The Frankish Reich

Given your rather, umm, frenetic activity here lately (check the leading posters this month), I've gotta assume you get your news from only the best source: the only guy ahead of you on the leaderboard.

Yes. It was sarcasm. Now maybe, just maybe, you'll understand how the Sandy Hook families feel?

Which does, of course, come naturally. To some. Something goes wrong, look to see if the person in charge is a woman. Or black. Or Hispanic. Then go with "DEI Hire."

You know where you're getting your news now? From the MSM. They're actually reporting it. But you get it through the filter of some blowhard on social media, which apparently makes you and your ilk some kind of rebel truth-tellers. To me it makes you a lazy ass.

It's not exactly a secret. Maybe you want to spend 2 seconds googling it before spouting off an uninformed opinion. But that wouldn't be the PPP way, would it. https://www.secretservice.gov/about/leadership/director https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-nominates-kim-cheatle-lead-secret-service/story?id=88812850

Go back to you Julie Kelly feed. Julie is always 100% fact-checked by her editors.

Ham-handed hot take, Mary Katharine.

She has the experience and qualifications for the job. So I have to assume this is just knee-jerk sexism. https://www.secretservice.gov/about/leadership/director

If she hasn't been fired already, she should be by tomorrow. And for a (future) non-governmental employee, I can't really find anything to disagree with in this tweet:

So ... why do you think what I'm saying is wrong? It certainly seems to fit the circumstances, and we've all seen this movie before.

I'm kind of surprised they don't (apparently) use drones. Why not?

What isn't "reliable" in the linked story? I know people ridicule MSM headlines. (Note that the reporter doesn't write the headline.) And yes, there's an editorial bias. But some reports are straight news. And the NYT and other major sources still have rules: do the digging, corroborate/fact check, etc. We actually saw that with the Wash Post Alito flag story - they looked into it a couple years ago, couldn't really find any clear link between the Justice and the decision to fly that flag, and they didn't run anything at the time. Who is Julie Kelly's editor?

Well, that's because you don't know why a young man suffering some kind of mental break would act in any circumstance.

If that's our guy, it's consistent with the psychological break pattern we've seen with other shooters. Intelligent, seemingly mild-mannered HS student. A couple years later, obsessed/paranoid street screamer. And sadly, a probably well-meaning but incredibly ill considered response by his dad: maybe shooting sports will be his thing; hey, let's buy him an AR-15.

Sad but true. There's the occasional illuminating post, like the one I just mentioned. Then there's my admittedly perverse interest in seeing how social media corrupts the thinking of this group of (mostly) aging men. My amateur anthropology project ...

I guess he'll meet you in hell. Pretty cool flag, I have to admit it. Doesn't mean anything, but cool tangle.

Thanks. I've said this before. Why do I read/post in PPP given how no one is ever going to convince anyone of anything here? One of the reasons is that some posters actually have experience in an area I don't know about, and I appreciate this kind of input. Sometimes I learn something ...

Some actual reporting, as in a reporter (from the dreaded mainstream media) making calls, visiting sites, talking to people, looking up public records. You know, the stuff that will now be fodder for all the Hot Take Machines that get quoted here, disparaging the MSM. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/trump-gunman-thomas-crooks.html

Hmm, that could be a bit ... problematic, no?

Hey Trump, if you were a real man like TR you wouldn't have been hustled off without shoes.

The False Flag guy is my alter ego. That guy responds with the conspiratorial crap that dominates this site. I should create a new name for him and respond to myself, but that would violate the TOS here. And I'm a rule follower if nothing else.

Correct. There is absolutely no reason to assume anything else.

^ Falls hard for false flag op.

So there's a law about that? Where? We should allow firearms at political rallies. Political rally = protected by 1st Amendment. Firearms carry = protected by 2nd Amendment. Your call for reasonable/unwritten restrictions is unconstitutional.