During the RNC convention, numerous families who lost loved ones in the attack at Abbey Gate, during Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal, shared their personal testimonies and experiences. They talked of losing a loved one under President Biden and subsequently being ignored by the administration.

American reactions to Biden’s failure to acknowledge the Afghanistan Gold Star families reveal significant emotional intensity, anger, grief, and political implications.

Negligent Commander-in-Chief

Discussions center around Joe Biden’s repeated neglect of Afghanistan Gold Star families after his disastrous withdrawal. This offensive unwillingness to acknowledge those who gave their lives for America fuels anger and disappointment. This is especially pronounced among Americans closely tied to military communities.

Sentiment toward Joe Biden on this subject is overwhelmingly negative, marked by feelings of abandonment and disillusionment. Many argue Biden’s refusal to acknowledge these families reflects poorly on his role as Commander-in-Chief. They say it worsens the impact of his administration’s atrocious handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal.

Another closely related topic is the broader critique of how Biden handles military affairs and veterans' issues. Critics use the administration’s neglect of Gold Star families as a springboard to discuss wider failings, including the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and its aftermath. Sentiment remains negative, often laced with strong emotional appeals highlighting the sacrifices of military service members and their families.

Sweeping Critiques of Biden’s Legacy

The discourse often transitions into a broader critique of Biden’s presidency. This includes examinations of his competence, leadership, and policy decisions. Detractors emphasize perceived failings across various domains, extending the criticism beyond military issues to encompass economic, social, and foreign policies. The sentiment across these discussions is again largely negative, albeit framed in a broader political context.

Discussion volume about Gold Star families during the RNC made up a significant portion of political discourse. The discussion was especially large within conservative and military-supportive communities. The volume of these discussions spikes during key events or statements related to military affairs or memorial observances, indicating a high level of engagement on these issues.

Impact on Voters

For undecided and Independent voters, these military issues have the potential to sway opinions. Particularly for those connected to the military or who prioritize national security and veteran affairs.

The emotional resonance of Gold Star family narratives can significantly impact voter sentiment. Independent voters, typically swayed by policy effectiveness and leadership qualities, may find the administration's perceived failings in military matters a critical factor in their decision-making process.

It has been long-established that the point of no return for Biden’s net-negative approval was marked by the Kabul evacuation. This is shown in various polls. Continued discussion, and perhaps focus on the administration writ-large, may continue to erode overall sentiment and approval for Joe Biden and even Kamala Harris.

On July 15, anti-immigration protests regarding taxpayer-funded asylum infrastructure in Coolock, Ireland, became physical. The story also went viral among some groups in the United States.

MIG Reports studied online discussion to track parallels with American conversations about U.S. illegal immigration. Discussions reveal intense emotions and diverging political ideologies among American commenters.

Background

The events in Coolock, Ireland, involved local protests and arson attacks on construction sites intended for migrant centers. Some American commenters use these events as examples highlighting the consequences of lenient illegal immigration policies.

Many point to the imagery and reports from Ireland to underscore broader themes of national sovereignty, safety concerns, and the failures of current immigration policies. In this context, the sentiment is predominantly negative and alarmist, emphasizing fears of cultural and social disruption. Many Americans say, if the U.S. continues its current immigration path, it will face similar consequences as seen in Europe.

Discussion Trends

Among conservative Americans, there is a pronounced effort to link the disorder in Coolock with issues they view as comparable in the United States. A prevailing theme is government incompetence and betrayal by political elites. President Joe Biden and Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas are frequently criticized for their immigration policies. Voters argue they have cause similar crises at the U.S. southern border. This portends a sentiment of frustration and urgency for stricter immigration controls and policies more aligned with former President Trump's administration.

Conversely, liberal and progressive commenters often frame the events in Coolock in the broader context of humanitarian concern and the need for compassionate immigration policies. However, they are less likely to highlight the events themselves, instead focusing on criticizing the negative portrayals of immigrants. They often assert there are xenophobic undertones in the conservative discourse.

Sentiment Trends

Among conservative Americans, there is a strong correlation between negative sentiment towards the Biden administration and the heightened focus on illegal immigration as a key electoral issue. People discuss national security, economic strain, and cultural preservation.

Independent and undecided voters often find themselves swayed by these negative portrayals of current U.S. immigration policies, especially when framed around fears of safety and economic hardship. This demographic is critical, as their views on immigration could significantly influence their voting behavior in the upcoming elections.

Discussions often highlight an apocalyptic tone, suggesting a societal collapse due to unchecked immigration. This not only furthers negative sentiment but also activates a call to political action among right-leaning voters. This can potentially galvanize voter turnout in support of politicians who promise stringent immigration reforms.

Causes of Concern

Conversations tend to oscillate between reports of specific incidents involving illegal immigrants and broader claims about systemic problems due to illegal immigration. Sentiment in these discussions is predominantly negative, characterized by fear, anger, and a demand for action. The top issues Americans talk about include:

• Violent crimes involving illegal immigrants
• Economic concerns and resources used on illegal immigrants
• Public safety and health concerns
• Drug and human trafficking and child endangerment

Potential Election Impact

For independent and undecided voters, conversations using Europe as a sketch of America’s future can influence voting decisions. The portrayal of illegal immigration as a source of crime and economic strain can sway Americans toward candidates and policies favoring stronger immigration controls.

The narrative of government mismanagement and failure to protect citizens also continues to erode trust in current administration policies, pushing undecided voters towards change-oriented platforms.

During last week's NATO Summit in Washington D.C., President Joe Biden publicly said, “Ukraine will prevail against Russia.” This comment led to discussions about Biden's involvement in international conflicts and perceptions of poor foreign policy. The comment also seemed to cause repercussions on his already-dropping approval rating.

Sentiment about the Ukraine-Russia war trends towards cynicism and frustration for many Americans. This is particularly acute regarding U.S. aid and strategic outcomes. The contrast between Biden's involvement in Ukraine's defense and his support for Israel's actions against Hamas also stirs emotional and volatile discourse among U.S. voters.

Online conversations about the Ukraine-Russia war continue to generate interest among certain political groups. However, the volume of discussions on the Ukraine-Russia conflict is regularly overshadowed by ongoing concerns about Israel's war with Hamas.

• Consistent but low discussion volume about Ukraine-Russia compared to Israel-Hamas suggests American investment in Ukraine is lower priority.
• Although Ukraine sentiment is higher than sentiment for Russia or Israel, it’s likely more pressing issues will continue to push Ukraine to the back burner.

Ukraine's Battle for the Spotlight

American conversations about the Ukraine-Russia war often touch on global politics, military strategies, humanitarian crises, and economic impacts. There is talk about the effectiveness and moral obligations of international aid, especially from the U.S. and its NATO allies. While these topics generate engagement, the issue of Biden’s stance toward Palestine appears more pressing—especially within the Democratic voter base.

Undecided voter and independent sentiment about the likelihood of Ukraine winning the war is mixed. Many express skepticism about Ukraine’s future, suggesting a consternation over the ongoing scale of destruction and human suffering.

President Biden's assertion that Ukraine will emerge victorious is not universally accepted. Some say his stance is overly optimistic, considering the complex and entrenched nature of the conflict. Many also point out their view that Biden’s leadership does not help Ukraine put on a strong front against Russia. Biden’s efforts to maintain a coalition supporting Ukraine grows dubious amid questions about his reelection bid and Israel’s concurrent conflict.

Conversations around Ukraine often emphasize resilience and determination, albeit tempered with realistic concerns about the prolonged nature of the conflict. Americans point out the toll on Ukrainian civilians and America’s own financial investments.

Israel's War Stirs American Emotions

In contrast, the discourse on Israel's war against Hamas is more intensely charged with high emotions and moral declarations. The narrative is heavily punctuated by graphic descriptions of violence, civilian casualties, and allegations of war crimes on both sides. This conflict intertwines historical grievances with current geopolitical maneuvers, eliciting strong responses from global commentators and ordinary citizens alike.

Public sentiment about Israel versus Hamas is deeply polarized. There is unwavering support for Israel's right to defend itself among some voters. However, another segment of Americans decries the humanitarian impact on Palestinian civilians or U.S. involvement with Israel. The emotive language used in these conversations often intensifies the division, with instances of misinformation and propaganda adding to the complexity.

MIG Reports data shows American reactions to Israel-Lebanon tensions and military operations in southern Lebanon. Israel supporters see these developments as self-defense against threats from groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. They emphasize Israel's need for security since 1948.

Critics view these actions as aggression, citing civilian casualties and using terms like "genocide" and "war crimes." The debate also touches on U.S. support for Israel and media bias. There are significant divisions based on recent events and ideological perspectives. Public sentiment fluctuates, shaped by historical context, international politics, and media narratives.

What Voters Are Saying

Online conversations are highly polarized, frequently oscillating between defense of Israel's actions as necessary measures for national security and severe condemnation of those actions as aggressive and expansionist.

Many progressives and anti-Israel nationalists focus on the humanitarian impact of military operations, using terms "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing." Those who support Israel and its actions often emphasize the necessity of these measures to counteract terrorist threats from groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Humanitarian Impact

Critics discuss the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the displacement of people, and casualties. They illustrate their points with graphic descriptions or images of the conditions on the ground. Emotional appeals and personal stories are shared to highlight the humanitarian crisis.

Self-Defense vs. Aggression

Debates frequently revolve around whether Israel's actions constitute legitimate self-defense or unprovoked aggression. Supporters argue the necessity of military operations to dismantle terrorist networks and protect Israeli citizens. Opponents view these actions as excessive and part of a broader strategy of territorial expansion.

International Law and War Crimes

References to international law and alleged war crimes are common among critics. This group calls for accountability through international bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC). Assertions of "genocide" and demands for war crime investigations are routine in anti-Israel commentary.

Media Representation

Both sides criticize media bias. Pro-Israel advocates argue mainstream media sanitizes and underreports the terrorism Israelis face. Pro-Palestine critics argue media outlets whitewash Israeli military actions and downplay their severity. Accusations of journalistic malpractice are widespread, reflecting the greater distrust toward establishment media.

Geopolitical Implications

Discussions often include the broader geopolitical ramifications, such as the involvement of other countries (e.g., Iran’s support for Hezbollah), and predict significant regional instability. Discussions about future escalations invariably include anxieties about larger regional conflicts involving countries like Iran, Syria, and the broader Middle East.

Political Leaders

Critics of their respective governments express dissatisfaction with the stance of political leaders, including U.S. leadership, accusing them of either inadequate response or hypocritical policies. Accusations against leaders like President Biden include claims that he has handled the situation poorly, compromising American security.

Factors Influencing Support

Support for or against Israeli military operations is heavily influenced by perceived motivations and outcomes. When actions are framed as defensive, aimed at neutralizing immediate terrorist threats, support tends to be higher.

Framing these actions as part of aggressive territorial expansion or indiscriminate retaliation against civilian areas significantly lowers public support. The portrayal of violence and humanitarian crises also plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion, with graphic coverage often leading to increased opposition.

Recent reports that a significant majority of Ukrainians prefer President Joe Biden over former President Donald Trump has sparked diverse reactions among Americans. There is currently a contentious and polarized view of Ukraine in the United States, exacerbating disagreements.

American sentiment toward the Biden administration's foreign policies, particularly regarding financial aid to Ukraine, are generally negative.

What Americans Are Saying

There is growing frustration and opposition among Americans to the U.S. continuing financial support for Ukraine. Many express concerns over taxpayer money being diverted to foreign conflicts while domestic issues within the United States, such as inflation, border security, and crime rates, remain inadequately addressed.

Those who oppose Ukraine aid argue continuing to fund the Russia-Ukraine war contributes to rising inflation and the national debt at home. In turn, this causes greater economic hardships for American citizens.

Critics of Ukraine aid view weakness in Biden's foreign policy and leadership, comparing him to Trump's tougher stance against international adversaries. They say the Obama and Biden administrations both failed to prevent Russia's initial incursions. They view Biden's current policies as ineffective or even encouraging Russian aggression.

There are voices—though they seem less prominent—defending the Biden administration's approach to Ukraine. Supporters emphasize the importance of assisting an ally in its struggle against authoritarian aggression. The view Ukraine aid as a necessary stand for democratic values and global security. They also argue bolstering Ukraine's defense capabilities deters further territorial ambitions by Russia and serves long-term American and allied interests.

Resentment Toward Continued Aid

Partisan viewpoints directly impact discussions on whether to continue or cease funding Ukraine's war effort. The decreasing support for financial aid to Ukraine is particularly strong among conservative and right-leaning constituencies. They advocate for reallocating funds to address pressing domestic issues.

This decreasing support for Ukraine aid also makes critics less likely to acknowledge Ukrainian views of the U.S. presidency. Many Republicans argue that Ukrainians are obviously incentivized to support Biden whose deluge of funding is contingent on his reelection.

Further, Ukraine critics are increasingly suspicious of corruption among those involved in sending a receiving aid. Allegations of money laundering and ulterior motives abound, with some pointing to the Biden family's alleged ties to Ukrainian businesses as evidence of potential conflicts of interest. This amplifies distrust and fosters calls for greater transparency and accountability in U.S. foreign aid payments.

Concerns about fraud, waste, and abuse have been a consistent topic since the beginning of the Ukraine-Russia war. Olena Zelenska, Ukraine’s First Lady, was accused in viral online reporting of purchasing a Bugatti supercar for 4.5 million euros—which is equal to $4,878,000. Immediate fact-checking articles from mainstream media outlets countered these allegations, likely deepening the positions of Americans who oppose Ukraine funding.

The landscape of American public opinion on this matter is complex and shaded with skepticism about foreign interventions. Ukrainians preferring Biden over Trump serves as a catalyst for a broader debate that encompasses economic concerns, national priorities, and profound mistrust toward Joe Biden.

Minnesota congresswoman and member of “The Squad” Ilhan Omar's recent rally with former Somali Prime Minister Hassan Khaire is generating significant controversy among Americans. The statement from Khaire, “This is not a Minnesota issue. It's not an American issue. It's an issue of Somalis,” is increasing negativity.

External reporting counts Somalis totaling approximately 87,000 across the entire state of Minnesota. Among those, 67,000 are in the greater Minneapolis region—this would be roughly 9% of Omar’s district.

American sentiment predominantly revolves around accusations of Omar’s disloyalty to the United States. Many express outrage that she continually prioritizes Somalian interests over American ones. This is inflamed by Khaire's statements at the rally, which many feel support disloyalty claims against Rep. Omar.

What Voters Are Saying

Many Americans who comment on the rally say Omar is acting as a foreign agent. These Americans feel she should be investigated for inappropriate ties and potentially expelled from Congress. People express a sense of betrayal by Omar and other members of The Squad, with calls for her to be ousted from her congressional position. Voters frequently use strong language like "traitor" and "treason."

Another prevalent topic is the visibility—or lack thereof—of American symbols at the rally. Observers notice and criticize the absence of American flags and the exclusive use of the Somali language. They say these elements underscore a disconnect from American values and priorities. Omar’s support and approval reflects this negativity with sentiment decreasing as mentions of her online increase.

Frustration with Leadership

There is also frustration directed at the GOP and specific congressional leaders, accusing them of inaction in the face of blatant disloyalty to America. This sentiment reflects a broader discontent with chronic political inaction and weakness among leadership. This discontent may influence the perspectives of undecided voters who could be swayed by a strong stance on national loyalty and congressional integrity.

The rally and subsequent discussions may significantly impact undecided voters by highlighting concerns about the dedication and loyalty of elected officials to their constituents and country. Voters who are passionate about national security and integrity may find themselves drawn to candidates who promise stringent measures against what they perceive as disloyalty within the government.

Conversely, those who view the accusations against Omar as xenophobic or politically motivated might lean towards candidates advocating for more inclusive and nuanced discussions about national and international roles.

The June 23 missile attack on Russia in Crimea is causing an intense flurry of commentary on social media and news outlets. Discussions are a mix of factual reports, speculation, and strong opinions that reflect geopolitical tensions and political divides. MIG Reports identified several trends in public discourse.

Blame Game

Much of the discussion revolves around who is culpable for the escalation. Many people echo official Russian statements blaming the United States for the attack. Allegations assert American-supplied Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles were used.

U.S. missile claims are accompanied by intense scrutiny of the role of U.S. intelligence and military support. Some accuse the Biden administration of becoming party to the conflict. This assertion is sometimes bolstered by references to intercepted communications and claims of direct U.S. involvement in targeting via satellite data.

Fear of Escalation

Many voters are concerned the attack could escalate into a broader conflict, potentially even World War III. There is fear and apprehension that retaliation from Russia against the U.S. could provoke a dangerous escalation.

Americans worries are often linked to broader geopolitical anxieties involving NATO, China, and other global hotspots. Voters draw parallels between Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, and other conflict zones.

Political Division and Sentiment

There is a marked division in sentiment along political lines. Some voters, particularly Trump supporters or opposition to the Biden administration, interpret the incident as a failure of current U.S. foreign policy.

They see it as part of a pattern of escalating conflicts under Biden’s leadership. These people argue such interventions are neither in America's best interest nor morally justifiable. They claim failing to resolve conflicts is driven by ulterior motives such as corruption or imperial ambitions.

Humanitarian Anguish

Emotional responses highlight the humanitarian cost of the missile strike, especially given reported civilian casualties, including children. This has led to visceral reactions and calls for accountability. Some view the attack as a war crime demanding an immediate and strong response to prevent further loss of innocent life.

Calls for Peace

Among the multitude of responses, there are also voices calling for peace and urging diplomatic solutions. These voters stress the importance of de-escalation and negotiations, revealing American disapproval for U.S. involvement. They argue ongoing military actions only serve to perpetuate misery and instability.

This viewpoint is sometimes juxtaposed with frustration over perceived unwillingness by involved parties, including Ukrainian President Zelensky and Russian President Putin, to engage in meaningful dialogue.

Recent reporting about Chinese entities purchasing farmland near U.S. military bases in have become a highly contentious topic. This increasing threat is generating considerable discussion and concern among various stakeholders.

Voter discourse explores not only the strategic implications of these real estate investments but also the broader geopolitical tensions and national security considerations. Sentiment surrounding Chinese entities acquiring U.S. farmland is predominately negative. Many express alarm and skepticism about the motivations behind these purchases.

Military Threats from China

National Security Concerns

There is widespread apprehension that Chinese ownership of farmland in proximity to military installations potentially enables espionage activities and provides strategic vantage points for surveilling U.S. military operations. Critics argue such acquisitions present significant risks to national defense, stressing the need for stricter regulatory oversight and transparency regarding foreign investments in critical areas.

Economic Concerns

There are concerns about the long-term consequences for American farmers and rural communities. Some worry Chinese investment could lead to land price inflation, making it more difficult for local farmers to compete or gain access to land. There is also anxiety that foreign control over agricultural assets could affect national food security and disrupt local agricultural economies.

Political Inaction

Americans are also criticizing political figures and policymakers, calling for legislative actions to limit or outright ban foreign ownership of farmland. They say this is especially important near sensitive sites such as military bases. Voters are also critical of leadership failure to disentangle the U.S. from existing and rising international tensions.

Legislators are exploring various policy tools to address these issues, including heightened screening measures for foreign investments, strengthened national security policies, and revisions to existing laws governing foreign land ownership.

Geopolitical Control

Conversations intersect with broader geopolitical dynamics and U.S.-China relations. Many view these farmland acquisitions as part of a larger strategic maneuver by China to expand its influence and control in critical sectors of the American economy. This perception is underscored by current tensions between the two nations over trade policies, defense matters, and global leadership roles.

Sentiment Trends

Public sentiment often reflects severe distrust towards the Chinese government's intentions. Many Americans view these land purchases as a covert extension of China's geopolitical agenda. The calls for vigilance and proactive measures reflect American desires to safeguard national interests against perceived foreign encroachments.

China's Anti-American Agenda

Many people are debating whether these acquisitions are a form of espionage or preparation for future confrontations. People say these risks are heightened by the current geopolitical climate involving China, Russia, and North Korea.

The perceived threats from these nations have escalated the anxiety of many Americans. This sentiment is compounded by recent military maneuvers and alliances involving these countries, adding to the narrative that U.S. adversaries may be encircling the country both physically and politically.

There is also substantial discussion around the broader theme of foreign influence in domestic affairs. Many are questioning the adequacy of current U.S. policies and the government's capability to prevent potentially malicious foreign investments. The role of political leaders in enabling or mitigating these threats is a hot topic, with some voicing criticism over perceived inaction or mishandling by current and past administrations.

Many Americans also have economic concerns, particularly the impact of these foreign purchases on local farming communities and the agricultural sector's stability. The fear is that foreign control over agricultural resources could undermine U.S. food security and sovereignty.

There is a pervasive feeling of distrust and frustration towards politicians, bureaucrats, and the broader political system, which many believe is too compromised or incompetent to safeguard national interests effectively. This distrust is often linked to broader discontent with the government's handling of international relationships and foreign policy, particularly considering recent global events involving China, Russia, and North Korea.

The petrodollar agreement, an agreed system of oil-producing nations selling their oil in U.S. currency, came to an end on June 9. This monumental shift in the global economic landscape has sparked fervent discussions and mixed reactions among Americans. Many discussions center around the potential economic consequences and geopolitical ramifications of this event, leading to heated debates and a wide range of opinions.

What Americans Are Saying

Potential Inflation Trigger

Many Americans express concern over the potential inflationary impact of ending the petrodollar agreement. Voters often highlight the potential for increased prices across various sectors as a direct response to the change.

People fear that, without the stabilizing effect of the petrodollar, the cost of imported goods and energy might rise sharply. This could exacerbate current inflationary pressures. These concerns are coupled with nostalgic references to prior periods of lower inflation and lower costs of living. These conversations suggest a feeling of economic apprehension and uncertainty about the future.

Weakened Purchasing Power

Another trend in online discussions is the broader economic implications for the United States. Some express worries that the end of the petrodollar agreement could weaken the U.S. dollar's position as the world's reserve currency.

This group argues a weakened dollar could undermine U.S. economic dominance globally and lead to fiscal challenges. This would impact everything from national debt servicing to everyday consumer prices. People are calling for economic reforms and policy adjustments to mitigate potential negative fallout.

Geopolitical Effect

There are also concerns about geopolitical complications. Many voters emphasize the strategic consequences of the petrodollar agreement ending, suggesting it might embolden rival nations like China and Russia.

Some fear these countries could leverage the situation to push alternative currencies for international trade, thereby diluting U.S. influence in global markets. These geopolitical discussions are imbued with a sense of urgency and a call for decisive action to safeguard national interests.

Sentiment Trends

Overall, reactions appear split. A segment of the discourse is permeated with fatalism and pessimism, anticipating severe economic disruption and loss of national power. This is reflected in expressions of distrust in current leadership and policy directions, highlighting perceived failures in maintaining economic stability and geopolitical prowess.

Conversely, there's also a sentiment of cautious optimism among some. This group views the end of the petrodollar as a potential catalyst for necessary economic reforms and diversification away from fossil fuel dependencies.

They argue this could usher in a new era of innovation and adaptability, where alternative energy sources and smarter economic policies might thrive. This perspective is often accompanied by calls for increased investment in technology and renewable resources as a pathway to sustaining economic growth and environmental sustainability.