You really got so caught up in the words you found mean that missed their point entirely. Congratulations.

> Zeldin swung voters to R for all positions, not just Gov. If Hochul won as hard as Schumer, Dems probably would have carried 3-5 more house seats.

That’s exactly what is being discussed here. From this very thread. NY Democrats underperforming relative to Democrats nationally and costing Democrats the U.S. House in the process. Maybe you thought you were talking about something else, but regardless, your characterization of the other user is totally unjustified.

People on the left are clearly allowed to criticize the Democratic Party without being right wing. Especially when they’re criticizing Democrats not taking measures to perform better. Why should the Democratic Party be immune from that criticism?

I fail to see how criticizing the Democratic Party for not campaigning better in New York State constitutes right-wing rage.

The connection is pretty obvious, considering we’re talking about a candidate for NY governor and his impact on the US House’s composition.

Definitely not in New York state, which very well may have cost the Democrats the house. This fact has been well established.

I’m not making that assumption and I think it’s fair to call in question even his sexuality. He’s lied about his Jewish ancestry, his parents fleeing the Holocaust, his work history, his educational background, and more. To assume this one aspect of his identity is truthful in light of this new information is an incredibly generous read.

> They could’ve highlighted the string of lies directly in the headline, for example.

You must have missed the dozens of other articles doing just this, including the ones that made this sub.

And once again, the disclosure is incredibly important, regardless of whether he is gay or not. You can quit the pearl clutching on behalf of gay people.

“Openly” is the key word. Did his wife know? Did anybody in his life actually know? Or is he just using this as a front to justify his support of anti-LGBTQ legislation, using the identity as a shield from criticism?

Even if he is gay, but wasn’t out, this is pretty clearly a lie he’s telling to win votes.

It may not be important at all if he wasn’t openly advocating for rolling back the rights of LGBTQ people.

Even if he was openly gay and married to another woman, which is totally fine, disclosing this fact is clearly important considering he’s (a) a public official and owes transparency to his constituency, (b) is using his identity to justify anti-LGTBQ legislation, and (c) being married to a woman while also being an openly gay person is definitely a fact that warrants explanation.

I’ve been an out gay person for well over a decade so I don’t need to told how negative stereotypes work, either.

Most of us are well-acquainted with this guy after enough days of coverage to realize this comes in light of a string of exposed lies. You realize this too.

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.

> Realistically, nothings going to change.

For some reason you mistake this with the practice being ethical. That is not the case. Learn the difference.

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.

It’s a hospital, not purgatory. You shouldn’t get priority based off how much of a perceived great person you are or what debt the non-profit org feels they owe you.

> 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.

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.

You hate George Santos but you think this is the one thing so far he's probably being truthful about? The implication is that the narrative is suspect.

Truly both of these things.

> “I am openly gay, have never had an issue with my sexual identity in the past decade, and I can tell you and assure you, I will always be an advocate for LGBTQ folks,” Santos told USA Today in October, responding to criticism about his support for Florida’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay Bill” signed into law this year by GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Fourth paragraph of the article.

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.”

Lying about your sexuality while supporting anti-LGBTQ legislation is a bad thing.

All of these conversations are ones that middle class Americans already have.

Just because you want it doesn’t make it suddenly ethical to give you that.

Maybe the business model is garbage then, considering it’s a hospital.

Literally what are you talking about? It’s impossible to find a coherent point through all the nonsense you’re spewing here.