Sad to say I see loads of people on both sides who lack these critical thinking skills. People who believe every claim against Trump and people who disbelieve every claim against him. I have literally hear people say Trump didn't do any quid-pro-quo simply on the logic that Trump said he doesn't want quid-pro-quo (as if anyone with half a brain would say so). When people dig their trenches it becomes harder for them to see the facts from the propaganda.
It is two sides of the same coin, difference is that on this forum there are more people on one side and very few on the other so people here can outpost him and make him seem like the ridiculous side.
You seem to want to group people into this or that category based on nothing more than what you "have literally hear [sic] people say Trump didn't do any quid-pro-quo simply on the logic that Trump said he doesn't want quid-pro-quo." So, that means everyone who agrees there was no quid pro quo followed that same reasoning? Why can't the people who believe the RIGHT facts do so for the WRONG reasons?
For example, if I tell you Joe Biden's son is guilty of money laundering and political corruption which involves his father, you're going to ask for evidence. The evidence was covered up during the election, but plenty of information on the laptop was made public to SUSPECT these are the facts, even if they aren't proven legally.
I'm allowed to believe the information that's in the public domain unless and until new facts prove me wrong. To simply say I'm wrong because I believe the reports from a Hunter Biden business partner, a computer repairman, and the pieces of the backup leaked to the press by Guiliani, and didn't wait for hard proof is not an argument. It's a disagreement over the voracity and accuracy of the facts reported.
By the same token, if you did not believe the laptop was genuine because you trust the press when they ALL said it had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation, and 50 some odd former intelligence agents also dismissed it as Russian disinformation, are you not also free to believe those reports over the ones I believe?
It sounds like you think you can divine the truth from publicly available information no matter who it's about, and that's just not true. The media and the DNC are one. Nothing the Democrats want buried will ever become a hot news item unless the story somehow blows up -- as in a whistleblower with receipts comes forward.
These are not "two sides of the same coin." That implies they are each following a political bias rather than their own reasoning. In my world, the press has lied so many times the last 50 years, I find it impossible to believe anything they report regarding politics unless there's live, unedited footage shown to prove it's true. If Trump said something, and there's no video, I'm leaning toward another "anonymous source" spreading false rumors -- again.