Except that is not what the attack is about, is it?
Did you read the article, it just dismiss it because of the source?
Excerpts:
Reading through Platner’s many hundreds of anonymous comments, it’s hard to paint him as a secret white supremacist or far-right extremist of any kind. In fact, his posts more or less align with the persona he has presented to voters in the two months since he launched his campaign: a rough-around-the-edges military veteran and oyster farmer with a penchant for crude language and a passion for firearms and sustainable living who holds a variety of standard progressive views alongside some heterodox ones.
...
He called a video of a police shooting of an unarmed black woman “disgusting” and frequently criticized what he said was widespread racism in police forces. He complained that no one cared about handgun violence “because handguns mostly kill young black men” and “nobody really gives a sh*t about things until it’s well spoken white kids getting hurt.”
...
Elsewhere, he railed against the “disgusting” treatment Americans received during the second Red Scare for their earlier “combat valor against the forces of fascism” in Spain’s civil war. “Punished because they confronted the threat before most other people even recognized it as one,” he wrote. When a user posted a 1994 photo of South African neo-Nazis about to be killed by a police officer, Platner didn’t mince words.
...
But read in their totality, Platner’s posts paint a different picture of the candidate: someone who, far from a secret fascist, was openly and passionately opposed to fascism; who held a variety of typical progressive views even as he expressed himself in ways many liberals would regard as crass and offensive; who sympathizes with rural Americans despite being vehemently opposed to many of the candidates they vote for; and who was disillusioned with and radicalized against the system by US wars.
= new reply since forum marked as read