Donald Trump has said he might block ExxonMobil from investing in Venezuela after the oil company’s chief executive called the country “uninvestable” during a White House meeting last week.

Darren Woods told the US president that Venezuela would need to change its laws before it could be an attractive investment opportunity, during the high-profile meeting on Friday with at least 17 other oil executives.

Woods’ sceptical remarks quickly emerged as the dominant headline, undercutting the White House’s hopes of building momentum from its engagement with the world’s most prominent oil executives.

"I didn’t like Exxon’s response,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on his way back to Washington on Sunday. “I’ll probably be inclined to keep Exxon out. I didn’t like their response. They’re playing too cute.”

Exxon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

  • glimse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    God I hate this reductive take. Yeah, it played a part in it (especially in 2016) but it wasn’t THE reason Trump won. And any time this is brought up, nobody talks about how many votes they DID get for being women.

    Both nominations were forced on us…two establishment Democrats when the country needs change. They’d be unpopular candidates if they were men, too. Hell, I’m starting to believe they were chosen because Democrats wanted to have “sexism” in their back pocket as a scapegoat.

    There were no good reasons not to vote for them but pinning it all on sexism is such a cop out. I’d say Democrats need to take some damn responsibility but lord knows the ones in power benefit from a Trump presidency, too.

    “Is it our platform and inaction on the face of fascism what makes people not like us? No, it must be sexism!”

    • ClownStatue@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Note that I said “enough” voters. Of course it’s not the only reason, but considering an incredibly boring and too-old candidate in Joe Biden beat him while two qualified women lost to him (especially the second time where we knew what we were signing up for), I think it has to be taken into account.

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        It was such a minor factor both losses but it’s the #1 thing that constantly gets brought up when either election is discussed. A woman running a good campaign would have won but both Clinton and Harris sucked.

        Election interference had a significantly bigger impact than the gender of either candidate but we’ve just stopped talking about that for some reason.

        • rhymeswithduck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          And now people are using it as an excuse for never running another female candidate for president ever again. Women as a whole are suddenly unelectable because we tried it twice with two terrible options, thus “proving” that people won’t vote for a woman president. It’s maddening.

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Oh look, it’s one of the actual reasons Harris didn’t win!

        No, not her support of Israel. A moronic voter who decided genocide and a ruined economy under Trump is preferable a genocide and mild progress under Harris.

        That is, of course, assuming you’re actually a citizen. Foreign misinformation campaigns were a huge part of last few elections.

        • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Keep telling yourself that. Moral abstainers make up an unbelievably small percentage of Dem voters. Event if everyone who voted third party or abstained because of genocide support had actually voted for Kamala, she still would have lost.

          No, I blame all of you who were content to let the Dems force a status quo candidate on us while quashing progressive movements. If y’all actually had some balls and held your politicians to account, maybe you could have shifted your candidate’s position on genocide or made space for an actual progressive.

          Instead, you were all focused on your fears of Daddy coming home and beating everyone with his belt.

          So now we get the worst of both worlds. Trump is thrashing American, and there is no effective opposition, because you all voted for no effective opposition.

          • glimse@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            I said ONE OF the reasons, not THE reason. A MAJOR reasons was the social media campaigns, many of which focused on Harris supporting Israel.

            You blame me for something I had no part in. I supported Sanders in the 2016 primary and we didn’t even GET a primary last year. I also didn’t vote for traitorous senator who won in my state.

            But it’s MY fault Trump won, huh? Moreso than the person who fell for the disinformation campaigns and got hung up on an atrocity both assholes support?

          • IronBird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            yup, anyone not stuck in a bubble and being honest with themselves knows exactly when/why kamala lost.

            even with being forced on america she still could have won…but she flip-flopped on universal healthcare immediately

            as soon as that happens 99% of voters go “oh…yup, just another lying career politician who doesn’t really believe in anything, they’ll just do whatever their donors bribes tell em to”

            republicans are atleast honest in their greed, you can predict with 100% certainty what they’re going to do. just plan for maximum pain/cruelty and you can check out of politics completely for the next 4 years. dems though? dems win and you got to actually pay attention, they’re much better liers. voting for the bad lier is just good business

        • IronBird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          israel would still be leveling apartment blocs and starving babies to death under kamala, lets be real

          the only difference is maybe ukraine would get some proper fucking support and we’d only have 1 pointless war instead of 2

          but come on…our government works for israel first america second, has for decades at this point

          • edible_funk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            The US would be pushing back against Israeli use of force like the Dems generally have consistently been doing instead of actively giving the all clear and cheering on the accelerated total destruction of Gaza which is exactly what Trump fucking said he’d do. Which anyone who wasn’t a fucking idiot or Russian propagandist knew.

            • IronBird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              lol, sure. couple strongly worded letters and Net would level a hospital just to remind dems who holds their lease.

                • IronBird@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 days ago

                  israel has been slaughtering palestinians for the last 50+ years, the US has always stepped in to prop them up across dozens of administrations.

                  there is/was absolutely no reason suspect this position to change with establishment dems in power.

                  • edible_funk@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 days ago

                    And republicans were promising to accelerate. And voting third party in first past the post acts as a spoiler for republicans and is therefore a vote for republicans. And not voting works exactly the same way. So every way you shake that dick the Dems are still the best option and you continue to not have ground.