We had a great thread going with "Exxon ceo - secretary of state!" And lo and behold, it is gone! All the 200+ posts. What a brutal censorship! A layoff board does not have to be talking about layoff all the time. The current and future political scenarios, global developments affecting the industry.. They are all important. Very petty and narrow minded censorship!
285 replies (most recent on top)
@3hey - Huh? What is a "sick population area"? A hospital zone? And what the heck is wrong with busing poor people to the polls? Are only people who can easily get themselves to the polls easily supposed to be allowed to vote? Also, the taxpayers don't pay for the buses, they are paid by people who contribute to campaigns and political parties. Is there something wrong with that? You do realize that both parties have get-out-the-vote activities and help people get to the polls. In many cases, it's older people with mobility issues that get rides in cars from party workers, and often they vote Republican.
For what it's worth, I've read of only 4 verified cases of voter fraud this year, all of them Republicans: A woman in Iowa (Terri Lynn Rote) who voted twice. A man in Texas (Phillip Cook) who voted twice. A woman in Illinois (Audrey Cook) who cast a ballot on behalf of her dead husband. A woman in Florida (Gladys Coego) who marked absentee ballots that had been submitted with some fields unfilled.
3tbx, All I see from yours is the usual partisan drivel. It requires no effort. It's extremely easy to make a claim with no supporting evidence and then make a bunch of insults and generalizations. Maybe it works well in your echo chamber, but it makes no sense for people who use data and analysis to inform their opinion.
"voting fraud is rare and insignificant. " That would be the Democrats claiming that, right? Wow. Yesterday or today? Which hat will they wear in 2020? Who knows? Recounts? Hacking? Fraud? What will it be. The usual busing voters to the polls from the poor and indigent and sick population areas? I wonder how they would vote after being bought breakfast? How do the tax-payers feel about that? Only time will tell. Let's vote ourselves some more of someone else's money and ensure that the democrat leaders live in luxury with painted smiles on their faces while their constituency suffers gravely. Life goes on.
3edb, did someone "share" with you a 2004 report on this thread? Please reference that post, I've read the entire thread. And I agree with the previous poster about the lack of validity of politifact and snopes, and the one about the weakness of the Pew research numbers on immigration. The post, although highly opinionated, was clear and poignant. All I see from yours is the usual partisan drivel. To simply claim, as a liberal , that the mainstream media agrees with you and supports your view with data, valid or not, poorly and weakly obtained or not, is nothing new, surprising, or unpredictable. It requires no effort. It's extremely easy to conduct a poll or census to obtain data which will provide the results you were seeking to emphasize. It's been established countless times.
And, without a doubt , you will ask - please provide the proof, of that.(or whatever). NO. You, as a liberal, are required to use your brain. I know that's asking a lot, and you are used to just believing what you want to believe, and that everyone else is wrong and you're right, and because the liberal media says something, it must be true and cannot be questioned and must be followed. But you have two options - believe that you are always right and the liberal media is always right, and everyone else is wrong, or be an independent thinker who actually uses his mind for more than just a hat rack. The choice is yours.
You're welcome.
@3vyu, thanks for sharing the 2004 Bear Stearns report. They say up to 20 million may have been present, not 30 million as was claimed earlier. You are correct about the lack of agreement arising from each side being entrenched in their perspective. However, I think we need to be careful about false equivalency. All "facts" are not created equally and one needs to think critically about where information comes from. For example, Politifact won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism in 2009 and has been praised and criticized by liberals and conservatives. Pew Research is a non-partisan organization that does many widely-referenced polls, surveys and studies. If these organizations are to be categorically rejected, then which ones should be trusted? It's concerning that we can no longer have dialogue because of partisan divide. We cannot have a functioning democracy without ability to communicate across the aisles.
Credible sources have been presented, but you just use some hand-waving explanation to disregard them. But it's perfectly reasonable to take your arguments seriously, even though you can't provide any actual references to back up your claims other than mentioning some unidentified Bear Stearns report?
The Bear Stearns report mentioned below http://www.steinreport.com/BearStearnsStudy.pdf
Conclusions based on wild inferences in my book. Does bring us back to the problem of shared "facts" and "world view" however... one side claims that illegals have doubled in the last 10 years and the other that they have declined somewhat. One claims that a significant number of illegals are able to vote, the other that voting fraud is rare and insignificant. When the gathering and analysis of the basic data is totally belief based (each side simply rejecting any data presented by the other as "tainted") then there is little basis for discussion ... let alone agreement on resolutions.
Truth be told, anyone who relies on "Snopes" and "Politifact" to base the truthfulness of their arguments on do not deserve to be taken seriously. No offense to anyone on this thread. Both of those sites have been observed to have distinct political biases and cannot be trusted. Please do your own research and form your own opinions for your own well-being and better enlightenment. Most of you are adults and quite adept at research.
The 30 million illegals estimate(calculated) comes from a Bear Stearns analysis which looked at remittances from the United states to Mexico. I am not going to have a pi$$ing contest with or jump through hoops for people who say otherwise or want "proof". You can just do a simple Google search and just believe the first liberal media number(one of many) which pops up and believe it like a good little sheep. The mainstream media including the Pew Hispanic Center will insist, as they have for many years, that the number is 11 million and has remained unchanged(seriously) for years. Many conservative sources say the number is much more, usually citing the 30 million calculation. The topic of what the real number is worthy of a thread on it's own. And if you do not realize that the real number is difficult to obtain and cannot be determined by a simple poll or census then you need to have your head examined. It is also worth noting that this is not a number that the US gov. would like for you to know with any degree of certainty. The US gov. is ashamed of the real figure as much as they hypocritically promote the fabled fallacy that there is something wondrous and beneficial about "diversity", particularly when it involves increasing the numbers of those in poverty and those on the govt. dole.
Yes it was a serious question. Snopes and Politifact debunk Trump's claim that 3 million illegal aliens voted: http://www.snopes.com/three-million-votes-in-presidential-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/nov/18/blog-posting/no-3-million-undocumented-immigrants-did-not-vote-/
Was this really a serious question or are you just being facetious, a liberal simpleton, or what? I do not honestly believe anyone is that ill-informed and naïve. Pretending to be stupid is not a valid argument.
"Where is the evidence that illegal immigrants vote and primarily vote Democratic?"
@2yjd - It's quite obvious why @2yjd says that people should rule rather than cities. He doesn't think that people who live in cities count as much as people who live in the country. Probably because of their color or ethnicity or something like that, but he would never admit that. In any case, I'm sure we'll hear some lies about rampant voting by illegal aliens or other voter fraud as his excuse (presented as though it were a well-documented fact but with no evidence given to back up the claim, other than maybe a tweet from Trump).
3xsg, where does the 30 million calculated number come from? Here is data that shows changes in the number of illegal immigrants over time: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
Where is the evidence that illegal immigrants vote and primarily vote Democratic?
There are an estimated 30 million illegal immigrants in this country. That's a calculated number. The number is calculated because it has been determined, quite logically, that recent census figures of 11 million, are grossly inaccurate. The fact that this same number has been quoted for almost a decade is suspicious. They stopped coming in? in addition, it was the result of a census. illegals cannot be relied upon to fill out a census honestly, for obvious reasons. It is no secret that they can vote. Those people vote democrat predominately. It would be interesting to see what the popular results would be if only American Citizens were allowed to vote in their elections. America is and has always been a nation of COLONISTS, mostly British, Other Europeans and Africans. Not immigrants. The concept that there is anything noble, honorable or worthwhile to promote so-called "diversity" which has become more recently a synonym for "more Mexican" in many cases is nothing but a fallacy to put it quite nicely.
The electoral college is there for honest, fair and worthwhile reasons. It is not a "travesty of justice", a "Destruction of the democratic process" or anything of the such. Democrats only whine and complain about it when it works against their primary election mechanism, to exploit the poor, needy and uneducated to vote for more government assistance, paid for by tax paying citizens. In the 2016 presidential election, those tax-payers spoke out. Many of them do not particularly like Trump, but he delivered the right message. And as the saying goes - Don't shoot the messenger.
If you argue that the people rule this country, then elections should be based on popular vote. It makes no sense to say that the people rule but the elected candidate lost the popular vote by 3 million people. Trump's margin of victory in WI, MI, and PA was only by ~ 60,000 votes total.
@2soi, basically she won by a small fraction of the total US population, principally in several large metropolitan centers. Thank God for the Electoral College, put into the Constitution by the wisdom of our founding fathers. Go take a gander at the district map of the US and you'll realize why it's so RED. The People of this country, not several large liberal cities, rule in this land.
@2egp, what is the reason that Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes? Because 3 million people preferred her over Trump.
Case in point, evidence presented below. The post quoted below, albeit subtle, bashing the validity of anything anti-liberal is allowed to remain indefinitely. However, if you mention the mind-numbing/brain-washing effects of the liberal media, or the left-leaning bias of the moderators on this thread, your post will get deleted. There is a reason that Hillary won the popular vote, and it is clear to anyone who can think independently. Yet they will pathetically & hypocritically continue with the "Russian hacking narrative" of an election -not simply just a campaign influence, but the already concluded as impossible by their own party "election hacking". Instead of facing reality, dealing with their issues, they continue with a ruse which sooner or later will get their wiser constituents realizing that there is plenty wrong, immoral, deceptive and corrupt with the leaders of their own party.
"Must be some pro-Trump board staffer. They wouldn't have liked all those liberal leaning, albeit rational, posts."
@2abm, the earth was once thought to be flat until sailors discovered it wasn't. "Fact" is what can be proven. Facts are the products of science, therefore, science is the real truth.
Discussion (debate) between groups that reference completely different "facts" might be fruitless at the end of the day anyway: No mater if it is religion vs. religion, religion vs. science or alt-conservatives vs. liberals. There are no logical constructs that can bridge the lack of common world view. The earth is less than ten thousand years old (defined by a logical construct referencing scripture) ... the earth is billions of years old (based on a logical construct refined by observation and scientific theory) ... if neither side accepts the others "evidence" to have been based on a relavent "frame of reference" then what is left to debate? http://today.info24.bplaced.com/news/this-one-weird-trick-will-not-convince-conservatives-to-fight-climate-change
Easy enough. If they wanted to open a general forum, instead of a forum about job cuts, they would do just that. So, if they let you go astray too much, they maybe earn few cents more, but then their site loses its purpose. Speaking of cents, that was mine two.
@2les, I had similar thoughts. What does it say about Chevron that the threads are much more active than other companies? I would think that thelayoff.com would want to drive traffic to the site, as long as the posts don't seriously violate the content rules. I strongly disagree with some of the posts on this site, but it does give insight into where people are coming from and how difficult it is to communicate on contentious topics across the political spectrum. One of the things I liked working at Chevron was the diversity and open-mindedness of many people there, but for some people on this site that seems like the worst aspect of the company. It's interesting and somewhat valuable to get those insights.
Although admittedly juvenile the Trumpkin vs Shrilley pontifications can be amusing (to a point) and do provide one with some insight into the mind of the other side (as scary as that might be, in both directions). Given I assume this site makes money by selling ads, presumably based in part on its "hit meter", it is interesting they are so quick to kill threads generating 100s of posts even when those threads shift off topic. This particularly given that threads tend to answer the OP fairly quickly before diverting into nonsense (There are exceptions ... the Thailand BU quire that morphed instantly into the thai-spinner thread comes to mind). That said, when I look at many of our competitors layoff site "areas" there are only a few posts per month ... so not much info either way. I am not sure the Chevron area would have much info either if not for being frequented by those looking for entertaining exchanges and then also offering, from time to time, answers actually relevant to the topic of layoffs. Needless to say this site is not a democracy ... but I am just saying. Overall hit rates are way down now that the juvenile buffoonery threads where kill recently.
1mnq, your sixth grade humor is hilarious.
Oh, Shut Up, 1lcp.
Content that "threatens, harasses, or bullies or encourages others to do so" is "unwelcome" at this site. By the comments that were deleted by the moderator, we know that telling others to shut up is not acceptable.
This a private forum, dude, therefore, no freedom of speech applies here. But what does apply here is that fine print neatly tucked in the footer.
@1wbt - "Responsible" free speech? What Supreme Court ruling are you talking about? There are a number of exceptions to the first amendment freedom of speech, but I've never heard of any of them that requires speech to be "responsible", whatever that means. Please elaborate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
Who defines responsible speech, you? Good god, you have your head up your a$$.
Responsible Free Speech is protected by the First Amendment. Not just any speech, moron.
Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment.
The original thread went off topic with the 2nd or 3rd reply and then just overboard with nonsense about Trump vs. Clinton, etc. There was never a pertinent reply to the original topic!
Probably a good thing moderators took it down as just being nonsense. @L370Drz-yzr is spot on regarding being an adult participant (paraphrased). But unfortunately, an open forum allows trolls and immature participation in as well.
I do disagree with some on this second post that this site should be banned from legitimate discussion regarding Tillerson and potential effects (good or bad) for the CVX and the oil industry at large. That's not politics, its business. And the future business environment WILL determine whether folks continue to keep a job, get an industry job or be left standing in 2017 and beyond.
You folks need to remember this is a chevron layoff site. Stay on topic turkeys and you won't get deleted. You do realize you could maybe go on the Exxon Layoff site and likely discuss Mr Tillerson all you want.
-ptz: You just do not get it.
I think the moderators will delete a thread when they see the topic go astray or when the commentary becomes filled with vulgarity, insults and childish postings.
FYI, here is a copy of the rules: https://www.thelayoff.com/rules.php
Discussion of politics is not specifically forbidden.
It would be good to have a place to discuss these issues without having the discussion deleted unexpectedly.
The future of the oil industry thread is also gone.
I would like this site to require everyone to have to register a valid email address if they want to post comments or start a new topic thread. The anonymous posting has gotten unruly. The moderators can periodically monitor the website content and warn individual violators of being banned if their conduct doesn't change. I think that implementing such rules would improve the website for everyone.
There were some good discussions in that thread, but it's a shame that people cannot be more civil in discussing these important topics which affect the energy industry.