benefit Exxon’s oil development there; and he could pull us out of climate deals like the Paris accords (emphasis his).

    Jeez, this is meant to be scathing, but it’s making me want to confirm him twice! Whine about the awesome things he will do any more and I might start wanting to blow the guy.

  29. Isn’t it amusing to watch all the histrionics on the left about the various people Trump is choosing? “OMG, he appointed someone whose positions match those of mainstream Republicans! It’s like he thinks that Republicans won the election or something!” Really, do they think he’s going to appoint *anybody* who they will like? Do they imagine for a minute that Republicans were huge fans of any of Obama’s picks? Am I starting to sound like a certain judge?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.