Sen. Elizabeth Warren's recent statement that Kamala Harris, if elected president, plans to grant mass citizenship to 11 million illegal immigrants bombs. American reactions are sharply negative, with vehement opposition and a sense of urgency to prevent that from happening.
Illegal Immigration vs. Legal Immigration
Conversations heavily focus on distinguishing between illegal and legal immigration. There is a strong negative sentiment towards illegal immigration, with many expressing that legal pathways should be followed. Critics argue granting citizenship to illegal immigrants undermines those who have followed legal procedures. They say its a slap in the face to legal immigrants who have waited patiently.
Pathway to Citizenship
The term "pathway to citizenship" incites a mix of emotions but significant opposition when linked to illegal immigrants. The prevailing sentiment is one of frustration, as many feel providing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants rewards unlawful behavior and incentivizes more illegal crossings. This is seen as unfair to all Americans who are forced to carry the economic and social burden.
Open Borders
The idea of open borders carries a strong negative connotation. Most Americans feel Elizabeth Warren’s plan would lead to chaos, increased crime rates, and a drain on public resources. The discussion links current open borders to a lack of national security and the dilution of American societal values, further stoking fears about the nation's ability to manage.
Economic and Social Concerns
Concerns about the economic burden of a large influx of citizens dominate the conversation. Many express fears that granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants would strain healthcare, social security, and other welfare systems. They conclude it would result in increased taxes and reduced benefits for lawful citizens. The sentiment here is overwhelmingly negative, with worries about long-term sustainability.
Voter Impact and Political Motives
There is a strong belief that efforts to provide citizenship to illegal immigrants are politically motivated, aiming to create new voters to support Democrats. This view is coupled with distrust and allegations of election manipulation and societal engineering. Sentiment is decidedly negative, with accusations of anti-American motives and disregard for current democratic norms and the protection of citizens.
National Identity and Security
The debate also touches on broader cultural and identity issues. Many comments reflect fears of losing the cultural cohesiveness of the nation due to rapid demographic changes. The sentiment towards maintaining national identity and ensuring newcomers assimilate into American society is strong. The negativity focuses on the erosion of these values, should Warren’s plan be implemented.
Undecided and Independent Voters
The intense debate around these topics may significantly influence undecided and Independent voters. Acting as a microcosm of broader national sentiments, these conversations likely polarize opinion even further. For Independents concerned about economic stability, national security, and cultural identity, the negative implications from Democrats like Warren may push them towards Trump.
Conversely, those emphasizing ethical approaches to immigration and humane treatment may solidify their support for comprehensive immigration reforms but could also be swayed by the economic arguments of the opposition.
Donald Trump's speech at the 2024 Bitcoin conference in Nashville generated excitement and enthusiasm in the crypto community. Crypto Twitter celebrated Trump's pledges and his robust endorsement of Bitcoin and broader cryptocurrency policies.
While some still express skepticism about whether Trump can fulfill his promises, many others push back saying Kamala Harris and democrats are openly hostile to crypto. Many say—despite Trump’s divisive style—his promises to build a crypto-friendly administration are hopeful.
Fire Gary Gensler
The topic generating the most enthusiasm in the crypto community is Trump’s vow to fire Gary Gensler, the current SEC Chairman. This commitment pleases crypto enthusiasts who feel oppressed by the existing regulatory environment under Gensler.
Trump’s statement, “On day one, I will fire Gary Gensler and appoint a new SEC Chairman,” gained roaring applause, which even surprised Trump himself. The crowd's reaction underscores a widespread dissatisfaction with the SEC’s current stance on digital assets.
A U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve
Trump also proposed the U.S. government establish a "strategic national Bitcoin stockpile," maintaining 100% of the Bitcoin it owns. This was celebrated as a visionary policy and a profound commitment to integrating Bitcoin into the national treasury.
Many view this as a promising step toward making the U.S. a leading player in the global crypto economy. Voters see supportive strategies like this as crucial for Bitcoin’s mainstream adoption and its perceived legitimacy.
Free Ross Ulbricht
Eagerness in the crypto community to free Silk Road founder Ross Ulbrich also generated positivity when Trump promised to commute his sentence. Ulbricht’s cause is deeply embedded in the crypto community, representing issues of personal freedom, justice reform, and internet privacy.
Trump’s promise to commute Ross Ulbricht's sentence, who was sentenced in 2015, was met with palpable excitement. This issue particularly bolstered Trump’s image as a champion of financial and market freedom—values intrinsic to the Bitcoin ethos.
No CBDC for America
Trump also voiced strong opposition to any central bank digital currency (CBDC) under his presidency. He described CBDCs as a threat to economic freedom, promising to squash the possibility of implementing one if he is elected.
Crypto voters mostly view CBDCs as unjustifiable government overreach into personal financial autonomy. They say CBDCs will inevitably bring extensive surveillance and control, destroying individual freedoms and enabling censorship or a social credit system.
Criticism of Trump’s Crypto Message
There is some skepticism and criticism toward Trump from some segments of the crypto community. Critics argue Trump’s overture to Bitcoiners may not be out of genuine belief in crypto, but simply a strategic or populist move to gain votes.
Some point out that Donald Trump called Bitcoin extremely dangerous and a scam during his presidency. They say, now he’s realizing how important it is to Millennials and Gen Z, criticizing his pivot. This causes some to question whether Trump will make good on his promises.
Negativity Toward Kamala Harris
The political implications of Trump's speech haven't gone unnoticed. As Vice President Kamala Harris ramps up her political campaign, some are hoping for similar overtures toward crypto voters. However, many lodge the same complaints about Harris that critics levy against trump, questioning whether any move toward crypto would be genuine.
Negativity about crypto policies held by the Biden administration, which Harris has been party to, is strong. Rumors that Kamala Harris's advisers have approached top crypto companies to reset relations are often met with scorn and ridicule. Many encourage crypto advocates to decline conversations with a potential Harris administration.
Banking Freedom is American
The theme of the U.S. as the "crypto capital" and a "Bitcoin superpower" resonsates deeply with crypto voters who want this to become reality. Those who see potential for the U.S. to lead technological innovation welcome politicians who frame crypto as a positive for America.
Conversations strongly feature patriotic undertones, embracing the rhetoric of American leadership in the global financial ecosystem driven by blockchain technology. This vision appeals to those keen on seeing the United States at the forefront of the digital currency revolution, outpacing rivals like China.
Trump’s platform connecting Bitcoin and fundamental American values such as "freedom, sovereignty, and independence" generate strong support. This rhetorical framing resonates deeply with freedom-oriented voters and reinforces the view of Bitcoin as not merely a financial asset but a symbol of resistance against government overreach and monetary manipulation.
Gary Gensler
Public sentiment towards Gary Gensler, the current Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), is extremely negative in the crypto community. Discourse reflects a sense of antagonism, with many expressing strong dissatisfaction over his enforcement actions against the cryptocurrency market. People who mention Gensler recurringly use phrases like:
Fire Gary Gensler
SEC
anti-crypto
regulatory crackdown
kill crypto
Gensler out
Many voters perceive Gensler as the orchestrator of policies that stifle innovation and economic freedom within the crypto space. People repeatedly accuse the SEC under his leadership of initiating an "anti-crypto crusade." This stance is viewed as tyrannical and oppressive to free market financial innovations.
The sentiment favoring Donald Trump's promise to fire Gary Gensler is markedly positive among crypto enthusiasts. In general, people view Trump’s platform as crypto-friendly, fostering optimism toward an environment of reduced regulatory pressure and more supportive oversight.
A public and shocking mockery of the Last Supper during the opening ceremony of the Olympics sent social media into a frenzy over the weekend. Christians were particularly charged by this perceived disrespect and blasphemy against one of the prominent world religions.
The depiction, which many see as a blatant parody of a sacred Christian narrative, has provoked strong reactions across various online platforms. In a live action tableau, an obese woman dressed as the “Christ” figure sat at the center of the Last Supper table, surround by drag queens. The depiction was heightened by a man covered in blue paint and no clothes other than a vine being served on a silver platter.
This portrayal offended many Christians and non-Christians who called it a sacrilege. It has amplified existing cultural and religious fault lines, exacerbating tensions between conservative and liberal ideologies. The reactions highlight a significant aspect of the ongoing cultural war, manifesting an emotional battleground where art, faith, and politics intensely intersect.
VATICAN CITY—Pope Francis made a statement regarding the Olympics at today’s Sunday Angelus—on the “scandal” of war, not the scandal of blasphemy during the opening ceremonies.@HolySeePress Spokesman, Matteo Bruni, has failed to respond to inquiries, despite calls for the… pic.twitter.com/0pY8YSPXxI
Online discussions center around terms such as "mockery," "blasphemy," and "disrespect," frequently tied to expressions like "woke agenda," "Satanic," "LGBTQ," and "drag queens."
Americans show significant concern about the erosion of Christian values and traditions in the West, as evidenced by passionate calls for respect and the preservation of these beliefs.
Sentiment Trends
Most reaction are overwhelmingly negative among Christian viewers who perceive the ceremony as an affront to their faith. They express feelings of anger, offense, and sorrow. Specific criticisms point to the blending of religious symbols with what they consider "worldly and demonic ideologies."
Christians view the display as furthering progressive and woke agendas to undermine traditional Christian values. There is also a noticeable call to action within Christian communities, urging members to repent, believe, and stand firm in their faith. Many also committed to boycotting the Olympics.
Interestingly, this outrage is not confined to Christianity. Both Catholic and Protestant communities share in this collective indignation, along with many secular Americans and those who observe other religions.
There are notable criticisms from Catholics directed at Pope Francis for not condemning the act more aggressively. For a segment of the public, this inaction underscores a broader dissatisfaction with the perceived liberal shift in the church hierarchy.
The impact on Christian viewers is significant, leading many to call for boycotts, expressing a sense of alienation and increased vigilance against infringements on their religious values. Christian groups argue such representations indicate the erosion of religious reverence in public spaces, inciting calls for greater advocacy against similar future instances.
Orthodox hierarchs condemn blasphemous Olympics opening Among the hierarchs who have condemned the blasphemy that was on display for the entire world to see, is Metropolitan Theologos of Serres of the Greek Orthodox Church. Preaching at the Holy Monastery of St. Paraskevi on… pic.twitter.com/aq03UWoNLL
For non-Christian viewers, reactions appear more varied. Some share the sentiment that freedom of expression should be balanced against respect for religious beliefs. They align with the displeasure of Christian viewers, saying you don’t have to be a Christian to view it as inappropriate.
However, others staunchly defend the portrayal as a form of artistic expression. They emphasize the importance of freedom of speech, regardless of the discomfort it may cause. This group often associates critics of the ceremony with right-wing conservatism, highlighting broader cultural and political divides.
🇮🇷 🇫🇷 Iran says France should be ashamed of itself for its opening ceremony at the Olympics.
"The insulting representation of Jesus Christ in Paris yesterday was completely offensive and crossed all red lines.
The reactions have influenced calls for action from both sides. Christians discuss boycotting Olympics and withdrawing from any associated media outlets, like NBC. They call for prayers, repentance, and a reinvigoration of faith-based activism. In contrast, those defending the ceremony advocate for ongoing support of artistic freedom and cultural progression.
Over the weekend, a viral story spread on social media pointing out “Trump assassination” and other variants were being removed from web searches on Google. The public's reaction shows a sharp disdain towards tech companies for this presumed act of censorship. Top keywords include:
Trump assassination attempt
Censorship
Leftist media
Google
Secret Service
Deep state
Investigation
Sentiment about this revelation is predominantly negative, with most people expressing outrage and suspicion.
Hi Google @Google! Why are you censoring the ass*ss*nat*on attempt of DJT??
Analysis shows public sentiment and recurring themes focus on free speech and censorship.
Freed Speech: Voters debate the integrity of free speech, expressing concerns that removing organic search suggestions is an attempt at election interference.
Censorship: There are strong accusations of censorship, connecting broader concerns about the control and manipulation of information by Big Tech.
Political Bias: Accusations against Google and Facebook for political manipulation and protecting Harris while censoring Trump are rampant.
American Values: Many say liberty, freedom, and democracy are at stake, reflecting worry that these foundational values are being undermined.
Many voters, especially on the right, accuse both Google and Facebook of acting as the communications arm of the Democratic Party. Even after admissions of “accidental” censorship, many Americans still take umbrage. Facebook’s claim that blocking a photo of Trump during the assassination attempt was accidental, draws claims the algorithmic “accidents” always benefit Democrats.
Freedom Versus Safety
Voter sentiment around Google suppressing searches about Trump and assassination can be divided into a few clear trends.
Defenders of Free Speech: Many voters say, to preserve free speech, even controversial topics should not be hidden from search results. They believe removing or hiding search results related to political figures is a direct attack on American voters.
Concerns about Misinformation: People on the left are concerned about the potential spread of harmful misinformation. They argue removing search “harmful” suggestions is necessary to prevent increased violence and to ensure responsible dissemination of information.
Accusations of Political Bias: There are strong accusations that Google and Facebook display bias towards Democrats. Conservatives feel targeted and express resentment towards Big Tech companies they believe are suppressing their viewpoints.
Calls for Regulation: In response to perceived biases and censorship, some advocate for greater regulation of tech giants to ensure a balanced and fair platform for all users.
Voter Impact
Undecided and Independent voters are likely influenced by these discussions. Their perception of political neutrality or bias in search engines can significantly sway their views on broader political issues.
Trust in Media and Tech: Those who are already skeptical of media and Big Tech might find their beliefs reaffirmed, pushing them towards candidates who promise to regulate these industries.
Political Disillusionment: Some Independents, witnessing these debates, may experience a heightened sense of political disillusionment, feeling neither side offers a solution to the pervasive issue of biased information control.
Swing Votes Based on Free Speech: Candidates like Trump who strongly advocate for free speech and oppose censorship might attract voters who prioritize these values as central to their decision-making process.
Debates about American values, such as free speech, reveal deep ideological divides in the electorate. The public reveres core principles of liberty, freedom, and democracy, often contrasting them with perceptions of oppression and censorship. Many argue for the inalienable right to express opinions without fear of censorship, celebrating historical champions of these values.
People defend democracy through the lens of a free press, which they deem as essential for a healthy society. These discussions increase scrutiny of political figures and tech companies which may be influencing elections. Voters call for reforms to better align with American values, emphasizing freedom, liberty, and democratic participation amidst contemporary challenges.
An apparent surge in support, positivity, and engagement for the Kamala Harris presidential campaign is confusing many Americans. Despite media claims that the highly relatable, meme-friendly, and accomplished Vice President is gaining historic levels of support, many voters remain skeptical.
In addition to feeling much of the hype seems insincere, Americans are talking about suspicious media and Democrat efforts to modify public understanding of Harris’s political track record. The discourse reveals a potent blend of ideology, identity politics, and performance in public office fueling public opinion.
Critics debate Kamala Harris’s qualifications and achievements, often within the context of identity politics, questioning whether her gender and race unjustly shield her from criticism or amplify her credentials. Many also skewer the mainstream media for its increasingly obvious hypocrisy in reporting the VP’s accomplishments and embarrassments.
Protective Cover from the Media
Many Americans view Harris's policies and political endeavors as extremely liberal. This perception would likely damage her chances given the majority of Americans do not align with the far, progressive left.
There's also a perception that media outlets are systematically erasing or altering aspects of her record to present a moderated version of her stances. Examples of this include:
Her position as “Border Czar”
Her complicity in covering up Biden’s health and reasons for withdrawing
Her renown as the “most liberal” Senator
Her support for the Minnesota Freedom Fund
Whether she was chosen for her accomplishments rather than her identity
Border Czar
The accusations against media outlets began when headlines claimed Kamala Harris was never named “Border Czar” for the Biden administration. Many people pointed out that, until now, everyone agreed and accepted the colloquial title given to her as the administration’s person in charge of the border.
Americans and right leaning journalists criticized the media for walking this back and even retroactively changing pervious reporting. Axios received significant backlash for modifying one of its own articles from 2021, which mention Harris as Border Czar.
Criticism toward Democrats and the media grew overwhelming when a cue card was leaked which claimed to give the press talking point from the Harris campaign to deny and dismiss Border Czar claims.
Wow.
A Democrat lawmaker confirmed to FOX that Dems have received a piece of paper with talking points/lies about how to discuss Kamala Harris' role at the Southern border.
When asked about the cue card, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed to have no knowledge of it. This also generated criticism and backlash from voters who view the current administration as colluding with the media to promote Kamala Harris’s campaign.
JUST IN: Peter Doocy confronts KJP on the now-infamous "talking points" card that tells reporters to deny Kamala Harris was ever appointed "Border Czar."
GovTrack's also received sharp backlash for deleting its 2019 rating of Harris as the "most liberal senator." This deletion is seen as an attempt by the media to cover up or obscure her true political leanings to make her more palatable to moderate voters.
BREAKING: GovTrack just DELETED their 2019 page that ranked Kamala Harris as THE MOST LIBERAL of all 100 Senators
Harris critics often label her policies as “communist” and express concerns about her support for open borders, defunding the police, and providing benefits to illegal immigrants. This, people say, is the reason the establishment apparatus is being used to hide her legacy.
Commentary about Kamala’s support for programs such as the Green New Deal, socialized healthcare, and defunding law enforcement positions her even further left than other prominent Democrats, including Bernie Sanders. Most Americans think of these views as dangerously socialist or Marxist and in the minority.
BREAKING: Footage found of VP Kamala Harris supporting DEFUND THE POLICE:
"It's about upending the system" "We need to look at police budgets" "More safety with more cops is wrong" pic.twitter.com/0HxUQeov9x
There is also controversy around claims asserting or denying Kamala Harris donated or promoted the Minnesota Freedom Fund—which helps bail out protesters. News outlets published headlines denying Harris donated to the fund, also implying she never supported it. This drew an avalanche videos, articles, and posts being shared to debunk the claim.
Reports from the same outlets and reporters in the past said, “Kamala Harris urged people to donate to the fund while it was bailing out protestors. Since then, it’s been posting bail for other offenders, including one who Republicans say committed a murder in downtown St. Paul.”
This might be the most blatant lie I’ve ever seen.
Esme, the author of this article, was literally at our press conference in 2022 on the light rail platform where a man was murdered by a criminal the Minnesota Freedom Fund had bailed out a short time before.
The reasons for significant negative sentiment toward Harris and the media appear to stem largely from a broader distrust in institutions. There is a growing perception that there are concerted efforts to hide truths about Kamala’s record to help the Democratic Party. This distrust is further exacerbated by a polarized political climate where ideological purity and alignment are heavily scrutinized and often radicalized.
Discourse about Kamala Harris and her stance on illegal immigration provides a history for Americans to navigate when forming opinions about her campaign platform. Many often reference Harris's tenure as San Francisco District Attorney, where she implemented the "Back on Track" program to help non-violent offenders, including illegal immigrants, avoid severe legal consequences.
This history, as well as her track record as “Border Czar” has been revisited extensively. Critics highlight Harris's efforts to clear the records of undocumented immigrants with drug offenses to protect them from deportation. This aspect of her history has ignited strong reactions from different voter bases.
A Breakdown in Kamala’s Prosecutor Image
More voters online are asserting that Kamala Harris let illegal immigrant drug offenders clear their records to protect them from deportation. This issue evokes strong negative sentiment, revealing a leniency on crime that betrays her tough prosecutor image. It is especially damaging when it involves illegal immigrants who have committed offenses. Negativity worsens with frequent assertions that Harris wants illegal immigrants who committed crimes to stay in the United States.
Harris promoted the "Back on Track" program, despite the case of Alexander Izaguirre, an illegal Honduran migrant in the program. Izaguirre allegedly assaulted a young woman, causing a skull fracture and long-term trauma. Harris later described the incident as, "A huge kind of pimple on the face of this program."
Another prominent topic is the border security bill negotiation that Harris supported and touted as bipartisan. This proposal aimed to invest $20 billion in border security, empower the President to close the border, and reduce asylum processing times from ten years to weeks. Public discourse emphasizes that Harris backed this comprehensive bill, despite its unpopularity for budget reasons and accusations of Democrat hypocrisy.
Experts Disavow Harris on the Border
Comments from public figures, such as the National Border Patrol Council President, Brandon Judd, also fuel discussions. Statements accusing Harris of refusing to implement existing policies and labeling her as indifferent to border security are widespread.
These statements intensely enhance negative sentiments towards Harris, portraying her as ineffective and uninterested in border protection. These augments also create positive sentiment towards Trump, who many view as proactive on border security, contrasting Harris's inaction.
Many on the right argue the Vice President’s disastrous legacy on the border could be a death blow to her campaign if Americans understand the truth. They argue this is the reason Democrats and the media are working so actively to reframe and even erase her border track record.
America Does Not Seem Fooled
The themes of border security and crime intertwine frequently, with passionate rhetoric framing Harris negatively as a "Border Czar" who failed in her duties. She is characterized as part of an "undemocratic communist regime" allowing a "terrorist invasion." This starkly illustrates the highly charged and negative language used to describe her role.
Positive sentiment toward Harris on the border is sparse, largely coming from her Party and media outlets. These entities often mention the bipartisan border security bill which Harris supported, while Republicans did not. However, the generally positive outlook on this aspect is overshadowed by broad negative sentiments.
Republicans also counter arguments that Democrats, including Harris, support border security with the proposed bill. They argue the administration already has the tools and laws it needs to control the border, but Democrats refuse. They specifically blame Biden and Harris for attempting to gain more funding with the bill, while ignoring existing border legislation.
Vice President Kamala Harris has recently made false claims about Project 2025 and Donald Trump. Her campaign and the media have spread claims that:
Project 2025 will cut social security
Project 2025 is Trump’s platform
Vice President Harris: Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda... Can you believe they put that thing in writing? Read it. It’s 900 pages. When you read it, you will see Donald Trump intends to cut Social Security and Medicare, give tax breaks to billionaires, end the… pic.twitter.com/msliYcmLuh
Harris’s comments about Donald Trump and Project 2025 during a campaign event have stirred significant public discourse. Many on the left and in the media defend Harris’s comments while those on the right are largely angry about alleged lies from Democrats.
Harris’s comments on Project 2025, which she criticizes as regressive and harmful to the middle class, dominate discussions. Public understanding of the project varies, with some viewing it as a radical conservative agenda, and others seeming unaware or dismissive of it.
The claim that Project 2025 rolls back social programs like Medicare and Social Security generates anxiety among voters. Harris’s support from groups like "March for Our Lives" also plays a crucial role in shaping her public image.
Many on the left use Project 2025 as an attack against Trump and conservatives, claiming its radical agenda will destroy the country. Meanwhile, on the right, many debunk false claims Democrats or making. Others simply meme about Project 2025, using hyperbolic examples of “what Project 2025 will do,” poking fun as Democrat fearmongering.
Trending discussions highlight Harris’s vocal opposition to Project 2025 and its framing as a threat to democratic values and social safety nets. This opposition resonates strongly with her base and some centrists, enhancing her image as a defender of social welfare.
Conversely, Trump’s disavowal of Project 2025 introduces complexity, as it partially neutralizes Harris's critique while still leaving room for debate about his broader policy agenda. However, Trump’s post on Truth Social distancing himself from Project 2025 is often glossed over by many in the media and voters discussing it online.
Project 2025 May Not Overcome Kamala Negativity
Online sentiment trends reveal a deeply divided public. Positive sentiment for Harris stems from her stance against Project 2025 and her endorsements, which boost her appeal among progressives and youth. Her claims of legislative achievement, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, are seen as evidence of her capability. However, previous MIG Reports analysis reveals these claims are mostly campaign strategy.
Negative sentiment arises from criticisms of her economic policies, causing inflation and high gas prices. There is also skepticism about her intentions within her own Party and negativity about the border.
For Trump, positive sentiment is driven by American admiration for his leadership and strategic moves, including his disavowal of Project 2025. His supporters view him as a resilient figure ready to tackle national issues. Negative sentiment towards Trump centers on fears of authoritarianism and concerns about his impact on democratic institutions, with Project 2025 seen as part of this troubling agenda.
MIG Reports data shows recent online conversations surrounding the assassination attempt on Donald Trump expose skepticism and doubt. This sentiment is largely driven by media reporting about the event, fostering a notable divide in public opinion. The overarching narrative reveals skepticism about the assassination attempt did not originate spontaneously but was significantly influenced by critical media coverage.
Top Topics
People are talking about revelations about the reluctance of the U.S. Secret Service to utilize drones for security. These allegations came to light through sources like Sen. Josh Hawley's whistleblower revelations. Discussions often center around why the Secret Service neglected to employ available drone technology, even after offers from local law enforcement.
People conclude this massive error allowed the assailant to fly his own drone over the venue, several hours prior to the rally. This aspect has given rise to various theories questioning the competence and motives of the Secret Service, leading to accusations of a deliberate stand-down.
Another prominent theme is the political alignment and social media activity of the would-be assassin, Thomas Matthew Crooks. Public discourse fixates on contrasting the portrayal of Crooks’s alleged pro-Biden stance with media suggestions that he may have been a Trump supporter—or at least a Republican. Many people say media bias is skewing coverage, highlighting or downplaying these affiliations based on the narrative they prefer.
Trending Sentiment
There are some who firmly believe in a deeply entrenched conspiracy. This is fueled by consistent Democrat and media skepticism and speculations that the event may have been an inside job or an act of negligence. Those who believe this express a sense of betrayal and frustration with government and media, often citing broader political conspiracies and failures of governmental institutions.
Other groups of voters express outright disbelief, deeming the assassination attempt as exaggerated or fabricated entirely. This skepticism is amplified by the FBI's statements questioning whether Trump was actually struck by a bullet or by shrapnel. These allegations further muddy the waters and feed theories of false flags or setups.
Many accuse the media of perpetuating theories that Trump was not hit by a bullet. This insistence on questioning something that many Americans saw with their own eyes further erodes trust, especially when people point out that Corey Comperatore lost his life.
Prominent keywords in these discussions include "drone technology," "whistleblower," "Secret Service," "leftist," "Biden support," and "media bias." The sustained mention of these terms indicates a profound preoccupation with the operational failures, perceived political motivations, and the credibility of media reporting.
Public sentiment is colored by distrust towards both the media and the government agencies involved. Many believe there's a concerted effort to obscure the truth, whether through deliberate action or systemic incompetence.
The skepticism surrounding the assassination attempt on Donald Trump owes much of its intensity to how media coverage has shaped the narrative. By framing the event with questioning tones and highlighting inconsistencies and failures in security measures, the media has inadvertently or otherwise, sown seeds of doubt and fostered a climate ripe for conspiracy theories.
MIG Reports data shows American perceptions of Vice President Kamala Harris’s economy as like Joe Biden’s, especially on inflation. Public sentiment about Harris as a potential president is negative based on her association with the Inflation Reduction Act and the broader economic conditions under the Biden administration.
Inflation Reduction Act Revisionism
Kamala Harris was the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to help pass the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. President Joe Biden, along with numerous economists, have since made it clear the Act didn’t address Inflation. More accurately, it was a government spending bill.
Several mainstream media articles even address this, including AP News. When people discuss Kamala Harris and inflation, they criticize the Inflation Reduction Act, decry record high prices and the cost of prescription drugs.
Public discourse frequently highlights Harris's efforts to build up the middle class. However, many attribute the 20.1%+ overall price hike and record high gas prices to her tenure as vice president. There is prevalent criticism that Harris has overseen the decimation of the American Dream.
Despite historical negativity and criticism for her economic record, Harris has enjoyed a sentiment boost in the last couple of days, likely due to coordinated fawning and revisionism by the media to rehabilitate her policy record.
False Support or Dismissal?
Conversations that increase Harris's sentiment often center on touted accomplishments alongside Biden like the Inflation Reduction Act. Despite evidence to the contrary, many supporters still praise them for decreasing costs for families, lowering prescription drug prices, and making historic investments in clean energy jobs and manufacturing.
Harris advocates say these measures demonstrate her efficacy in legislative processes and her capability in executive functions. They say this increases their confidence in her potential presidency. However, these discussions seem based on tribal loyalism as opposed to direct discussion of the Act.
Some on the right speculate that voter support is being astroturfed by biased media and Democratic leaders. They say establishment “machines,” which include the White House press team and mainstream media, are attempting to prop up Kamala Harris by lying about her track record.
Sentiment toward Harris decreases significantly when people consider the negative impacts of inflation directly. High prices, low savings rates, and a general sense of economic decline put many voters on edge. Criticism often revolves around the feeling that Harris, along with Biden, failed to adequately address or prevent these economic challenges, leading many to doubt her competency in managing the economy.
Critics closely associate Harris with unpopular aspects of Biden's administration, such as weak global leadership and failure to address critical domestic issues. Many voters believe Harris would be an extension of Biden’s flaws, citing her role as "Enabler in Chief" and highlighting her record during her time as District Attorney and Attorney General in California as indicative of her inadequacy in future leadership.
Fluff Over Substance
Discussion trends show the public is simply not having the same discussions across the aisle or compared to media discourse. Supporters are vague in their endorsements, leaving room frame Harris’s role in passing progressive legislation as a positive, regardless of specifics. They focus broadly on her stance on issues like reproductive rights, voting rights, and clean energy investments, seeing her as a champion for significant and needed reforms.
Detractors, however, cite specific examples of Harris’s failures and hypocrisies. They emphasize economic difficulties caused by the Biden-Harris administration, the border crisis, and her general alignment with the Biden administration’s less popular policies.
.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)