Flooding the Zone

[carpedm9587]

This is a term I was never familiar with. It is explained in this piece from Vox. I don't frequently read Vox, simply because I find them skewed as much to the left as Fox is skewed to the right, and it takes too much time/effort to "read past the spin." However, this article popped up on my feed this morning, and I decided to read it. It's an opinion piece, but the core of the article rings true - dismayingly true. I think the concept of "flooding the zone" is something we all need to be aware of. We are the only ones who can combat it.

It is an incredibly cynical and dishonest strategy, and it creates a conundrum for the media. Respond to the "flood" and you magnify it. Ignore the "flood" and focus on real stories and you get accused of playing partisan politics by not reporting on particular stories that Trump and the right-wing media is flooding.

But given the number of Republicans I have heard espouse the "win at any cost - you cannot make policy if you do not win" philosophy, I am not surprised at this strategy. Hopefully, people will see past this approach as well. Unfortunately, I am increasingly coming to think I may well be moving in the next year.

[Mountain Man]

First problem I see with the article is that the "Obamagate" scandal isn't fake.

[Charles]

I was reminded of these words by Gerson:

It is always difficult to determine how much of President Trump’s daily communication results from compulsion and how much results from calculation. But it has been Trump’s unique genius to turn the appearance of mental breakdown into effective political maneuvering. And we are seeing his approach take shape: a strategy of distraction to obscure a policy of abdication.

It is admittedly not easy to distract the attention of the nation from 80,000 covid-19 deaths, a good portion of which were avoidable. Trump’s late and reluctant embrace of sound scientific advice on the pandemic, and his early and enthusiastic undermining and abandonment of that advice, constitute the worst response to a national crisis since Herbert Hoover. Perhaps the worst response to a national crisis since James Buchanan. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...683_story.html

[Charles]

The standard has been lowered to the degree where those who ought to speak truth to power are instead using every possible means to try to turn the obvious lies of those in power into truths. When that is not possible, it seems they prefer to just muddy the waters, create enough confusion and doubt for people to give up finding truth.

To see members of the church supporting this ought to be surprising but it no longer is. In America it is what you can expect quite many of them to do. It is going on to the extent where I am starting to worry whether Trump is actually the end of it. I fear that the standard has been lowered to the extent where it is possible, perhaps even likely, that he is the beginning of something they will have no means to control since the entire system that should hold anyone accontable is completely broken.

[carpedm9587]

First problem I see with the article is that the "Obamagate" scandal isn't fake.

Actually - it is. There is no question that these unmasking occurred and were requested. What is being left out of the narrative, as usual, is that there are thousands of these unmaskings requested every year (including since Trump took office), whenever there is cause for concern about the communication that was captured. They are not considered nefarious - except, of course, if Trump doesn't like them. Then they become a really big issue because it throws yet more dust into the air and "floods the zone."

[carpedm9587]

The standard has been lowered to the degree where those who ought to speak truth to power are instead using every possible means to try to turn the obvious lies of those in power into truths. When that is not possible, it seems they prefer to just muddy the waters, create enough confusion and doubt for people to give up finding truth.

To see members of the church supporting this ought to be surprising but it no longer is. In America it is what you can expect quite many of them to do. It is going on to the extent where I am starting to worry whether Trump is actually the end of it. I fear that the standard has been lowered to the extent where it is possible, perhaps even likely, that he is the beginning of something they will have no means to control since the entire system that should hold anyone accontable is completely broken.

I have long said that the greatest threat that Trump, and now most of the Republican party, pose to our nation is their casual relationship with the truth. They will forego truth in a quest for "winning." Trump floods the airwaves and Internet with his "alternate truths," his administration has taken up the banner of lying for him, so we end up spending all of our time trying to dismantle the lies which only gives them more air. Psychological studies have shown that a lie repeated often enough becomes accepted as true by a significant portion of the populace.

The Democrats are not playing this game anywhere near as widely and lack the bully pulpit of the Oval Office - which puts them constantly on the defensive.

This is one of the reasons I am beginning to expect to move in the fall. The next six months will be plenty of time for Trump Inc. to throw so much dust into the air that the left will lose energy/heart. If they do that, Trump will win and this fiasco of an administration will continue for another four years, with Trump's "base" cheering on each next odious act. And without the risk of re-election facing him and a party that backs up almost every move, Trump will have essentially no governors on his actions.

That is certainly not a country I want to live in. If he is re-elected, I suspect that the U.S. will be entering its own "decline of the Roman Empire."

[Mountain Man]

Actually - it is. There is no question that these unmasking occurred and were requested. What is being left out of the narrative, as usual, is that there are thousands of these unmaskings requested every year (including since Trump took office), whenever there is cause for concern about the communication that was captured. They are not considered nefarious - except, of course, if Trump doesn't like them. Then they become a really big issue because it throws yet more dust into the air and "floods the zone."

Ah, so you've bought the spin.

There's a lot more to this than just the questionable unmasking. A lot more. It only seems like "flooding" now because the liberal media has ignored the story for so long, so what you're seeing is a sudden info dump instead of a gradual revelation over the past few years. This is why you need to keep your head out of the mainstream media bubble. There's a whole world out there that you apparently know nothing about.

But hey, good luck on your move. I give you about two-years before you come to the bitter realization that the grass really isn't greener on the other side.

[lilpixieofterror]

Actually - it is. There is no question that these unmasking occurred and were requested. What is being left out of the narrative, as usual, is that there are thousands of these unmaskings requested every year (including since Trump took office), whenever there is cause for concern about the communication that was captured. They are not considered nefarious - except, of course, if Trump doesn't like them. Then they become a really big issue because it throws yet more dust into the air and "floods the zone."

If that’s true, why did many members of the Obama administration lie and say they never tried to unmask Mike Flynn when records show they did, several times?

[lilpixieofterror]

I have long said that the greatest threat that Trump, and now most of the Republican party, pose to our nation is their casual relationship with the truth. They will forego truth in a quest for "winning." Trump floods the airwaves and Internet with his "alternate truths," his administration has taken up the banner of lying for him, so we end up spending all of our time trying to dismantle the lies which only gives them more air. Psychological studies have shown that a lie repeated often enough becomes accepted as true by a significant portion of the populace.

The Democrats are not playing this game anywhere near as widely and lack the bully pulpit of the Oval Office - which puts them constantly on the defensive.

This is one of the reasons I am beginning to expect to move in the fall. The next six months will be plenty of time for Trump Inc. to throw so much dust into the air that the left will lose energy/heart. If they do that, Trump will win and this fiasco of an administration will continue for another four years, with Trump's "base" cheering on each next odious act. And without the risk of re-election facing him and a party that backs up almost every move, Trump will have essentially no governors on his actions.

That is certainly not a country I want to live in. If he is re-elected, I suspect that the U.S. will be entering its own "decline of the Roman Empire."

Hypocrisy, got to love it.

[carpedm9587]

If that’s true, why did many members of the Obama administration lie and say they never tried to unmask Mike Flynn when records show they did, several times?

Who lied? As far as I can tell, two facts are unassailable:

1) the names of the people who requested the unmasking were only declassified five days ago. Before then, since it was classified, they would have been obligated to maintain the secrecy appropriate for the with classification.

2) The request was to "unmask the individual in the conversation." Since the name was masked, they could not have known who they were asking be unmasked. They only knew the names of the foreign end of the conversations. That is why there is a request to "unmask." They would only have known it was Flynn after the unmasking was completed.

This is a partisan tempest in a teapot designed to throw dust in the air by "flooding the zone."

[DivineOb]

If that’s true, why did many members of the Obama administration lie and say they never tried to unmask Mike Flynn when records show they did, several times?

Where is the underlying data supporting this claim? The hard evidence?

[Mountain Man]

2) The request was to "unmask the individual in the conversation." Since the name was masked, they could not have known who they were asking be unmasked. They only knew the names of the foreign end of the conversations. That is why there is a request to "unmask." They would only have known it was Flynn after the unmasking was completed.

As much as you want to buy the liberal spin on this one, the unmasking requests and the manner in which they were used was not "business as usual".

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...-briefing-pdb/

[DivineOb]

As much as you want to buy the liberal spin on this one, the unmasking requests and the manner in which they were used was not "business as usual".

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...-briefing-pdb/

I read this entire article. Will you please quote the specific section you think helps your case?

[Mountain Man]

I read this entire article. Will you please quote the specific section you think helps your case?

If you actually read it then you would already know the answer.

[DivineOb]

If you actually read it then you would already know the answer.

Again, more of this nonsense. *You* don't even read your own sources but we're expected to do so and make your case for you.