Of course they would say that, being a far left extremist publication. Their preferred end goal would be a one party nation, the Democrat party.
Of course they would say that that too, being who and what they are.
Of course they would say that? LoL are you for real? You’re the one who posted the link claiming it proved your fantasies about the hearings being all one sided, all political propaganda, which it didn’t. You just cherry picked the parts you liked.
I see that you are reading only what doesn't cause any ideological cognitive dissonance.
Completely skipping / ignoring this below because of this:
The failure is the complete one siddedness which both articles call out. So ensconced in your view, you can't even see it when you (allegedly) read it those articles.
The hilarious irony in your comments always goes swoosh, right over your head.
I actually did read them, and when the entirety is kept in context, the pieces even with their criticisms did not support YOUR fantasies.
I don’t know if you intentionally take things out of context, or it’s comprehension issues on your part, but no they did not both highlight the abject failure in their “search for the truth“ the way you’ve been claiming. They most certainly weren’t saying that it was Democrats politically motivated political propaganda narrative, or that the House Select committee selected only video and witnesses which pushed their one sided political narrative, or that it was a Kangaroo court playing to public opinion for political advantage, or that the hearings were little more than 1/2 truths, typical of propaganda. A Goebbels job, or any of your other fantasies.
And no, they didn’t both highlight the committee’s politically one sided nature, no they weren’t calling out the complete one sidedness. The criticisms were that they didn’t go far enough. they actually supported the hearings. What they believed should have also been included would not have been another side, or proving your other fantasy version, it would actually have still been the same side lol.
But you want to talk about only reading what doesn’t cause ideological cognitive dissonance and truly being so ensconced in a view one can’t see it when one reads articles? Ok.
For starters, you were asked to elaborate on your fantasy that only the 1/2 of the story which Democrats permitted was told, hence the fauxrage from them when the full surveillance videos were made public, and that they didn't want anything but 'their side' of the story told. You responded by posting four links all about Tucker Carlson as your proof, along with a snarky comment that surely I must have heard of them. But those articles you linked not not only didn’t they support Tucker Carlson’s claims, they were disputing it.
Oops, looks like your being so ensconced in your view you couldn't see it even when reading it, oops you only read what didn’t cause any ideological cognitive dissonance.
Then when a poster said that the people who broke in to the capitol that day were there at Trump’s command, you said it was a false assertion and posted two year old links as your proof. Links so outdated that they actually said that there has been little, if any, recent discussion by senior Justice Department officials of filing charges such as "seditious conspiracy", and also said so far prosecutors had steered clear of more serious charges as seditious conspiracy.
Oops again.
And now two articles just cherry picking parts that you like.
There are always 2 sides to every story, and the House Select committee only told the Democrat's demanded side of the story.
Why is that so difficult for you?
No, there aren’t ‘always’ two sides, that’s just silly. That’s like saying if someone robs a bank there must be another side. And no, the committee did not only tell the ‘Democrat’s demanded side of the story’. That’s all your fantasy, which no matter how many times you’ve repeated it you couldn’t even state what that other side of the story is.
What’s not difficult to understand is reality vs your fantasies.
But by all means carry on, double down to your heart’s content, I’m done on this particular topic, you’ve already shown that you have no actual substance behind your claims, just conspiracy peddling, buzzwords, goal post moving, along with lots and lots of hyperbole.
