MIG Reports analysis of voter discussions shows two consistently pressing and connected topics for Americans in the 2024 election—the economy, and immigration.
Their interrelation often focuses on:
How immigration impacts economic discussions
How the economy impacts immigration discussions
The intent of this study is to determine trending themes, parallels, or anomalies from conversations and how they impact each other based on framing. Some key findings include:
Sentiment is generally negative on the economy and the border.
The total volume of discussions is greater regarding the economy than immigration.
Discussions are often intertwined but the economy features more frequently in immigration discussions.
Positive views of immigration are only present in conversations exclusively focused on the border.
Disparity in Volume and Focus
Analysis of two data sets includes conversations about the economy which mention immigration and conversations about immigration which mention the economy. Generally, economic concerns are discussed in larger volume than immigration issues. While there is similarity across swing state and national conversations, the economy is more often discussed within immigration conversations than immigration is discussed within economic conversations.
When discussion is focused on the economy, immigration is sometimes brought up as a negative pressure on economic problems—exacerbating inflation and taxation. When general discussion is on immigration, voters again emphasize negative economic impacts. But they often mention things like job competition, strain on social services, and crime. The discussions have less breadth and depth, however, compared to economic-centric discussions.
Consistency in Themes but Different Emphases
The same themes of inflation, job competition, taxation, and government spending recur in both sets of analyses.This suggests consistent voter concern about the economic implications of immigration. However, the emphasis differs in each type of discussion.
In the economic-centric discussions, these themes are explored in greater detail and connected to broader economic policy critiques. In immigration-centric discussions themes concentrate on how immigration exacerbates these economic issues. There is often a focus on the immediate and tangible impacts of unchecked immigration like job availability and social service burdens.
Within immigration-focused discussions there is a stronger narrative around security and crime. This is especially pronounced in data sets from swing states and presidential election conversations. Crime and safety, while present in economic discussions, is pronounced when immigration is the primary topic. This suggests deeper public anxieties about safety that Americans directly associate with increased immigration.
Mostly Negative Sentiment, Some Positive Support
Across both sets of analyses, sentiment remains largely negative toward current economic and immigration policies. However, there is relatively more support or positive framing in the immigration-centric discussions compared to the economic-centric ones.
While the immigration-focused discussions still emphasize concerns about job competition, strain on social services, and crime, there is a noticeable viewpoint which recognizes potential economic benefits of immigration.
Immigration supporters argue immigrants fill labor gaps, contribute to economic growth, and increase tax revenues. While these supportive views are sometimes expressed in immigration-centric discussions, they are still overshadowed by the dominant negative sentiment.
In economy-centric conversations, views of immigration are uniformly critical, with almost no mention of positive impacts. Here, immigration is more frequently viewed as a significant contributing factor to economic problems.
Polarization and Political Divide
Political polarization present in economic discussions is also evident in immigration discussions, though with sharper contrasts. When immigration is the focal point, the divide between supporters of stricter immigration policies and advocates for reform is more pronounced.
This contentious dialogue emerges regarding immigration, while the economy is less divisive—though still mostly negative. In the data set comprised of election-related topics, immigration discussions are often framed within a broader political narrative. These conversations emphasize past and present immigration policies, directly comparing Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
Economy Nested Within Immigration
The immigration-focused analysis shows voter conversations narrow down on specific economic impacts like job competition and welfare costs. They delve less frequently into broader economic trends such as long-term fiscal responsibility or overall economic growth. This indicates the economy is such an overarching concern for Americans that it often figures into their discussions about immigration.
American discussions Democratic VP candidate Tim Walz and Montana Senate candidate Tim Sheehy offer a window into public views of military service among political figures.
While Americans generally express respect for military service, the particulars of a political candidate’s history inform the conversation. In the case of Walz, his military record raises questions about honesty and integrity. For Sheehy, military service implies patriotism and courage.
Discussions about each man reflect the complexities of how military service is valued and scrutinized in the political arena, particularly in the context of their respective campaigns. MIG Reports analysis shows a nuanced understanding among voters, highlighting key trends, sentiment analysis, and the resulting perceptions of Walz and Sheehy.
Military Service Implies Values
Analysis of voter discussions surrounding Tim Walz and Tim Sheehy reveals how their military backgrounds are perceived. The discussions present various sentiment trends, linguistic patterns, and recurring themes, depicting overall public opinion.
Discussions of military service focus on themes such as valor, leadership, and the implications of military experience on political aspirations. Americans regularly express positive sentiments toward military service, including for political figures. However, skepticism also plays a substantial role, particularly regarding Walz.
60% of voter discussions about Walz express negative sentiments.
Negativity is driven by accusations of "stolen valor" and criticisms of his leadership during crises in Minnesota.
The analysis of linguistic patterns highlights the use of both first-person and third-person references, with a noticeable preference for third-person language in critical comments. This trend suggests a broader societal perspective where Americans critically evaluate the military service of political figures. First-person language, however, often appears in positive comments, emphasizing personal connections to military service or expressing personal stories and individual pride in service.
Voters Grapple with Walz’s Military Record
The discussions about Tim Walz's military service are notably polarized. More than half of discussions criticize Walz for perceived inconsistencies in his military narrative, with "stolen valor" as a recurrent theme. While critics don’t typically attack Walz for his long career in the military, they express deep dissatisfaction with the image and presentation of his accomplishments.
Criticism is often framed within broader political narratives, where Walz's military service is intertwined with his actions as governor. Supporters, around 30% of commenters, emphasize his lengthy service in the National Guard. They defend his record and leadership as being rooted in genuine commitment and experience.
Prior to Walz’s selection as Democratic VP nominee, discussion volume mentioning his name was low and sentiment fluctuated.
After his nomination, national discussion significantly increased, and sentiment evened out with a baseline in the low 40% range.
Tim Sheehy Gains Praise
In contrast, Tim Sheehy's military service is generally viewed positively. More than half of discussions about Sheehy express admiration for his dedication and courage. The narrative around Sheehy centers on his military background as a strong foundation for his political aspirations, with many commenters viewing his service as a testament to his character.
There is a lesser tenor of skepticism, particularly concerning his positions on public lands and transparency. Only 10-15% of discussions express direct criticism of Sheehy's military service. Negativity often centers on questions about his political integrity and concerns about his alignment with Republican values and transparency.
Like Walz prior to his national spotlight, discussion of Sheehy is largely limited to state voters, though sentiment is relatively steady in the mid to high 40% range.
Americans are talking about young men leaving the Democratic Party, highlighting a significant potential shift in political alignment. The exodus is driven by personal experiences, economic concerns, and identity issues.
Many young, Gen Z American men, particularly from working-class or middle-class backgrounds, feel the strain of economic challenges. They worry about housing affordability, rising living costs, and tax policies they perceive as harmful to their financial stability.
Carville: Young Men Are Leaving The Democratic Party In Droves, Numbers Are "Horrfiying" https://t.co/1FJBvyPJ1v
MIG Reports analysis shows this demographic likely includes primarily white or non-minority men aged 18-35. This group perceives the Democratic Party as increasingly out of touch with their needs, especially concerning traditional masculine and economic policies.
Data shows around 25% of young Democratic men discussing their political stance online appear to be abandoning the Party. They discuss actively seeking alternatives, with a large proportion aligning with more conservative or libertarian ideologies.
Disillusionment and Lack of Representation
Many young men feel the Democratic Party no longer represents their interests, particularly concerning issues like traditional masculinity, economic policies, and governance. They express frustration and a sense of marginalization, feeling the Party's focus on legalistic frameworks and social issues does not align with their personal experiences.
This sentiment of alienation prompts words like "discrimination," "masculinity," "disillusionment," "failed policies," and "representation," in discussions. These men sense that Democratic leaders are increasingly distant from the Party’s original, working-class roots. They say liberals are now more focused on identity politics and equity rather than actionable policies.
Economic Concerns and Housing
Many young men believe Democratic policies have failed to address their economic struggles. This leads them to explore Republican policies which they believe offer better economic stability and solutions to housing affordability. They perceive that Democratic elites are “out of touch," expressing doubt that Party leaders understand or prioritize the struggles of the middle class.
The critique of tax policies, particularly concerning Harris’s proposal for unrealized capital gains taxes proposed, angers homeowners and men who view themselves as breadwinners. MIG Reports data shows 60% of discussions include stories of personal economic challenges directly linked to housing policies. Nearly 30% of this cohort express a drastic shift toward Republican support.
Shift Toward Conservative Alternatives
Young Democratic men are showing noticeable shift toward Republican figures—particularly Donald Trump. They view him as embodying a strong, masculine leadership style that resonates with this demographic. This view particularly spread following Trump’s attempted assassination and his action during and after the event.
Libertarian views emphasizing smaller government and economic independence are also gaining traction within this voter group. Phrases like "Trump represents economic stability," and "we need Trump back" are frequently mentioned.
There is a growing belief that Trump's leadership would better address men’s economic struggles than Kamala Harris’s. In addition to nearly 30% indicating a shift toward Republicans, another 10% express movement toward alternative or libertarian candidates.
Polarization and Urgency
Sentiment trends suggest young men feel an urgent need to switch allegiances to protect what they view as fundamental freedoms and to counter a perceived leftist agenda. This urgency is felt in urging peers to reconsider their political alignment based on shared experiences and cohort frustrations. Discussions frequently evoke a sense of nostalgia for previous leadership they felt better addressed their concerns, with phrases like "need a strong leader" or "better alternatives."
Nostalgia and Ideological Realignment
There is a sense of nostalgia and a yearning for political dynamics that resonate more closely with traditional values. This ideological realignment is driven by personal convictions and a desire to reclaim what they perceive as lost ideals, particularly in the realms of economic policy and national identity.
Young men say things like, "I am ready to fight tooth and nail for my future," revealing a deep personal investment in the outcomes of political decisions. This suggests many are not simply changing parties but are also motivated by a passionate desire to reclaim what they view as lost ideals.
The arrest of Pavel Durov, the CEO of the encrypted messaging app Telegram, in France has ignited widespread discussions online. Reactions show strong concerns about free speech, government authority, and the role of digital platforms in modern society.
American discourse around Durov’s arrest reveals sharp ideological divisions and varying interpretations of the event's implications. MIG Reports analysis shows wide societal tensions and an evolving debate over the balance between freedom and security in the digital age.
Arrest of Pavel Durov is a disturbing attack on free speech and a threat not just to Telegram but to any online platform.
Governments should not engage in censorship. This is a blatant and deeply troubling overreach of power.
A prominent theme emerging from the discussions is the ideological battle between the defense of democratic ideals and encroachment of authoritarianism. People view Durov’s arrest as a troubling indication of state overreach and censorship, with approximately 65% of Americans expressing concern over the implications for civil liberties and free speech. This group views Durov as a champion of freedom, particularly in the Western context, where many fear his arrest signals a decline in the values that underpin democratic societies.
Within these discussions, roughly 30% express outright anger towards the French government’s actions, underscoring a belief Durov was targeted for dissent against autocratic tendencies. This sentiment aligns with a broader narrative that links the arrest to a global struggle between freedom and oppression, with participants frequently invoking historical parallels to past authoritarian regimes.
Conversely, a smaller but notable segment of the discussion, about 15%, focuses on the potential risks associated with unmoderated platforms like Telegram. This group raises concerns about the spread of misinformation and the platform's role in exacerbating political conflicts. They argue for a more balanced approach that considers both the need for free expression and the responsibility to prevent harmful narratives from proliferating.
Concerns Over Security and Regulation
The discourse also reflects significant anxiety about the intersection of digital communication and national security. Approximately 65% of the discussion surrounding security issues voices concern over the implications of Durov's arrest for free speech. Americans fear it marks a slippery slope towards increasing global government control of digital platforms.
Those who support the arrest argue accountability is necessary for those leading platforms that potentially propagate misinformation. This perspective emphasizes the need for regulatory frameworks to mitigate security threats, particularly in politically sensitive regions. These commenters stress a balance between protecting civil liberties and ensuring digital platforms do not become conduits for harmful or extremist content.
Public Distrust and the Role of Tech Platforms
Across the discussions, there is a pervasive sense of distrust towards government authority. There are also concerns about the role of tech platforms in modern society. Approximately 60% of the commentary reflects fears about governmental overreach and the implications for freedom of expression. Aroun 40% of the discussion shifts focus to Durov’s business practices and the broader impact on the tech industry.
The conversations frequently touch on the theme of digital privacy, with many expressing alarm at what they perceive as a growing trend of state intervention in the digital sphere. This distrust fuels calls for mobilization against perceived injustices, with some advocating for Durov’s release and others urging for greater scrutiny of how tech companies operate. The language used in these discussions often suggests a rising urgency to protect personal and societal freedoms, particularly as the digital landscape becomes increasingly regulated.
Kamala Harris's DNC speech focused heavily on broad, unifying platitudes in about 65% of its content. The platitudes included unity—within the Democratic Party and across the nation, emphasizing themes like American values, family, and the importance of coming together in challenging times. They served to rally the Democratic base and attempted to connect with a broader electorate on her promises.
Analysis of the speech showed Harris’s language aimed to generate enthusiasm and reinforce her leadership role. It presented her as the figure who can unify and energize the Democratic base. This framing is strategic, aiming to solidify her position as the candidate who can lead the party to victory.
While her speech had a generally positive reception, there are some in the Democratic base who remain skeptical. This unease tends to focus on Harris’s path to the nomination.
MIG Reports Analysis
Data shows that, while Harris’s speech was largely unifying, approximately 25% of Democrats are skeptical and show concern.
MIG Reports data indicates:
70% of Democrats express excitement and optimism, highlighting unity and momentum.
25% are skeptical about the legitimacy of her nomination process.
5% are neutral, focusing on factual aspects without strong sentiment.
Economic Issues
Democratic support for Harris on economic issues is tied to her specific policy proposals. About 60% of the positive comments among her base focus on middle-class tax cuts and job creation efforts.
Approximately 30% of comments support manufacturing job creation and 25% for her fundraising success. This reveals voters are particularly drawn to the tangible benefits they anticipate from her economic plans, showing a clear preference for policy substance.
Housing
Support for Harris’s housing proposals is more modest, with only 15% positive comments. This support is primarily focused on her specific proposals to build more homes, reflecting a preference for actionable policies over general statements.
While there is some recognition of her broader commitment to addressing the housing crisis, the conversation here is more policy driven. Voters are keenly aware of the need for effective solutions. The lower enthusiasm for her housing policies suggests Democrats may seek more innovative or comprehensive solutions beyond the existing proposals.
Democratic Support
Support for Harris within the Democratic base is robust, with 60% of comments reflecting enthusiasm for her candidacy and leadership. This data set shows a strong emphasis on her ability to inspire and mobilize voters, with much of the positivity aligning with her general appeal and the sense of empowerment she brings to the party.
There is some overlap with policy support, particularly in areas where her leadership aligns with Democratic values, but the narrative here leans more towards her role as a unifying figure and the broader ideals she represents.
Overall
The analysis of Democratic reactions to Kamala Harris reveals a nuanced balance between support for her platitudes and her policies. While there is substantial backing for her leadership qualities and vision—especially in areas like her nomination and general support among Democrats—the largest volume of support was is on economic promises.
Americans are talking about the anniversary of the U.S. Afghanistan withdrawal, particularly the tragic attack at Abbey Gate. Discussions are divided and emotionally charged as people express loss and grief for Gold Star families, place blame, and honor lives lost.
The anniversary prompts reflection on military actions and their implications. Conversations are a battleground for opinions on the leadership and policies of prominent political figures, including Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris.
Many also point out the fact that Trump attended a memorial for the fallen soldiers while Biden and Harris—whose administration was responsible for the withdrawal—were not in attendance.
NEW: Donald Trump is the only president to attend Arlington National Cemetery to honor the 13 U.S. soldiers who died during the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal.
President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris did not show up.
Online discourse focuses on military and security issues, where public sentiment oscillates between pride in the military's efforts and deep-seated anger over leadership’s perceived failures.
Americans discuss the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, with keywords like "Abbey Gate," "security," and "intelligence" dominating the dialogue. Many are frustrated over the lack of preparedness and unnecessary loss of lives. This reflects a broader concern about the efficacy of U.S. military strategies and Biden’s leadership during the withdrawal.
The frustration often focuses on Biden and Harris, who are criticized for their handling of the situation. Voters portray them as responsible for the catastrophic failure that led to a tragic loss of life. Biden, in particular, garners approximately 25% of the discourse, with discussions frequently centering on keywords like "failure," "withdrawal," and "chaos," underscoring the public’s dissatisfaction with his leadership in this critical event.
Leadership Under Scrutiny
The discourse further delves into ideological divides, where the attack at Abbey Gate serves as a focal point for broader debates about national identity, government accountability, and the role of military power.
Among Trump supporters, there is a strong sentiment that he embodies the values needed to restore America's standing. Discussions emphasize his approach to national security and foreign policy. Trump dominates the discourse, with approximately 40% of the conversations focusing on him. They highlight his perceived strength in national security issues.
Conversely, Harris and Biden are often depicted as disconnected from the concerns of ordinary Americans. There are accusations of socialism and incompetence frequently surfacing in discussions. Harris in particular is the focus of around 35% of the discussions, where she faces significant criticism for her perceived leadership failures. People use keywords like "failure," "incompetence," and "socialism."
Emotional Responses and Political Accountability
The nation is also grappling with the consequences of its military actions abroad and the political leadership at home. The emotional intensity of the discussions, marked by anger, frustration, and a desire for accountability, underscores the deep divisions within American society.
Trump supporters express strong loyalty and optimism, often portraying him as a bulwark against socialism and government overreach. Criticism of Biden and Harris focuses on their handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal and related military strategies.
The attack at Abbey Gate, and the broader Afghanistan withdrawal, have become symbols of these divisions. Reactions reflect the immediate concerns about military strategy and deeper anxieties about the nation's future and the ability of its leaders to navigate these challenges.
On Aug. 21, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released a staggering downward revision of nearly one million added jobs from its previously reported figures. This adjustment, spanning from April 2023 through March 2024, revised job growth down by 818,000, a significant 30% reduction from earlier estimates. The adjustment represents the largest revision since 2009 and has sent ripples through economic and political circles, drawing sharp reactions from voters and pundits.
BREAKING: The federal government announces that there were 818,000 fewer jobs created through March 2024 than previously reported
Following the latest BLS report, voter sentiment on jobs dropped to 40% both nationally and in swing states. This is down from a 7-day high of 48% nationally and 46% in swing states.
The public’s response to reports of the revision is a mix of skepticism and suspicion. Many voters view the revision as evidence of intentional overestimation by the government, which many call "cooking the books."
This sentiment grows from the perception that the Biden administration manipulated job figures to present a more favorable economic picture than reality. Most voter conversations reflect this distrust, with phrases like "inflated job reports" and "massive scandal" dominating the discourse.
MIG Reports analysis shows 64.5% of conversations about the revised job report express suspicion towards the government's reporting. Most conversations frame the unprecedented revision as evidence of deliberate misinformation.
This high level of skepticism underscores a broader narrative of frustration and disillusionment with the Biden-Harris administration’s transparency. Americans are unhappy with the status quo and 25% of discussions specifically about jobs mention a desire for new leadership.
Many voters also deride Harris-Biden Commerce Sec. Gina Raimondo for saying on ABC News that she has no knowledge of any job revision numbers. She went on the blame Trump for lying about everything, reiterating that she is unaware of the official BLS report.
Reporter: Nearly a million jobs "created" since Kamala took office do not exist.
Raimondo: “I don’t believe it because I’ve never heard Trump say anything truthful.”
Some Americans have been talking all year about repeated job report revisions that always trend downward. There are also concerns about the number of jobs created being government positions or jobs filled by foreign-born workers. This paints a dire picture for native-born Americans searching for fulltime employment in the private sector.
Skepticism about government reports on jobs coincide with wider distrust of the overall economy narrative the Biden-Harris administration has been pushing. It also overlaps with discontent about border security as foreign nationals continue to stream across the border, taking low-wage jobs from American citizens.
Many voters believe the Biden administration's claims of economic recovery are misleading, indicative of chronic dishonesty. Discussions frequently connect Biden-Harris lies to broader critiques of the administration's leadership. As Americans continue struggling to make ends meet in a contracting economy with layoffs and rising prices, resentment against leadership is growing. These job revisions highlight ongoing issues of trust and credibility.
Kamala Harris has seen a drop in approval on jobs to 42% nationally to 40% in swing states.
Donald Trump holds strong at 44% approval on jobs nationally and 45% in swing states.
On Aug. 19, The Ukrainian government moved to ban the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, sparking a wide range of reactions and discussions across various platforms. The discourse reveals significant themes related to national security, religious freedom, civil liberties, and the broader geopolitical implications.
MIG Reports analysis aggregates these discussions, focusing on the sentiments, ideological divisions, and the critical issues highlighted by the public. This comprehensive view of prevailing opinions and sentiments assesses their implications on the current socio-political landscape in Ukraine and beyond.
National Security and Sovereignty
A significant portion of the discourse centers on the theme of national security and sovereignty, reflecting the public's concerns about the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Approximately 35% of American conversations directly associate banning the church with efforts to defend and reinforce Ukrainian national identity in the face of Russian aggression. The sentiment here is generally supportive, as many view the ban as a necessary measure to protect Ukraine from external influences that could undermine its sovereignty.
Religious Freedom and Civil Liberties
Conversely, the discussion surrounding religious freedom and civil liberties reveals a more critical stance. Around 25% of discussion express concerns about the potential for increased persecution and the erosion of civil liberties. The use of terms like religious freedom, persecution, and tolerance highlights the apprehension many feel about the implications of such a ban.
Sentiment analysis shows that approximately 60% of the discourse on this topic carries a negative sentiment, reflecting fears the ban might lead to authoritarian governance and a slippery slope toward the suppression of religious rights.
Cultural and Ethnic Identity
Another critical theme emerging from the discussions is the impact of the ban on Ukraine's cultural and ethnic identity. About 20% of the conversations delve into whether the ban will unify the population or exacerbate divisions along ethnic lines.
The discourse reflects deep polarization, with some viewing the ban as a unifying force, while others fear it could deepen cultural rifts and lead to further societal fragmentation. This theme underscores the complex interplay between national identity and religious affiliation in Ukraine.
International Relations and Geopolitical Implications
The ban also raises concerns about Ukraine's position in the broader geopolitical context, particularly in relation to its Western allies. Discussions in this area constitute about 20% of the overall discourse, with many participants expressing concern over how the ban might affect Ukraine's relationships with NATO and other Western allies.
The sentiment here is mixed, with some supporting the ban as a means of strengthening Ukraine's international stance, while others worry about the potential for strained relations with Western nations that prioritize religious freedom.
Online discussions regarding the Supreme Court’s recent ruling and Amy Coney Barrett siding with liberal justices shows polarization. Many conservatives comment displeasure at Justice Barrett’s position on the Arizona voting law decision.
The recent Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision regarding citizenship to vote in Arizona upheld the state's requirement that voters provide proof of citizenship to register for federal elections. The court ruled Arizona's law does not violate federal regulations, allowing the state to enforce its policy as a measure to ensure only U.S. citizens participate in elections. This decision reinforces the state's authority to implement and maintain stricter voter registration requirements than those mandated at the federal level.
Conservatives Feel Betrayed
Voter discussion online shows significant criticism directed at Justice Barrett’s decision to oppose the ruling. Approximately 60% of voters discussing this express dissatisfaction, branding her actions as a betrayal of conservative values. This criticism often stems from a broader concern about voter integrity and the implications of her alignment with liberal justices, which many see as a deviation from expected conservative principles.
Support for Barrett’s decision is considerably lower, with only about 20-35% of discussions voicing approval. Supporters, often more liberal, highlight the decision as a step toward more equitable voter representation and state rights, viewing it as a necessary evolution of the legal landscape in line with democratic values.
The Arizona citizenship requirement case, a central focus in these discussions, evokes strong reactions, particularly among conservatives who perceive it as a threat to traditional voter identification norms.
Around 75% of the dialogue on this issue reflects concern or outright opposition.
The remaining 25% of the discourse leans towards progressive support for dismantling perceived restrictive voting requirements
Those opposed to the decision emphasize the need for inclusivity and fairness in electoral processes—including for those without ID.
Sentiment Trends
Sentiment analysis reveals the conversation is heavily critical and often combative in tone. Those who view Barrett’s decision as undermining conservative judicial expectations are especially vocal. The prevailing narrative within these groups betrays distrust and fear of losing political ground, with discussions reflecting a broader anxiety about the integrity and future direction of U.S. governance and the integrity of the courts. The dominant sentiment across these discussions is one of disillusionment and concern, particularly within conservative circles.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)