NetQuarterLatte t1_j1a4x8h wrote
This really highlights the magnitude of the fuckups in the midterm elections in NY.
He only got elected because of the crime concerns that rose to the top of many voters minds due to the negligence and gaslighting of our Democratic politicians. Same reason that allowed Zeldin's campaign to resonate and attract more funding, and consequently narrow the margins.
If the crime concerns were deflated earlier by acknowledging it, rather than inflating it by gaslighting, this congressional seat wouldn't have flipped because all of this shit would've came to light and be noticed by the voters before the election.
mission17 OP t1_j1a62di wrote
Oh brother. I get that it’s crime, crime with you in every thread and that’s your thesis statement— but this candidate would certainly not have been elected if these lies had been adequately transmitted to the public ahead of time with due diligence from the opposition. It really has nothing to do with Democratic “gaslighting.”
NetQuarterLatte t1_j1a99or wrote
They knew this stuff, but it was small potatoes given the bigger drama in the midterms.
>The Zimmerman campaign was largely unsuccessful in getting the media to follow up on the discrepancies in Santos’s work history, such as his employment at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.
https://newrepublic.com/article/169686/george-santos-record-democrats-media
Santos benefitted from those issues big time:
>“Anything outside of crime, inflation, and the cost of energy this cycle is a distraction from what’s really hurting Americans,” Santos told Spectrum News.
mission17 OP t1_j1a9vna wrote
Lying about your sexuality, your grandparents fleeing the Holocaust, your resume, your educational background, and your criminal record is not “small potatoes” at all. Be real right now. I know you’ve seldom met a problem you haven’t tried to blame on progressives, but actual, widespread disclosure of this issue would have certainly clouded over any sort of policy differentiations between these two candidates.
This man is a flat-out fraud. The opposition did not adequately draw attention to that and its only now making headlines now. These headlines two months ago would’ve killed the campaign beyond the point where any New York Post headlines about crime could’ve possibly resurrected it.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j1akywo wrote
You should ask why the press didn’t run those stories before the election.
Most of the press who should be reporting this was concerned with pushing the narrative that crime concerns were a fabrication. They clearly had their priorities.
mission17 OP t1_j1am38o wrote
> Most of the press who should be reporting this was concerned with pushing the narrative that crime concerns were a fabrication. They clearly had their priorities.
This is simply bullshit. Entirely anachronistic. And is not the reality of why this story did not surface until now.
NetQuarterLatte t1_j1aosiw wrote
>This is simply bullshit. Entirely anachronistic. And is not the reality of why this story did not surface until now.
Yeah, including the NY Times, it was not related at all with their relentless push for their "crime is just a perception issue / GOP propaganda" narrative.
Edit: even in mid Sep, when it was pretty obvious, the NY was still trying to spin the narrative. Those who want to deny, feel free to continue doing so.
NY Times confirms that huge donors for Zeldin came as a consequence of the public safety debate:
>The stakes have only grown amid a huge outside spending campaign by a handful of ultrawealthy conservative donors seeking to capitalize on the public safety debate.
NY Times spins the narrative:
>As Ms. Hochul likes to point out, the state remains safer than some far smaller, many run by Republicans.
>
>But a rash of highly visible, violent episodes, especially on the New York City subways, in recent months have left many New Yorkers with at least the perception that parts of the state are growing markedly less safe.
NY Times spending time fishing for a quote about the "GOP propaganda" narrative on the streets, rather than investigating George Santos.
>“I want to make something crystal clear because they aren’t going to explain it to you in the media,” he said, adding: “They want to make us afraid.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/25/nyregion/hochul-zeldin-governor-ny.html
mission17 OP t1_j1aq25e wrote
That was quite literally not what was happening in The New York Times two months ago. And thus that is absolutely not the reason this did not happen. You very much understand this and understand you’re not being honest, anyways, so this will be my last comment clarifying it for everyone else here.
But furthermore The New York Times, or whatever your favorite liberal boogeyman newspaper may be, is not the only party responsible for fumbling the bag. Your favorite conservative outlets, if they actually have a fuck about holding the right accountable, equally could have uncovered this story. Or the Democratic Party. Or the Republican Party, if they actually cared about being represented by honest people. But they clearly do not.
MillennialNightmare t1_j1apqjm wrote
The New York Times also published multiple articles about crime in New York City. Saying they had a unilateral narrative that it was pure perception is a flat out lie.
mission17 OP t1_j1ayiw1 wrote
I’m not entertaining that user with any more replies but in their edits: 1) nothing that the Times was saying is remotely untrue, 2) only a small fraction of the crimes coverage is represented, with much of the Time coverage having actually insinuating the narrative of a crime wave, and 3) absolutely none of this coverage would’ve precluded research into the candidates.
It’s exhausting how they try to make the “Democrats/left-wing media/whoever wasn’t right wing enough” answer fit every problem they can think of, even if it just takes a total lie to get to that result.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments