By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave said:
UnderstatedCornHole said:

You've quoted a source and then modified the language to fit your point of view. 

They said...

Exxon said its “maximum exposure” to loss from these joint ventures was $1 billion. A spokesman from the company said that the figure represented “potential and not actual” losses.

You said they said

Exxon Mobil in particular had been hard hit as they had business contracts with the Russian government. The sanctions cost them $1 billion at least.

 

Trump would be pointing at you right now, so dishonest.

There is more to business than just existing deals, Exxon also was being held back from pursuing future deals in Russia due to sanctions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/world/europe/rex-tillersons-company-exxon-has-billions-at-stake-over-russia-sanctions.html?_r=0

"Exxon Mobil has various projects afoot in Russia that are allowed under American sanctions. But others have been ground to a halt by the sanctions, including a deal with the Russian state oil company to explore and pump in Siberia that could be worth tens of billions of dollars.

Russian officials have optimistically called the agreement a $500 billion deal."

 

So please tell me that the Exxon Mobile CEO being named to Secretary of State, who has in the past lobbied for dropping sanctions against Russia, is all just a magical coincidence. 

I'm not disputing the notion that there exists potential motive for abuse of power.

I'm arguing that's all there is. You and a few others here seem to think that potential motive = guilt.

That's a liberal fallacy that I have grown out of, one I do not subscribe to, if it benefits my beliefs or discredits them.