NeedleinA

Appears clear that Arizona is determined to get to the bottom of their election system and confirm to it's voters that either it functions securely/properly or there was fraud in the Presidential election. Today Arizona had a preliminary hearing where they shared that the audit on Maricopa County alone had issues with 74k votes. That is just Maricopa. 
Both Pennsylvania and Georgia appear to be next to conduct election audits. 

What would be worse, stopping an individual from taking office OR trying to remove them from office it was acquired?
Perhaps we might find out. 

I'm still with Carb though:
 

Appears clear that Arizona is determined to get to the bottom of their election system and confirm to it's voters that either it functions securely/properly or there was fraud in the Presidential election. Today Arizona had a preliminary hearing where they shared that the audit on Maricopa County alone had issues with 74k votes. That is just Maricopa. 
Both Pennsylvania and Georgia appear to be next to conduct election audits. 

What would be worse, stopping an individual from taking office OR trying to remove them from office it was acquired?
Perhaps we might find out. 

I'm still with Carb though:
 

No, we're not talking about two different things.  You're just setting up a straw man.
I'm all for OPEN EXCHANGE OF IDEAS.  I'm all for OPEN DISCUSSION of dissenting opinions. I am NOT for some adult other than a child's parents having power and authority over a child threatening that child with expulsion and academic failure if he doesn't believe the ideologies that differ from the parents.
Extreme cases of abuse can be brought up, certainly.  But what we're talking about is not an extreme case or an exception.  We're talking about the standard business as usual.
Just to emphasize how much I'm all for open discussion of differing ideas:
My English teacher (Mr. Kopacki) whom I have praised so often on this forum, certainly didn't have a favorable opinion of Mormons.  But the fact was that any mention of religion in that classroom was not about a power play or failure or success in the class.  It was about having a discussion.  I was about our ability to express our opinions and explain things with logic.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS.  IF YOU THINK I EVER SAID OR BELIEVED ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY YOU'RE PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH.
I have a problem when teachers are using schooling in math, science, English, foreign language, history, etc. as a forum to promote radical ideologies, and then threaten children with failing grades and social ostracizing (cancel culture) if they don't agree with such ideologies.

I don't know what it is about trying to force an injection upon people that just doesn't sit well with them? 
Greece:

France:

I don't know what it is about trying to force an injection upon people that just doesn't sit well with them? 
Greece:

France:

Found this interesting. When you hear about 'gun deaths', how many of those were not violent acts upon 'another' person. 6 in 10

Found this interesting. When you hear about 'gun deaths', how many of those were not violent acts upon 'another' person. 6 in 10

It is a people problem not a gun problem.   smh.

I believe this is what is defined as a false dichotomy. It is easy to trust one source while having mistrust toward another. Just as it is easy to trust one person while mistrusting another person who are in the same field of work.
There is nothing wrong with a person's thought process because they do not accept different sources as equal in their delivery.

Not at all. Rather, it is not a sign of poor critical reasoning that someone might accept that the VAERS data demonstrate the vaccine's deadly nature while simultaneously maintaining that the COVID statistics in general cannot be trusted uncritically.
Not sure about that. Purity of motives is not the issue, nor primarily the methodologies involved. I grant my own ignorance when confronting the specifics of statistical data analysis, for example. The real question is whether I trust the analyses of those who offer interpretations. If they have given reason to doubt the integrity of their analyses and/or their ability to reign in their own biases, then I'm vastly more likely not to trust their conclusions.

How did the coroner determine that the deceased's death was not caused, directly or indirectly, by the vaccine? The report simply states it as if it were self-evident fact. It is not. No evidence is presented, just a statement.
But we have this all the time. We expect our experts to tell us what they know, and we generally accept their specialized judgment uncritically. So what's the issue?
The issus is that tthis is much harder to do when you believe the experts to be biased and unreliable. So if you start with the supposition, "The so-called experts are biased and their word cannot be accepted uncritically," then such assertions with no factual backups are useless.
I think this is incorrect. For example, let's suppose that (1) the vaccine really is killing people in statistically significant numbers, and (2) the scientists and organizations that deliver COVID data to the public are biased and not reliable. Then by (1), it is not unreasonable that a person might infer the vaccine's deadly nature based on VAERS data, even if it is incomplete. And by (2), mistrusting the scientists and organizations providing the overall COVID data is perfectly reasonable. Therefore, a person with a flawless thought process might indeed infer that the COVID vaccines are deadly based on VAERS data, yet still maintain that those who deliver COVID statistics are biased and unreliable.
(FTR, I do not suppose that the COVID vaccines are any more deadly than the regular flu vaccines that get offered every year. I have received the two COVID vaccinations, though at least in part that is because we are going to Hawaii in August. I also do not believe that COVID was nearly the black plague-like harbinger of death that the popular media has delighted to report it as being and that so many of the more credulous and overwrought among us have taken it to be. I think what I thought 18 months ago: COVID appears to be roughly like a bad flu in its deadly potential, except that the deaths are much more restricted to older people than with most flus.)

TLDR except your summary, but I think I understand the thrust of your post just fine.... "NT is right, Needle is wrong"... "NT can think, Needle can not".
Thanks, you have successfully changed my mind.

"Remember to get vaccinated or a vaccinated person might get sick from the virus they got vaccinated against because you're not vaccinated."
- Unknown theorists

I know its been mentioned before but a perfect example of this is Asian Americans.  They had racial hardships including being put in prison camps because they were seen as the enemy during World War 2.  Instead of constantly regurgitating the crimes inflicted on them because of the color of their skin, and blaming their circumstances on everyone else.. (Which they have had many and I am sure they can tell us about them)  They focused on bettering themselves and their families, and they as a group are hugely successful.
 

And I don't deny racial hardships that Blacks have experienced in this country.  I don't think anyone versed in history would argue otherwise.  But to say that these individual events are the root cause of why blacks fail en masse in America TODAY simply doesn't look at the facts of history.
Why do you think it is that so many black families succeed today? You look at the disproportionate black population in poverty stricken areas.  But have you seen just how many blacks succeed in America DESPITE these horrific events of history that you point to?  
The NUMBER ONE reason why they succeed is a strong family unit.  The NUMBER ONE reason they fail is a weak family unit. 
With the lone exception of some Hollywood types, EVERY demographic will clearly show that
Blacks with strong family units will succeed at rates similar to any other race with strong family units. Blacks with weak family units will fail at rates similar to any other race with weak family units. You want to help Black people in America?  Stop decrying racism as the culprit, and start requiring stronger families.

Since you have decided to engage with this thread and you seem to be the sort of person the OP was asking to hear from, would you mind explaining what your understanding of Critical Race Theory is? Do you think the examples in this thread are actually examples of CRT or are they actually something else? 
Additionally, do you think there are areas (either in the theory itself or in the application) where CRT goes too far?

Fingers crossed for California and thumbs up to Mr. Elder👍👍👍. I saw the image below yesterday.

Ezra Taft Benson
And
 

Shucks, no 'gay agenda' after all. My bad. I thought they were after my conservative kids.
Honestly, the fact they are trying to make light of what they are doing, doesn't negate what they are doing.

Nothing to see here folks...

Fingers crossed for California and thumbs up to Mr. Elder👍👍👍. I saw the image below yesterday.

"Remember to get vaccinated or a vaccinated person might get sick from the virus they got vaccinated against because you're not vaccinated."
- Unknown theorists

Again, you can take a single event in history and make it all about that one point.  See the attachment.
The great black migration.pdf
Blacks moving from the South to the North made 3x what they made in the South. White / Black income disparity continued. EVERYone had wages increase (in terms of real dollars - i.e. adjusted for cost of living and inflation) during this period. What people don't take into account is the generational effect of income -- just as they use generational income as a bludgeon to hammer their point home.
White people came here with nothing as well.  They went through poverty for a couple centuries before the war.  Many went off into indentured servitude due to poverty.  Parents had to secure servitude for family when they didn't have enough to feed the family.  Those who came out of servitude very often ended up begging or dying.
Those who survived built wealth across many generations.  Gradually increasing.
Blacks only started this cycle since the end of the Civil war.  They have even better opportunity to build this generational wealth just as whites did.  But they lack the family structure to carry this onward to future generations and follow the same path to wealth as 99% of whites did.
Asians came to America with nothing.  But they had strong family values.  Parents worked their tails off at multiple minimum wage jobs to make sure their kids could go to college.  They emphasized how important it was to study.  Education was the path to success.  And guess what, Asians achieve wealth in fewer generations than any other immigrant group.
When Blacks suffer from fatherless homes, broken homes, etc. what hope is there for generational growth?  If generational growth is not going to happen among Blacks because of broken homes how is it that part of the argument is that whites have generational wealth?  Why don't blacks shoot for the same thing instead of wanting everything NOW!?
EXAMPLE: Larry Elder
His father lived in the Jim Crow South.  He moved to a less racist state, California, where they still had "white entrances" and "black entrances" (so much for less racist).  He worked his tail off for decades, getting only three hours of sleep a night.  He used his skills as a cook to eventually open his own restaurant.  He made the sacrifices to make sure his kids went to college.
Larry and his brother both went to college (Larry has a Law Degree) and were very successful.  They are both very wealthy.  Generational sacrifice.  Generational wealth.
And instead of encouraging these kinds of inspiring stories, they want to extort money on a nationwide scale?  All because they don't understand the importance of families. Not so inspiring.

I'll repeat my mother's experience.
She tested positive when she had a mild flu-like episode.  She recovered fine.  A short while later (think it was about a month or two) she had a heart-attack and died.  Her death certificate indicated "heart-attack" but someone gathering statistics included her in the COVID deaths because she tested positive within "some time frame" of her death.
This is not to say that COVID isn't serious.  It very often is.  But it isn't as serious as the media make it out to be. 
I don't know why I find myself walking this line.  Why do I feel like I'm the only one who realizes that it truly is a serious disease that we ought to be taking precautions for, while at the same time believing that it is still being blown WAY out of proportion?

"Remember to get vaccinated or a vaccinated person might get sick from the virus they got vaccinated against because you're not vaccinated."
- Unknown theorists

Scenario:
I don't have a very good relationship with another party, despite some sincere efforts on their part to establish a rapport. I decide to make a video "tongue-in-cheek" mocking their beliefs and making veiled threats (tongue-in-cheek). The other party doesn't react well. I respond by saying, "Pffbbt!  It's not my fault you can't take a joke." What kind of person am I here?  What kind of relations am I building here?