Cryptocurrency has rapidly evolved from a niche technological curiosity into a global financial phenomenon, rapidly increasing in interest to American voters. Some reports suggest 40% of Americans own crypto in 2024, which is a 10% increase since 2023. The debate over whether tighter regulations should be imposed on the crypto industry has become a pivotal issue, potentially influencing political alignments.
How Different Demographics View Cryptocurrency
Millennials and Gen Z are generally more tech-savvy and open to adopting new technologies, including cryptocurrencies. They view crypto as an innovative financial tool offering decentralized control, financial inclusion, and the potential for significant returns on investment.
This group tends to be skeptical of heavy-handed regulations. They favor a balanced approach to protect investors without stifling innovation. Young voters often argue excessive regulation could drive crypto activities underground or push them to more crypto-friendly jurisdictions.
Libertarians and free-market proponents also view cryptocurrency positively. They see it as a means to promote individual freedom and financial sovereignty. They appreciate the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies, which aligns with their ideology of minimizing government intervention in personal and financial affairs. This group is almost universally skeptical of tighter crypto regulations.
Individuals from traditional financial backgrounds and older generations often have a more skeptical view of cryptocurrencies. They may perceive crypto as volatile, risky, and lacking in intrinsic value. Concerns about fraud, money laundering, and the absence of regulatory oversight further fuel their wariness.
Older voters are more likely to be in favor of tighter regulations. They argue stringent regulatory frameworks are necessary to protect investors, ensure market stability, and prevent illicit activities.
Progressive and socially conscious voters have a nuanced view of cryptocurrency. Manyacknowledge its potential to democratize finance and provide financial services to the unbanked. However, they are also concerned about environmental impacts. They support some regulations like environmental and social protections. However, this group likely would not support regulations that hinder cryptocurrency’s goal of financial inclusion.
Pro and Anti-Crypto Political Figures
A pervasive sentiment among the American crypto community is one of skepticism and distrust towards politicians and government officials who criticize crypto and advocate for stricter regulations. Many of these figures tend to be aligned with the Democratic Party, causing pro-crypto voters to express disapproval.
Gary Gensler
May crypto investors criticize SEC chair Gary Gensler's intentions and actions. They say Gensler's SEC has adopted an overly stringent approach, categorizing nearly all cryptocurrencies as securities. This regulatory stance is seen as stifling innovation and placing undue burdens on crypto companies. There are also concerns about impartiality and fairness in the regulatory process.
The decision-making process for approving Spot Ether ETFs has also drawn significant attention. Gensler's role as a pivotal vote in a 5-person panel underscores the weight of his influence. Many view this as an opportunity for Gensler to either redeem himself or further entrench his reputation as an obstructive force against crypto.
Politician Stances
In general, Republicans are seen as more pro-crypto than Democrats. Politicians like Donald Trump and Senator Cynthia Lummis receive praise for their advocacy of cryptocurrency. Despite Trump’s historical comments expressing skepticism towards crypto, his recent attempt to court the pro-crypto voting constituency seems well received.
Politicians like President Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren frequently face criticism for their anti-crypto stances. Elizabeth Warren especially is known as an anti-crypto crusader who ignites the ire of many in the crypto community.
Overall approval for crypto among Americans is relatively strong, reaching a high of 55% in the last week.
Donald Trump also regularly gains higher support on crypto than Joe Biden, averaging 52% in the last week to Biden’s 50%.
Democratic Politicians Are Losing the Crypto Vote
Many Democrat voters who are pro-crypto express significant disillusionment and frustration towards Democrat politicians who oppose or seem indifferent to cryptocurrencies. Voters view these politicians as hindering financial innovation and inclusion.
There is a call among Democratic voters for political realignment based on crypto policies. They advocate for supporting candidates who are explicitly pro-crypto, even if it means crossing party lines. Pro-crypto Democratic voters acknowledge that Republicans are generally be more pro-crypto. They suggest crypto should transcend partisan politics and become a central voting issue.
Pro-crypto Democrat voters are also engaging in strategic advocacy and lobbying efforts to influence policy. They actively participate in discussions and campaigns aimed at educating and persuading both the public and lawmakers about the benefits of cryptocurrencies.
Potential Election Impact from Crypto Voters
A growing crypto voter constituency is poised to impact the 2024 election, especially for Democrats who push for stronger regulations. The rising prominence of cryptocurrency and the evolving regulatory landscape seems to be making this an increasingly important issue.
Pro-crypto voters are likely to support candidates who advocate for a more lenient regulatory framework that encourages innovation within the crypto space. Crypto enthusiasts often view increased regulation as an impediment to the decentralized ethos of cryptocurrencies.
This group is likely to vote for candidates who promise to minimize government intervention in the crypto market. The narrative around figures like Gensler, Biden, and Warren, could further galvanize this group against regulatory-heavy candidates.
Younger voters who are tech-savvy and more likely to engage with cryptocurrencies may support candidates who are open to integrating blockchain technology into broader economic systems. They might favor candidates who propose innovative uses of crypto and blockchain while ensuring consumer protection, striking a balance between innovation and regulation.
BecauseRepublicans have been more favorable towards less regulation, they can likely attract pro-crypto voters who fear heavy-handed government intervention. Voters who are wary of cryptocurrencies due to their volatility and association with fraud may support candidates advocating for strict regulations or even restrictions on cryptocurrency trading. However, this group does not seem to prioritize crypto policy as highly as pro-crypto voters.
A recent pivot by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Biden administration regarding the approval of an Ethereum ETF (Exchange-Traded Fund) has the crypto community buzzing. On Wednesday, speculation suddenly started whirling that an ETH ETF, which many saw as an extreme long shot, was rapidly becoming a sure thing.
The shift comes amid a broader regulatory landscape in which pro-crypto Americans feel adversarial towards Gary Gensler’s SEC and anti-crypto Democrats. This rivalry includes the contentious FIT21 Act, which aims to clarify the regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies and digital assets. A surprisingly bipartisan vote to approve FIT21 sent the rumor mill churning.
Have Democrats Actually Changed Their Minds?
Cryptocurrency enthusiasts and libertarians are mostly positive about the SEC's pivot from decidedly against crypto to sparking rumors an ETH ETF is imminent. This group has long advocated for the mainstream acceptance of digital assets, viewing the potential approval of an Ethereum ETF as a step towards legitimizing cryptocurrencies.
However, most remain skeptical that recent wind changes come from genuine support for crypto. They voice suspicions thatDemocratic politicians rather seek to avoid upsetting voters prior to the 2024 election.
Banks May Own Politicians
Many people praise the FIT21 Act and criticize regulatory figures like SEC Chair Gary Gensler. They perceive his outspoken opposition to FIT21 as an attempt to stifle innovation and pander to banks. Some even view the SEC and Biden administration’s newfound acceptance of crypto as an indication they are receiving pressure from banks. There is speculation that banks want to participate in crypto gains – and that politicians respond more to banks than voters.
Voters May Make Themselves Known
Others highlight the importance of crypto in the upcoming presidential election. Instead of pressure from banks interested in joining the crypto upside, this group believes cryptovoters could be a decisive factor for Biden's campaign. This is especially true as the president continues to hemorrhage support from pro-Palestine Democrats and blue-collar Americans.
Wednesday’s rumors Gensler would approve an Ethereum ETF likely account for his brief bump in approval over the last few days.
Gensler’s approval reached a high of 53% as conversations gained steam about bipartisan votes and the possible ETF approval.
Partisan Views of the Issue
Many see recent shifts as a rebuke of what they perceive as overreach by regulatory agencies under the Biden administration. Comments from GOP figures and their supporters often frame the issue in terms of economic freedom and innovation. The enthusiastic support from Republicans reflects a broader GOP strategy to position themselves as champions of financial innovation and deregulation.
Progressive and Democratic voters tend to be more critical of the SEC's new position and the FIT21 Act. They echo concerns raised by SEC Chair Gensler about potential regulatory loopholes and undermining investor protections.
Financial industry professionals and analysts have a mixed but generally cautious perspective. They recognize the potential benefits of a regulated Ethereum ETF but are also mindful of the complexities involved in integrating cryptocurrencies into the traditional financial system.
Biden Admin and Crypto
The relationship between American crypto holders and the Biden administration has been fraught with tension. The prevailing sentiment towards Biden and Democrats is overwhelmingly negative. Crypto enthusiasts on the left and the right express frustration and anger, perceiving the administration's stance as overly restrictive.
Many crypto holders feel the administration, through Gary Gensler's leadership at the SEC, is creating unwarranted roadblocks. There is a palpable desire among crypto holders for a change in leadership at the SEC. His stance is often described as anachronistic, with critics arguing existing securities laws, which are nearly a century old, need updating.
Recent bipartisan votes suggest discontent with Democratic crypto policies is not confined to a single political ideology but spans across the political spectrum.
Playing Catchup with Crypto Voters
Many suspect President Biden is shifting his stance on crypto to accommodate younger voters – who largely disapprove of him. With broader political shift towards more crypto-friendly regulations, people attribute this to an attempt to win over voters.
The administration's perceived hostility towards crypto is increasingly viewed as a contributing factor to his disapproval. Especially given the high level of engagement with digital assets among younger demographics.
In addition, political figures like former President Donald Trump, have begun to embrace crypto more openly. Trump's campaign even accepts crypto donations. This move, which is perceived as an attempt to appeal to the crypto community, seems to be welcomed.
Despite some expressing skepticism that Trump truly embraces crypto, most seem willing to believe he won’t actively fight against it. The Biden administration, by contrast, continues to solidify its reputation of being antagonistic towards crypto holders. It remains to be seen whether voters will accept a pro-crypto pivot from Biden as readily as they have from Trump.
The death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash has sparked a whirlwind of online discourse. The reactions encapsulate a broad spectrum of emotions, speculations, political leanings, and concerns about global stability. There’s a particular concern over the potential for escalating into World War 3.
What Americans Are Saying
Speculation
A significant portion of the discourse revolves around allegations and jokes suggesting Israeli involvement. The Mossad agent humorously named "Eli Copter" has become a focal point for conspiracy theorists.
Another prominent theory speculates that Israeli GPS jamming may have caused the crash, adding a layer of technological intrigue to the incident.
Some users assert the helicopter was shot down by the U.S. and Israel, pointing to a covert operation aimed at destabilizing Iran.
Political Tensions and Alignments
Russian President Vladimir Putin's condolences highlight the strategic alliance between Russia and Iran. This has been widely shared and with many commenting on it. This highlights the geopolitical ramifications of Raisi's death.
Reactions range from celebratory comments about Raisi's death perceived as "karma" for his stance against Israel, to grave concerns about the implications for regional stability.
Media Critique
Many criticize the mainstream media's gullibility and haste in picking up unverified reports from questionable sources like Hamas. This underscores an American distrust in traditional news outlets.
Worry About World War 3
There are palpable fears about the incident escalating tensions to the point of triggering WWIII. The possibility of Iran retaliating with nuclear force is a recurring theme.
Some voters emphasize the seriousness of the situation, warning against celebrating the death of Raisi as it could have dire global consequences which may obligate or drag the U.S. into deeper involvement.
Public Sentiment and Interpretations
A lot of people find the official narrative suspicious and lean towards believing in foul play, primarily by Israel or the U.S.
The incident is being used to validate existing political beliefs and biases, with both sides of the Israel-Iran conflict finding ways to leverage the event to their advantage. The broader implications for international relations and the potential for a larger conflict seem top-of-mind. Many express concerns over the fragility of global peace.
What This Means for the Future
Moving forward, the death of Ebrahim Raisi is likely to be a significant touchstone in American voter discourse.
Increased Polarization
Different groups are likely to become more polarized, with each side reinforcing their narratives about the incident. Conspiracy theories may gain more traction, especially in echo chambers that distrust mainstream media.
Both state and non-state actors might exploit the situation to disseminate propaganda, further muddying the waters of public perception.
Geopolitical Ramifications
Countries involved in the Middle Eastern conflict may adopt more aggressive postures, leading to an arms race or increased military readiness. The incident could solidify and perhaps expand existing alliances, such as between Russia and Iran, and conversely, between Israel and the U.S.
Public Anxiety
The fear of WWIII will likely remain a recurring theme, influencing public opinion and potentially impacting governmental policies. Discussions around nuclear proliferation and the dangers of nuclear conflict may become more prominent, affecting international diplomatic agendas.
Domestic Politics
The transition of power in Iran will be closely monitored, with speculations about the next supreme leader affecting both regional politics and international relations. In countries like the U.S. and Israel, the incident may be used as a political tool in upcoming elections. This could shape voter opinions and campaign strategies.
In conclusion, the death of Ebrahim Raisi has not only stirred immediate reactions but is also likely to have lasting effects on global politics, public sentiment, and online discourse. The event serves as a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of modern geopolitical conflicts and the role of digital platforms in shaping contemporary narratives.
Recent reporting that sex offenders are being employed and housed in hotels with unaccompanied migrant children has sparked significant controversy and concern about a program already rampant with child trafficking.
MIG Reports analysis reveals an intersection of concern over immigration, child welfare, and public safety. This issue is particularly sensitive, given the heightened scrutiny around the treatment and care of vulnerable populations such as unaccompanied minors.
Americans Agree Child Safety is Crucial
The general sentiment on this issue is overwhelmingly negative. Concerns about the safety and well-being of unaccompanied migrant children are prominent. And reports of children exposed to registered sex offenders exacerbates fears of abuse and exploitation. Public outrage is pronounced, with calls for immediate reforms and stricter oversight of facilities housing unaccompanied minors.
Media Coverage
The topic has garnered media attention but has not received wall-to-wall coverage. Reports tend to spike following investigations or statements from public officials and advocacy groups. Mainstream media and social media platforms have been instrumental in amplifying the issue, often framing it within the broader context of immigration policies and government accountability.
Political Reactions
Political figures have responded with sharp criticisms and calls for action. There is bipartisan condemnation, though framing and blame often diverges along party lines. Conservative voices emphasize the need for stricter immigration controls and better vetting processes. Progressive voices focus on systemic failures and the need for comprehensive child protection measures.
Social Media Trends
Social media platforms have generated a robust conversation, with hashtags like #ProtectOurChildren and #ChildSafety gaining traction. Americans express a mix of indignation, fear, and demands for accountability. The discourse often overlaps with immigration debates, reflecting broader anxieties about border security and governmental oversight.
Voter Group Reactions to Government Failures
Parents and Families
Sentiment is highly negative for families. Parents are particularly alarmed by the potential risks posed to children. This demographic is likely to demand stringent background checks and reforms to ensure children's safety. Many are calling for increased advocacy and support for policies aimed at protecting children in institutional care.
Immigrant Communities
Voter sentiment is mixed among immigrants. While there is concern for the safety of children, immigrant communities might also fear increased stigmatization and punitive measures which could affect their own status and treatment.
This group seems to want child protection along with immigrant rights, emphasizing humane and safe treatment for all.
Public Safety Advocates
Sentiment is strongly negative with safety advocates. This group is likely to push for immediate actions and reforms to prevent similar situations. They promote advocacy for stricter regulations and oversight of facilities housing vulnerable populations.
Political Partisans
Conservatives are likely to argue for more restrictive immigration policies and enhanced security measures. Progressives may focus on systemic failures and advocate for comprehensive reforms in child protection and immigration policies.
Across the political aisle, there is increasing polarization, with each side using the issue to bolster their respective policy agendas.
General Public
Sentiment is generally negative among most Americans, driven by concerns for child safety and governmental accountability. There is heightened public scrutiny of governmental and institutional practices, along with potential shifts in public opinion towards more protective measures for children.
Ubisoft, the developers of the Assassin’s Creed video game franchise, announced its newest game will feature a black protagonist in feudal Japan. The character, Yasuke, was an African slave brought to Japan by an Italian missionary. He served as a "retainer," which was essentially a servant to samurai. This anachronism for the sake of diversity sparked online debate, reflecting broader cultural, historical, and political tensions. The discourse spans multiple dimensions, including historical accuracy, cultural representation, and the impact of woke ideologies on creative industries like gaming.
Historical Accuracy and Cultural Representation
Criticism of Historical Inaccuracy
Many critics argue having a black protagonist in a feudal Japan setting is historically inaccurate. They contend that such a character would not fit the historical and cultural context of the period, since Japan was relatively isolated and homogenous.
Some emphasize that historical accuracy is essential for maintaining the integrity and immersion of a game set in a specific historical era. They believe bending historical facts for the sake of diversity undermines the educational and experiential value of historical fiction.
Support for Creative Freedom and Representation
Proponents of diversity argue video games are a form of art and should be allowed creative freedom. They posit that incorporating diverse characters can offer new perspectives and enrich storytelling.
Advocates for representation say including a black protagonist can challenge Eurocentric narratives in media and provide visibility for underrepresented groups, despite the game taking place in feudal Japan and not needing European characters.
Woke Ideologies and Cultural Wars
The Woke Right and Leftist Parallels
The rhetoric from the "Woke Right" mirrors that of what they criticize in "leftist loonies." Both sides are seen as being inflexible and dogmatic about their moral and ideological stances.
Some commentators on the right accuse the left of pushing “diversity and inclusion” at the expense of historical realism and traditional values. They believe that such moves are part of a broader cultural agenda that erases historical facts and promotes a progressive ideology.
Virtue Signaling and Corporate Agendas
Critics from both ends of the political spectrum accuse companies like Ubisoft of engaging in virtue signaling. They argue these companies adopt progressive stances not out of genuine commitment to diversity, but to appeal to a broader market and avoid backlash.
This sentiment is reflected in broader critiques of corporate practices that superficially adopt social causes. Many accuse them of failing to address underlying issues and engaging in "performative wokeness."
Broader Cultural Context
Freedom of Speech and Censorship
The discussions often extend to debates about freedom of speech and the perceived censorship of conservative viewpoints. Some argue pushing back against historically inaccurate representation is a form of preserving free expression and historical truth.
Others counter that encouraging diverse representation is itself an exercise of free speech and creativity, and limiting this in the name of accuracy is a form of censorship.
Polarization and Social Media Discourse
Social media platforms amplify these debates, with many resorting to hyperbolic and inflammatory language. This polarization makes it difficult to have nuanced discussions about the balance between historical accuracy and modern pushes for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
The dialogue often devolves into ad hominem attacks and entrenched positions, reflecting broader societal divisions on issues of race, history, and identity politics.
Recently, Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker received criticism for being an outspoken Catholic during his graduation speech at a Catholic university. In reaction, the official Twitter account for the City of Kansas City came close to doxxing Butker in a tweet pointing out where he lives.
The same day, the tweet was deleted, and Kansas City again tweeted, this time apologizing for the doxxing.
We apologies for our previous tweet. It was shared in error.
In response, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey notified the public he will be invoking the Missouri Human Rights Act in defense of Harrison Butker. The Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) is a state law that prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations based on various protected characteristics, including religion.
MIG Reports analysis of the reaction to AG Bailey’s defense of Butker highlights two general trends:
A newfound support among right leaning Americans for being proactive about cancellation.
A continuing environment for left-leaning Americans of seeking “accountability,” which conservatives view as cancellation.
AG Bailey is seeking to investigate and enforce applicable law if is should show Harrison Butker’s rights were being violated by Kansas City – for disclosing where Butker lives.
BREAKING: My office is demanding accountability after@KansasCity doxxed @buttkicker7 last night for daring to express his religious beliefs.
I will enforce the Missouri Human Rights Act to ensure Missourians are not targeted for their free exercise of religion.
Stay tuned.
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) May 16, 2024
Political Reactions
Conservative Voices
Many conservative voices appreciate Bailey's decision, viewing it as a stand for religious freedom and free speech. They argue Butker, like any American, has the right to express his beliefs without facing professional repercussions or being canceled.
Conservatives often criticize what they perceive as a double standard among liberals, who they believe champion free speech only when it aligns with their own views. They argue liberals are quick to call for consequences when speech opposes their values.
Liberal Voices
Liberals and progressives are critical of Bailey coming to Butker’s defense but are ignoring the objectionable actions by Kansas City’s official X account. They argue freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences and emphasize that Butker's comments, which are perceived as misogynistic, should not be protected under the guise of religious freedom.
Liberals often highlight that expressing controversial opinions can and should incur professional and social repercussions, especially when those opinions are viewed as harmful or discriminatory.
Views on Free Speech and Religious Rights
Pro-Free Speech Advocates
Advocates for unrestricted free speech, irrespective of political affiliation, support Bailey's invocation of the Missouri Human Rights Act. They argue Butker's right to express his religious beliefs should be protected.
These voices are often concerned about the potential for censorship and the slippery slope of limiting speech based on its content or the reactions it provokes.
Pro-Accountability Advocates
Advocates for accountability argue that, while Butker has the right to express his beliefs, he must also face the consequences of those expressions, particularly if they are harmful or discriminatory.
This group emphasizes the importance of protecting the vulnerable from speech that can perpetuate discrimination or harm. They say societal progress often requires holding public figures accountable for their words.
An intense clash between Reps Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG), and Jasmine Crockett during a House hearing went viral last week. Reactions ranged from amusement, offense, shock, and disbelief. Political affiliation largely determined which representative voters sided with. However, a general bipartisan response contained disapproval of what most saw as a juvenile exchange and breakdown of decorum.
This video lays out what happened in tonight’s heated exchange in the oversight hearing pic.twitter.com/7QTmpsa1eA
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's conservative base often views her as a fiery defender of their values and a fierce critic of leftist agendas. Following her exchange with Reps Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett, many expressed a strong loyalty to outspoken conservatives like MTG, affirming their view that Crockett’s intelligence as lacking. Supporters appreciate MTG's combative style and see her as a necessary disruptor in a political landscape they believe is dominated by liberal voices.
Conservatives and anti-establishment Republicans often harbor deep distrust and resentment towards the political establishment. Therefore, they often applaud the aggressive tactics of politicians like MTG. They see her willingness to confront other lawmakers head-on as a sign of her commitment to shaking up the status quo. However, this support is not without its criticisms, as some feel that her actions sometimes cross the line into unproductive theatrics.
Liberals and progressives mostly vehemently oppose MTG's behavior, labeling it as immature and a waste of taxpayer dollars. These critics focus on her lack of legislative accomplishments and her tendency to engage in what they see as performative and divisive rhetoric. Some suggest MTG is an embarrassment to the country, emphasizing her perceived failures and lack of decorum.
Voter Views of AOC
AOC's progressive supporters see her as a champion of social justice and economic equality. They appreciate her willingness to confront figures like MTG and praise her as a necessary counterbalance to conservative voices. AOC's support of progressive policies and aggressive challenge to conservative rhetoric resonates deeply with her base. This group often sees her as a leader in the fight for a more equitable society.
Moderate and conservative voters are more likely to characterize AOC's actions as overly confrontational and desperate for attention. Critics see her exchange with MTG as contributing to the overall dysfunction and lack of decorum in Congress. They argue such behavior detracts from meaningful legislative work and exacerbates partisan divides.
Some who identify as MAGA supporters feel their views are unfairly marginalized or misrepresented while those of AOC and Crockett are praise. They accuse politicians like AOC of hypocrisy and ignorance of real issues facing Americans.
All three congresswomen generated online discussion with mentions of their name increasing after their House hearing row.
MTG gained the most commentary with a peak of 5,915 mentions.
Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett both took a slight hit to their approval after the argument while MTG gained a slight bump.
Perceived Unintelligence of Congress Members
Most Americans express a level of disillusionment with the competence and intelligence of the country’s Congress members. This is a bipartisan sentiment that gets applied largely to politicians on the opposite side of the aisle.
Liberals and Democrats are more likely to admire AOC and Crockett, viewing them as intelligent, professional, and highly qualified. Conservatives and right leaning voters often criticize the intelligence of both AOC and Crockett, defending the rhetorical skills and superior arguments of figures like MTG.
The criticism of unruly behavior and unintelligent conversation towards Congress members is not exclusive to voters. Senator John Fetterman — who himself has faced criticism about intelligence — took to social media to compare the women’s exchange to the Jerry Springer show.
In the past, I’ve described the U.S. House as The Jerry Springer Show.
— Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) May 17, 2024
Many online found Fetterman’s tweet and response by AOC on X as highly amusing, regardless of who they agree with politically. However, there was also a vocal response by those who criticize Fetterman’s commentary on decorum while himself being notorious for wearing sweatshirts and shorts on the Senate floor.
Conservatives view Fetterman's tweet as an opportunity to criticize perceived double standards and the influence of identity politics within the Democratic Party. Progressives see it as a candid reflection of political dysfunction and degradation of norms. Independents and libertarians likely view the analogy as a confirmation of their cynicism towards the political establishment.
There seems to be an irony or dissonance for many Americans who recognize the embarrassing behavior on both sides of the aisle — yet many cannot help feeling amused.
Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie recently garnered attention by introducing a bill aimed at abolishing the Federal Reserve, calling it the "End the Fed" bill. The bill sparked a range of reactions among voters and political commentators.
A poll Massie posted on X attracted more than 115,000 participants with 86.6% responding in favor of ending the Federal Reserve. Massie’s announcement of his bill the following day then sparked energy and excitement among anti-establishment voters.
Should I introduce a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve?
Many Americans argue abolishing the Federal Reserve (Fed) would restore economic control to individuals and states. There is a strongwish that ending the Fed would also lead to the abolition of federal taxes, allowing states to manage their own financial affairs better.
Much of the conversation centers on the idea of returning to the gold standard, suggesting many supporters believe in the intrinsic value of gold over fiat currency. Vocal cryptocurrency supporters also frequently speak up in favor of abolishing current financial systems, including the Federal Reserve.
Some voters draw parallels between the current financial system and historical examples of debased currencies, say it reminds them of, “Rome nipping off pieces of silver from every tax coin."
Support for Massie’s End the Fed Bill
Libertarians and fiscal conservatives form a significant base of support for Massie's bill. These groups have long criticized the Federal Reserve for its role in monetary policy, which they believe contributes to inflation, economic instability, and undue government influence over the economy.
Most libertarians see the Federal Reserve as an unconstitutional entity which distorts free-market economics. They draw parallels between Massie and Ron Paul, a former congressman known for his staunch opposition to the Fed.
There are vocal accusations that the Fed only serves the interests of the wealthy elite at the expense of ordinary citizens. Many also feel completely helpless and at the mercy of runaway inflation – a subject which plays into larger negative sentiments about the economy and jobs.
Massie's supporters often express disillusionment with the Federal Reserve's recent actions, such as printing stimulus checks and raising interest rates. They see the bill as a necessary step in addressing what they perceive as financial mismanagement and economic manipulation.
Apprehension About the Bill’s Practicality
While some moderate conservatives are sympathetic to the notion of reducing Federal Reserve power, they express concerns about the practical implications of abolishing the institution.
This group questions what would replace the Federal Reserve and who would manage interest rates and monetary policy in its absence. Rather than total abolition, they advocate for significant reforms to increase transparency and accountability within the Federal Reserve.
Those who express skepticism or seek further clarification about the implications of abolishing the Fed frequently ask questions like:
"What will Ending the Fed do?"
"Who would set interest rates after the Fed is abolished?"
These voters are not necessarily opposed to Massie's proposal but are concerned about the practicalities and potential fallout of dismantling such an entrenched institution.
Opposition to Ending the Fed
Many voters who support government institutions are deeply skeptical or outright opposed to the "End the Fed" initiative. They often cite concerns about economic stability and the lack of viable alternatives.
This group fears abolishing the Federal Reserve could lead to economic chaos. They argue that while the Federal Reserve is not perfect, it plays a crucial role in managing the economy.
However, some critics emphasize the need for a more informed debate on the issue. They suggest proponents of the bill lack a deep understanding of economic history and the complexities of monetary policy.
An NBC News report on the Satanic Temple's increased involvement in confronting Christian Nationalism in schools gained a largely negative reaction. The responses range from strong disapproval to acknowledgment of perceived issues with Christian Nationalism. The discourse is mostly composed of skepticism, criticism, and a few neutral or unrelated comments.
What Americans Are Saying
Many voters express distrust in NBC News and the mainstream media in general, suggesting the reporting is often biased or manipulative.
There is a notable trend of strong disapproval towards the Satanic Temple's involvement in educational matters. Some question the motives and appropriateness of joining forces with such a controversial group. Recurring comments like "smh" (shaking my head) imply disapproval and disbelief.
Broader Concerns about Media Ethics and Priorities
Some Americans criticize NBC News for not prioritizing what they believe to be more critical issues like political corruption and environmental concerns.
This sentiment is evident in discussion about issues more important to voters like the border and the economy. On more pressing topics, people make comments like, "Why isn't this being reported on the hour, every hour, every day?" This contrasts with the ambivalence or disapproval of NBC’s reporting choices.
Calls for Accountability and Transparency
Some called for more accountability and transparency in news reporting, particularly highlighting potential conflicts of interest, such as in the case of Katy Tur's coverage of the Trump case.
There is a pervasive sense of frustration with the media landscape as many make negative remarks about specific journalists and the media's focus. Comments like "Chuck Todd needs to be fired," underscore a broader dissatisfaction with media figures.
Spam and Irrelevant Content
Most of the discussion reflects a negative sentiment towards NBC News and the subject of the article. This includes distrust in media reporting, disapproval of the Satanic Temple's role, and frustration with media priorities.
Examples include: "smh," "Yeah, no," and "Why isn't this being reported on the hour, every hour, every day?"
Many responses include spam or irrelevant content, such as investment promotions and inappropriate comments, which detract from the main discussion. However, this lack of meaningful content could point to Americans’ dismissal of and unwillingness to engage with biased reporting.
There were very few, if any, explicitly positive comments regarding the article or NBC News in general.
.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)
.png)
.png)