FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: niam2023 on May 07, 2017, 05:25:06 pm
-
Let us celebrate the new President of France, Emmanuel Macron!
He defeated his rival, a Neo-Nazi dingbat, 64 to 35 percent. Which is really how our election should have gone, if the United States was a sane country. I think this is a sign of defeat for racist far right wing parties that appeal to bogards and Daily Stormer reading lunatics - the far right has lost its momentum and thankfully responsible, calmer heads prevailed. Fascism has been dealt a blow today.
And of course the far right is in freak out mode - not only did they utterly fail to meme LePen to victory, but they've angered a significant number of the French with their attempts to influence the election.
A good day amidst a large number of bad ones.
-
Let us celebrate the new President of France, Emmanuel Macron!
He defeated his rival, a Neo-Nazi dingbat, 64 to 35 percent. Which is really how our election should have gone, if the United States was a sane country. I think this is a sign of defeat for racist far right wing parties that appeal to bogards and Daily Stormer reading lunatics - the far right has lost its momentum and thankfully responsible, calmer heads prevailed. Fascism has been dealt a blow today.
And of course the far right is in freak out mode - not only did they utterly fail to meme LePen to victory, but they've angered a significant number of the French with their attempts to influence the election.
A good day amidst a large number of bad ones.
eh, the Tories in England have been cozying up to UKIP as of late, and they're slated to win fairly easily.
It's good for France and for the rest of the EU, particularly Germany. Not really informative of global trends, though.
-
I say we should take our victories as they come and treasure them. It will do far better for morale than remaining in a constant state of looking for worse news.
-
I hope this hurts the cockiness of the alt right. They've been riding their high horse for a while now.
-
yeah - they tried to meme LePen to victory, and even tried pulling a BUT MACRON'S EMAILS!...and all it did was piss off the French, possibly swaying the results even further toward Macron.
I've heard they're freaking out, and given Macron has said he intends to make Brexit difficult and painful if they wanna persist with that, it looks like that far right endeavor might not go through as well.
Finally, good news and the alt right got knocked off that horse they were riding since Trump stole the election.
-
A win's a win. I'll take it.
-
The only people going "BUT HIS EMAILS" seem to be American Alt-Nazis.
And basically this was a case of someone breaking into a house, going through the owners mail, taking the stolen stuff to public and screaming "look at this! Maybe he has done something bad! Go through his letters and see! This is actually about ethics in gaming journalism!"
And then random Redditors who also post on Teh_Donnie go "I for one support freedom of speech and neutrality of press. It would be better if someone had hacke Le PEn as well but since we got this whistleblower now why don't we look at his emails and see if he did something wrong. Just playing the devil's advocate. Don't really get why you people seem so upset about this."
-
I've heard they're freaking out, and given Macron has said he intends to make Brexit difficult and painful if they wanna persist with that, it looks like that far right endeavor might not go through as well.
Brexit isn't just a far-right thing, I can think of a handful of leftist reasons to vote pro-Brexit, I could probably articulate those when I'm more awake than I am presently.
-
I've heard they're freaking out, and given Macron has said he intends to make Brexit difficult and painful if they wanna persist with that, it looks like that far right endeavor might not go through as well.
Brexit isn't just a far-right thing, I can think of a handful of leftist reasons to vote pro-Brexit, I could probably articulate those when I'm more awake than I am presently.
Yes, it is - it was cooked up by nationalist interests, promoted by such figures as Nigel Farage, and the people most involved with it were well known for their Russian contacts, and Putin has always had reason to want people out of the EU. Makes it easier for him to conquer more territory.
-
I've heard they're freaking out, and given Macron has said he intends to make Brexit difficult and painful if they wanna persist with that, it looks like that far right endeavor might not go through as well.
Brexit isn't just a far-right thing, I can think of a handful of leftist reasons to vote pro-Brexit, I could probably articulate those when I'm more awake than I am presently.
Yes, it is - it was cooked up by nationalist interests, promoted by such figures as Nigel Farage, and the people most involved with it were well known for their Russian contacts, and Putin has always had reason to want people out of the EU. Makes it easier for him to conquer more territory.
Since I'm about to head to sleep I'll give you some reading material instead of going into great personal detail on why a Leftist may want to leave the EU.
http://socialistreview.org.uk/404/eu-referendum-should-we-stay-or-should-we-go
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/16/brexit-eu-referendum-boris-johnson-greece-tory
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/06/leave-european-union-brexit-ukip-corbyn-cameron/
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/john-king-left-wing-case-leaving-eu
None of these sources would have any reason to assist Putin, the EU has a lot of detractors from across the political spectrum, there is no one "official" leftist stance about that organization.
-
If memory serves, the EU is a bureaucratic, austerity-driven fuckstorm and has been for some time, now. When faced with the uphill battle of reform or the more simple getting the fuck outta Dodge, folks tend towards the simpler solution. While there was a tonne of racism and shit behind it, I doubt it'd have gained as much of a following as it did had the EU gotten its head removed from the depths of its own anus and kicked the rich retards out, replacing them with actual people that know what the fuck they're doing.
-
Yeah, there is a strong case to be made from the left wing perspective that EU in its current form does more harm than good despite being a good idea in principle. On the other hand, leaving it is not easy and EU has a lot of incentives to make things difficult for any country that chooses to leave. I agree with Yannis Varoufakis's opinion that in the current political climate the far right is in a much more better position to take advantage of the destruction of the status quo than the left is.
-
The only people going "BUT HIS EMAILS" seem to be American Alt-Nazis.
And basically this was a case of someone breaking into a house, going through the owners mail, taking the stolen stuff to public and screaming "look at this! Maybe he has done something bad! Go through his letters and see! This is actually about ethics in gaming journalism!"
And then random Redditors who also post on Teh_Donnie go "I for one support freedom of speech and neutrality of press. It would be better if someone had hacke Le PEn as well but since we got this whistleblower now why don't we look at his emails and see if he did something wrong. Just playing the devil's advocate. Don't really get why you people seem so upset about this."
Yeah about the "BUT HIS EMAILS!" stuff. Turns out Macron was one step ahead and planted fake emails for the Russian hackers to find. Basically made Wikileaks out to be idiots is what he did.
Ironbite-hopefully this starts a trend to not trusting Wikileaks.
-
Yeah about the "BUT HIS EMAILS!" stuff. Turns out Macron was one step ahead and planted fake emails for the Russian hackers to find. Basically made Wikileaks out to be idiots is what he did.
Ironbite-hopefully this starts a trend to not trusting Wikileaks.
Fake emails? I've read that his campaign spammed the phishing pages with mostly fake user IDs (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/25/fighting-back-against-putin-s-hackers). This forced the hackers to waste a lot of time in wading through the spam to find out some real user information that was also there. They eventually did gain access to real emails but there was nothing damaging there besides some obvious and clumsy fakes by either the hackers or just regular alt-right trolls. Macron's security expert claims that their counterattack wasted the hackers' time so much that they weren't able to organize the leak. As far as I am aware Macron's campaign didn't fake any actual emails themselves.
-
I might have misinterpreted an article I read about the cyper-counter attack. If I did, my bad. Still, pretty smart on the part of Marcron's security expert to go on the offensive like that.
Ironbite-good for him on getting ahead of Russia.
-
The only people going "BUT HIS EMAILS" seem to be American Alt-Nazis.
And basically this was a case of someone breaking into a house, going through the owners mail, taking the stolen stuff to public and screaming "look at this! Maybe he has done something bad! Go through his letters and see! This is actually about ethics in gaming journalism!"
And then random Redditors who also post on Teh_Donnie go "I for one support freedom of speech and neutrality of press. It would be better if someone had hacke Le PEn as well but since we got this whistleblower now why don't we look at his emails and see if he did something wrong. Just playing the devil's advocate. Don't really get why you people seem so upset about this."
Yeah about the "BUT HIS EMAILS!" stuff. Turns out Macron was one step ahead and planted fake emails for the Russian hackers to find. Basically made Wikileaks out to be idiots is what he did.
Ironbite-hopefully this starts a trend to not trusting Wikileaks.
WikiLeaks has only ever leaked one thing that I can think of (the fake Macron emails that he planted in advance) that was inaccurate. So I still trust them largely, I have no clue why people think they're in with Russia. If it's just because they've leaked shit about Clinton than thats dumb, because I follow their twitter feed and they've taken to criticism of moves by Trump too, they're not on any one side other than "criticize the people in power and leak shit about them".
-
a) There were fake Macron emails that have been proven to have been modified by Russian users. In Russia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/06/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-hack-french-election-marine-le-pen.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
By Saturday, a trail of digital crumbs appeared to tie the attack on Mr. Macron’s campaign to Russian hackers. Forensics specialists found that one of the leaked Excel documents from Mr. Macron’s campaign had been modified on a Russian version of Excel, and edited on Russian-language computers.
One document had last been modified by a Russian user named Roshka Georgiy Petrovich. Mr. Petrovich, 32, an employee of the Moscow-based Eureka CJSC, a Russian technology company, did not immediately return emails requesting comment. Eureka CJSC’s clients include several Russian government agencies.
b) Wikileaks has a history of not leaking stuff that goes against Russia's interests while leaking stuff that helps Russia.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/07/donald-trump-julian-assange-and-russia-how-theyre-connected-and-how-they-changed-an-election/
This one is mainly about Trump but note that when the Panama papers came out and had basically dirt on loads and loads of people and companies Wikileaks chose to take that moment to defend Russia and claim that it was a US operation to make Russia look bad.
-
The only people going "BUT HIS EMAILS" seem to be American Alt-Nazis.
And basically this was a case of someone breaking into a house, going through the owners mail, taking the stolen stuff to public and screaming "look at this! Maybe he has done something bad! Go through his letters and see! This is actually about ethics in gaming journalism!"
And then random Redditors who also post on Teh_Donnie go "I for one support freedom of speech and neutrality of press. It would be better if someone had hacke Le PEn as well but since we got this whistleblower now why don't we look at his emails and see if he did something wrong. Just playing the devil's advocate. Don't really get why you people seem so upset about this."
Yeah about the "BUT HIS EMAILS!" stuff. Turns out Macron was one step ahead and planted fake emails for the Russian hackers to find. Basically made Wikileaks out to be idiots is what he did.
Ironbite-hopefully this starts a trend to not trusting Wikileaks.
WikiLeaks has only ever leaked one thing that I can think of (the fake Macron emails that he planted in advance) that was inaccurate. So I still trust them largely, I have no clue why people think they're in with Russia. If it's just because they've leaked shit about Clinton than thats dumb, because I follow their twitter feed and they've taken to criticism of moves by Trump too, they're not on any one side other than "criticize the people in power and leak shit about them".
....oh wow a moron.
Ironbite-haven't seen one of those that wasn't an Ultimate Dragon sock puppet in a while.
-
Be fair, Ironbite, Contrarian still comes around now and again.
-
....oh wow a moron.
Ironbite-haven't seen one of those that wasn't an Ultimate Dragon sock puppet in a while.
Don't be an ass. If you think she's wrong, say why.
-
The only people going "BUT HIS EMAILS" seem to be American Alt-Nazis.
And basically this was a case of someone breaking into a house, going through the owners mail, taking the stolen stuff to public and screaming "look at this! Maybe he has done something bad! Go through his letters and see! This is actually about ethics in gaming journalism!"
And then random Redditors who also post on Teh_Donnie go "I for one support freedom of speech and neutrality of press. It would be better if someone had hacke Le PEn as well but since we got this whistleblower now why don't we look at his emails and see if he did something wrong. Just playing the devil's advocate. Don't really get why you people seem so upset about this."
Yeah about the "BUT HIS EMAILS!" stuff. Turns out Macron was one step ahead and planted fake emails for the Russian hackers to find. Basically made Wikileaks out to be idiots is what he did.
Ironbite-hopefully this starts a trend to not trusting Wikileaks.
WikiLeaks has only ever leaked one thing that I can think of (the fake Macron emails that he planted in advance) that was inaccurate. So I still trust them largely, I have no clue why people think they're in with Russia. If it's just because they've leaked shit about Clinton than thats dumb, because I follow their twitter feed and they've taken to criticism of moves by Trump too, they're not on any one side other than "criticize the people in power and leak shit about them".
Seriously, read this. It is long and very informative (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html).
To summarize, in the summer of 2015, according to Crowdstrike, cyber espionage groups closely aligned with Russian Military Intelligence, known as Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, hacked the DNC, the DCCC, and John Podesta. This was a large-scale attack on these entities over the period of many months; it could not have been carried out by a few people. The information was then sifted through and organized so that it could be released to maximize damage to Secretary Clinton.
The entity claiming responsibility for the hacks was Guccifer 2.0. Guccifer 2.0 claimed that he lived in Romania, but evidence began to pile that he was in Russia and spoke little Romania. Additionally, evidence piled up that "he" was likely a group of people. "He" promised to publish the hacked documents on Wikileaks, and Wikileaks was happy to comply.
Now, Julian Assange claims to be an innocent recipient of the hacks and vehemently denies that the leaks were timed in such a way to hurt Clinton. That does not mesh with the facts. Shortly before the Democratic National Convention, Wikileaks released Emails from the primaries and negative of Bernie. In the last thirty days leading up to the general election, Wikileaks published 1,800-3,000 each day, dominating the news coverage. If transparency is the desired end, you release all the emails at once; if you want to hurt political opponents, you time it out to keep the story fresh. In the days following the election, Julian Assange alluded to wikileaks popularity in the final weeks of the 2016 election as evidence that the voters made an educated and informed decision, despite the fact he only released electronic documents hacked from Secretary Clinton.
And then this happened in France (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/05/08/in-france-a-hack-falls-flat/?utm_term=.92ca1ac54516). Again, Fancy Bear was caught with his paw in the cookie jar. Again, Wikileaks published these documents. Again, only one candidate had the documents hacked and leaked. Again, the information was published at a time to do maximum damage (in the final hours before the French "Black Out" to catch a narrative and dominate conversations over the weekend). And again, the candidate that benefited from the link was a far-right nationalist that favored Putin, and whom Putin favored.
Newsflash to no one: Wikileaks is the mouthpiece of Russia to air dirty laundry about people Putin doesn't like.
-
Reminder that these were hacks not leaks.
These were the equivalent of someone going into your house, taking photos of everything, copying your internet history, looting all your letters and then Wikileaks publishes it saying "Is there anything illegal here? We don't know but perhaps if you dig through the stuff we'll find something embarrassing!"
And I recently had an argument on Reddit with a guy insisting that "in the name of transparency" we should investigate this in case something illegal is discovered and that there is nothing suspicious in this. Of course he had the "in a perfect world the other candidates emails would have also been released" to say but am I really the only one who thinks that these hacks were a violation of privacy and nothing more? It would be one thing if someone in the party would come out and say that they did something illegal or if there was a court order to get the emails because of an investigation.
But this is just criminal and at best it's paparazzi bullshit to go dig into someone's emails "in the name of transparency."
-
Currently reading the suggested Times report. And I just checked and it seems that Former Director Comey is being offered a job by WL, wasn't Comey investigating the Trump-Russia accusations before losing his job?
-
Reminder that these were hacks not leaks.
These were the equivalent of someone going into your house, taking photos of everything, copying your internet history, looting all your letters and then Wikileaks publishes it saying "Is there anything illegal here? We don't know but perhaps if you dig through the stuff we'll find something embarrassing!"
And I recently had an argument on Reddit with a guy insisting that "in the name of transparency" we should investigate this in case something illegal is discovered and that there is nothing suspicious in this. Of course he had the "in a perfect world the other candidates emails would have also been released" to say but am I really the only one who thinks that these hacks were a violation of privacy and nothing more? It would be one thing if someone in the party would come out and say that they did something illegal or if there was a court order to get the emails because of an investigation.
But this is just criminal and at best it's paparazzi bullshit to go dig into someone's emails "in the name of transparency."
Right. I don't want to understate the severity of the hacks, but my wording was intended to reflect that this is different than most other foreign espionage hacks. Most of the time a foreign government snoops around in our computers, they just take a few files and fuck off. Russia hacked these files with the intent to leak them to the public to damage Secretary Clinton's and Emmanuel Macron's electability.
And yes, Comey was investigating the Trump-Russian ties when he was fired. Trump said Comey's firing was cause Comey was unfair to Clinton, but that doesn't mesh with reality. Trump praised Comey for his July 2016 statements on Hillary, for his reopening the case, cited Comey as a reason he won, and this is May and not January. A review of Trump also shows he has no respect for Secretary Clinton. However, like Yates and Bahara, Comey was looking too closely into the Trump campaign's Russian ties
-
Currently reading the suggested Times report. And I just checked and it seems that Former Director Comey is being offered a job by WL, wasn't Comey investigating the Trump-Russia accusations before losing his job?
So, you've had a full day to read the links; what is your current opinion on the Russia-Wikileaks collusion in the French and American elections?
-
I'd say if you're going to play the victim about getting your shit hacked and displayed to the public, you'll probably get more sympathy if you weren't being investigated for having your own homebrew mail server just so you can get around FOIA requests.
"Nonono, all the incriminating materials you subpoena'd were conveniently accidentally deleted!"
-
I'd say if you're going to play the victim about getting your shit hacked and displayed to the public, you'll probably get more sympathy if you weren't being investigated for having your own homebrew mail server just so you can get around FOIA requests.
"Nonono, all the incriminating materials you subpoena'd were conveniently accidentally deleted!"
Whataboutism, otherwise known as tu quoque. Hillary's use of a private email server does not in any way affect either (a) Russia's interference in our election or (b) Wikileaks pimping for Russia.
Of course, critical thinking and logical consistency are not your strong suits. You just make whatever flimsy appeal to hypocrisy you can, ignoring everything from context to severity. I think it must be easy to be so simple as to see the world in a stark binary of black-and-white where your side team is always the lesser-evil, if not always in the right. Nevertheless, I find the lack of nuance in your position to be a terrible curse, more so when you do not even realize your affliction. And I fully expect you to hurr about leftist hypocrisy in response to this post; my popcorn is already prepared.
As a side note, I am still waiting on a reply from Kanzenkankaku.
-
Do not feed the troll. Just ignore him
-
This forum likely would have died off in the time away from the main site without us playing with our chewtoys, SomeApe.
-
I have no doubt after reading that article the hackers responsible were Russians. I find it possible that WL did know where it was coming from, but I don't blame them for releasing the E-Mails (Especially since we found out the DNC specifically chose to screw over Senator Sanders) and I can't really blame them for things that are out of their control like what is given to them. If they only receive documents about certain people, that's just what happens.
As for the French Election itself, I didn't know enough to really decide who the best candidate was, but good on France for picking the one they wanted to have in the end. I wish Mr. Macron well.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it so that the DNC didn't actually screw over Sanders?
I thought that any of the "damning" emails were after he had no way of winning and the questions being revealed in advance was a thing offered to both of them.
-
I have no doubt after reading that article the hackers responsible were Russians. I find it possible that WL did know where it was coming from, but I don't blame them for releasing the E-Mails (Especially since we found out the DNC specifically chose to screw over Senator Sanders) and I can't really blame them for things that are out of their control like what is given to them. If they only receive documents about certain people, that's just what happens.
Well, they are a bit more selective when it comes to releasing documents involving Russia (https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-russia-bank-2-billion/).
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it so that the DNC didn't actually screw over Sanders?
I thought that any of the "damning" emails were after he had no way of winning and the questions being revealed in advance was a thing offered to both of them.
The talk about DNC screwing Sanders over is exaggerated. The thing documents confirmed was that the DNC favored Clinton over him and had her interests in mind when making decisions about things like scheduling the primaries. A small nudge here, another there; typical "old boys' club" style politics except in this case the club involved also girls and something that is expected when you challenge an institution. In the end, it probably wasn't enough to influence the end result since Clinton ended up winning so clearly and there is no real evidence for dramatic things like election fraud some conspiracy theorists claim happened.
-
I have no doubt after reading that article the hackers responsible were Russians. I find it possible that WL did know where it was coming from, but I don't blame them for releasing the E-Mails (Especially since we found out the DNC specifically chose to screw over Senator Sanders) and I can't really blame them for things that are out of their control like what is given to them. If they only receive documents about certain people, that's just what happens.
Well, they are a bit more selective when it comes to releasing documents involving Russia (https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-russia-bank-2-billion/).
There are also several instances where Wikileaks played cozy to Putin's interests. I have mentioned two examples already:
[The Russian DNC hacking] was a large-scale attack on [the DNC, DCCC, and John Podesta] over the period of many months; it could not have been carried out by a few people. The information was then sifted through and organized so that it could be released to maximize damage to Secretary Clinton.
...
Shortly before the Democratic National Convention, Wikileaks released Emails from the primaries and negative of Bernie. In the last thirty days leading up to the general election, Wikileaks published 1,800-3,000 each day, dominating the news coverage. If transparency is the desired end, you release all the emails at once; if you want to hurt political opponents, you time it out to keep the story fresh.
and
And then this happened in France (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/05/08/in-france-a-hack-falls-flat/?utm_term=.92ca1ac54516). ... Again, Wikileaks published these documents. ... Again, the information was published at a time to do maximum damage (in the final hours before the French "Black Out" to catch a narrative and dominate conversations over the weekend).
Now, Julian Assange claims to be an innocent recipient of these hacks which he publishes in a commitment to transparency: that is his story and he is sticking to it. However, the style of the leaks belies his claims of innocence. In this situation, there are two actors with competing values: Russia and Julian Assange. Russia would want the leaks timed out to dominate news stories at highly relevant times in the election to maximize the damage from these leaks. Julian Assange, valuing transparency, would want to leaks these stories upfront and let the public decide. The timing of the leaks lined up with Russian, not Wikileaks', interests: (1) Bernie material was released before the Convention, (2) daily leaks in the run-up to the General election on Hillary, and (3) Macron's leak happening hours before the French blackout period.
Second, there is the bombshell leak known as the Panama Papers. If Julian Assange valued transparency, then he would want to publish the Panama Papers, but he didn't. As the Panama Papers Whistleblower stated "WikiLeaks didn’t answer its tip line repeatedly" in response to calls for publication. For a site that values transparency and leaked information, it does not make sense for Wikileaks to turn down this material. That is, until you realize that these documents aired Putin's dirty laundry (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/panama-papers-money-hidden-offshore). Again, the values of transparency clash with the interests of Russia, and Russian interests prevail.
Third, Julian Assange is not being honest about getting the information from Russia. We all know Wikileaks got the hacked emails from the Russian government, via government run cyber espionage agencies. I know this because I previously posted:
Seriously, read this. It is long and very informative (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html).
You know this, because you posted this:
I have no doubt after reading that article the hackers responsible were Russians.
The world knows this because Hillary Clinton said during a presidential debate:
But, you know, let's talk about what's really going on here, Martha, because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election. And WikiLeaks is part of that, as are other sites where the Russians hack information.
In fact, the link I posted earlier (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html) is almost six months old. There is no excuse, except the awkward exception of waking from a 7-month coma, to not know this.* However, despite this being old news, and despite Julian Assange knowing best from whom he gets his information, he lies to cover for Russia (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/03/assange-russian-government-not-source-wikileaks-emails.html).
I've said it once, so I'll end by saying it again:
Newsflash to no one: Wikileaks is the mouthpiece of Russia to air dirty laundry about people Putin doesn't like.
*Oh how I envy these people, to wake up and innocently and honestly believe that Barack Obama is still our president.
-
The Anti-Macron leaks have now been studied and yet more of them have been discovered to be fakes. Not only that, it turns out that Neo-Nazis at Dailystormer were taking part in organizing the "leak" campaign:
http://www.politico.eu/article/neo-nazi-activist-may-be-behind-fake-macron-documents/
https://www.qurium.org/alerts/france/tracing_macrongate_source/
Anyone surprised at this?
-
Not in the least bit surprised.
Incompetence, obviously fake leaks and using the same tired memes everywhere...really, Anglin makes himself very obvious.
-
Andrew whatshisface is a lot less clever than he thinks he is. I worry shitheads like him meddling with the whistleblowing scene will be used by the establishment to discredit future exposure of the things they are doing wrong.