Flooding the Zone

[Mountain Man]

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.

[carpedm9587]

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/

Much ado about nothing. An administration with concerns about the links between the incoming administration and the Russians sought to put as much information on the table as possible out of fear that it would be buried by the incoming administration. This is a nothingburger designed to flood the zone.

Last word to you. I have no desire to perpetuate a non-story narrative.

[carpedm9587]

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.

It is MM's classic response when he cannot support his own argument. He does it with pretty much every argument. Frankly, I don't know why the admin don't call him on argument by web link, but he seems to get a perpetual pass on that front.

[Mountain Man]

It is MM's classic response when he cannot support his own argument. He does it with pretty much every argument. Frankly, I don't know why the admin don't call him on argument by web link, but he seems to get a perpetual pass on that front.

Because it's not argument by weblink. I make a statement -- in this case "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'" -- and then I provide a link with more information to support my claims. "Argument by weblink" would be if I just dropped a link into a post without any elaboration.

Frankly, there is a lot to Obamagate that you guys appear curiously ignorant of. I sometimes forget that not everybody keeps up with the news like I do, and so there are times I'm genuinely surprised to discover that people are unaware of facts that I had come to regard as common knowledge. If you want to know just how deep the Obamagate rabbit hole really goes, then this article is a good place to start:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...esident-obama/

I hope it's needless to say, but Obamagate is not "fake news". Obama makes Nixon look like a choir boy.

[firstfloor]

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

Even Trump dose not know what 'Obamagate' is. It is a name without a subject designed to appeal to excitable right-wing nutters.

[Mountain Man]

Even Trump dose not know what 'Obamagate' is.

Fake news. He knows what it is and says that it should be obvious to everybody else.

[DivineOb]

Fake news. He knows what it is and says that it should be obvious to everybody else.

Yes, that is what he says. Funny that Mitch McConnell of all people has no interest in following up on this "crime of the century." Why might that be?

Let me guess. McConnell is just a RINO never trumper!

[carpedm9587]

Because it's not argument by weblink. I make a statement -- in this case "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'" -- and then I provide a link with more information to support my claims. "Argument by weblink" would be if I just dropped a link into a post without any elaboration.

Frankly, there is a lot to Obamagate that you guys appear curiously ignorant of. I sometimes forget that not everybody keeps up with the news like I do, and so there are times I'm genuinely surprised to discover that people are unaware of facts that I had come to regard as common knowledge. If you want to know just how deep the Obamagate rabbit hole really goes, then this article is a good place to start:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...esident-obama/

I hope it's needless to say, but Obamagate is not "fake news". Obama makes Nixon look like a choir boy.

Right. We just need to do all of the work of determining what is not "business as usual," and when we tell you the article does not seem to contain anything to support your claim - your typical response is "you didn't read it well enough" or

Your tactics are as transparent as your obvious biases, MM. But I'm sure you'll get those under control with a little "honest self-reflection"

Last word to you.


ETA: Oh...yeah...about Obamagate? Definitely fake news.

[Ronson]

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."

More than spin. That "piece" (of something) is little else than an emotional meltdown.

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.

That the author declares things to be • Edited by a Moderator • because he says so?

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.

The concept may be true. It's how I feel about the abundant, overwhelming, never-ending onslaught of Arbery stories (a local story) being paraded in national news.

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.

I have seen little-to-nothing on Obamagate, so I don't know what the complaint is about. The major news networks aren't spending much time with it.

Moderated By: QuantaFille

Profanity, even partially censored, is not allowed. If you're quoting someone, either censor it completely or don't quote it.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Mountain Man]

Yes, that is what he says. Funny that Mitch McConnell of all people has no interest in following up on this "crime of the century." Why might that be?

Let me guess. McConnell is just a RINO never trumper!

I don't know about "RINO never trumper", but McConnell has never been one to rock the Washington boat.

[DivineOb]

I don't know about "RINO never trumper", but McConnell has never been one to rock the Washington boat.

Why even reply if you're just going to response with total nonsense? Do any of your RWNJ brethren believe that McConnell isn't one to "rock the Washington boat"? Come on.

[NorrinRadd]

Why even reply if you're just going to response with total nonsense? Do any of your RWNJ brethren believe that McConnell isn't one to "rock the Washington boat"? Come on.

He's been terrific with getting judges approved, but swampy overall.

[DivineOb]

He's been terrific with getting judges approved, but swampy overall.

Obviously I agree he's a swamp creature. He also has violated every political norm he could get his hands on.

[firstfloor]

Fake news. He knows what it is and says that it should be obvious to everybody else.

Understanding your error: Talking Feds 73, from about 19 minutes.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...s/id1456045551