Anticipation for the first presidential debate moderated by CNN reporters Jake Tapper and Dana Bash is generating controversy. Many, especially conservatives, express skepticism about whether the debate moderation will be rigged in favor of Democrat narratives. People point to the historical biases they see in both moderators and on CNN’s network.

The most pervasive concern is CNN's recurring bias against Donald Trump. Many voters say they do not trust Jake Tapper and Dana Bash to allow a fair debate. People are especially citing Tappers past comments about Trump his role in promoting Russiagate and other controversies.

Nobody Trusts Jake Tapper

Criticism against Jake Tapper is especially pronounced. There's a common theme that he is profoundly anti-Trump, with an inability to remain fair. Many discuss his ad nauseum coverage of the narrative that Trump is essentially Adolf Hitler.

Oh look, debate moderator Jake Tapper repeatedly comparing Trump to HitIer.

I'm sure this debate will be 100% fair.

pic.twitter.com/isshrBs72G

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 24, 2024

Many also point out Tapper's role in covering and legitimizing the leftist media’s Russiagate narrative, which has now been thoroughly disproven. They also cite his inability to hold a neutral stance when reporting on Trump’s comments or actions.

Here is Jake Tapper angrily demanding CNN cut off live coverage of Trump being greeted by Cubans in a Miami restaurant pic.twitter.com/zYFkGHQ2Ct

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) June 24, 2024

Viral Clip of CNN Cutting Karoline Leavitt’s Mic

There is also significant outrage over a viral CNN clip in which Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt’s mic was cut when she criticized Jake Tapper. Many vies this incident as evidence of CNN's unwillingness to allow dissenting opinions, fueling calls for Trump to boycott the network's debate altogether.

The abrupt end to Leavitt's interview has compounded fears that any criticism of the moderators or the network will not be tolerated during the debate.

Like and retweet if you think Jake Tapper will be a partisan hack during the debate.
pic.twitter.com/ZYersdOb1Y

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) June 24, 2024

Trump supporters express outrage at CNN’s clear bias against Trump and his allies. They argue Leavitt was well within fair bounds to point out historical biases from Jake Tapper. Voters view the incident as an attempt to suppress legitimate criticism of CNN’s impartiality.

Fears About Mainstream Media Bias

Another major point of contention is CNN's decision to restrict independent media from streaming or providing real-time commentary on the debate. Voters view this as a deliberate attempt to protect the so-called “elite media” and prevent alternative perspectives from reaching the public.

Right leaning voters call out CNN as a "propaganda network" rather than a legitimate news organization. This sentiment is not new but has intensified with the approach of the debate. These CNN critiques often include ire toward the broader media landscape.

Americans express suspicion around media covering up election rigging, censoring opposition, and manipulating voters with politicized narratives. These arguments express a broader disenchantment with mainstream media’s role in elections and American politics generally.

With a strong belief in mainstream media bias against conservatives, Trump supporters fear possibilities like:

• Moderators pushing unfair and slanted questions.
• Accusations about Trump’s felony convictions—to which he cannot respond by gag order.
• CNN producers muting Trump’s mic when he’s speaking.
• Conditions set up to hide Joe Biden’s declining cognitive state.

There is also a repeated belief the debate will be more of a three-against-one scenario, with Joe Biden, Jake Tapper, and Dana Bash combining forces against Donald Trump. Critics say Tapper and Bash will prop up Biden by framing the narrative in his favor, effectively silencing Republican voters.

Predictions About Candidate Performance

How voters perceive the potential performances of each candidate varies with political views. Trump supporters hope he will dominate the debate, leveraging his strong debate skills, clear communication, and ability to generate viral television moments. They often contrast him favorably against Biden’s lackluster public performances and his administration’s poor legacy. Conservatives are generally confident that Trump, even with inevitable media bias, will gain the upper hand.

Democratic voters believe Trump’s performance will contrast poorly with Biden's. They expect Trump to resort to combative and inflammatory rhetoric rather than substantive discussion. They express hope the debate will highlight what they see as Trump’s erratic and dishonest tendencies. This group also urges the moderators to challenge Trump rigorously on issues like the economy and social justice.

Related Debate Conversations

There is also some talk about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. being excluded from the debate stage. Many believe this undermines democratic processes and fuels accusations of bias from conservatives, Independents, and even some moderate Democrats.

This is a particularly sore spot since Kennedy qualified according to CNN's own criteria but is still being left out. Some also voice objections over the fact that neither Trump nor Biden have been officially nominated for their Parties. People view this as a greater injustice, saying a one-on-one debate is highly irregular before the Party conventions.

Adding to the controversy is a demand for Joe Biden to take a drug test before the debate. This unusual request stems from public opinion and media denial that Joe Biden is not cognitively or physically fit to be president. Many believe Biden's handlers provide him a cocktail of drugs before public appearances in hopes that his deterioration can be hidden.

Two controversial reversals in Snopes fact-checks are causing online discussion and controversy. Debates over Donald Trump's infamous "very fine people" comment and Ashley Biden's diary are fervent.

Snopes, a left-leaning fact checking website, reversed its previous fact-check that Donald Trump called neo-Nazis “very fine people” after the Charlottesville protests of 2017. In April, Snopes also reversed a fact check about whether the contents of Ashley Biden’s diary were confirmed, changing its rating from "Unproven" to "True."

These reversals are stirring public sentiment and cast a spotlight on broader issues of media trust and political bias – both of which look to have influence on voting trends in the 2024 election.

Very Fine People Hoax

The media’s continual characterization of Trump’s "very fine people" comment has long been contentious. President Joe Biden, in 2019, launched his campaign citing this now-debunked claim that Trump called neo-Nazis fine people.

Many Americans feel Snopes’s revisions validate their previously held beliefs either about mainstream media's unfair portrayal of Trump or its broader role in pushing political narratives.

Among Trump's supporters, there is a palpable sense of vindication. They argue Snopes admitting Trump’s comments were mischaracterized demonstrates how media and fact-checker spin has fueled a biased narrative against the former president and other conservatives.

This skepticism toward media is fueling a deeper mistrust of news and fact checking outlets. It also seems to encourage voters’ growing resolve to support Trump more fervently in the upcoming election. Trump's base, which includes a substantial portion of rural and working-class voters, is therefore likely to remain steadfast or grow.

Critics of Trump view the Snopes revision as problematic. They contend that, while the retraction might be technically accurate, it could be weaponized to downplay the serious implications of Trump's rhetoric.

Anti-Trump voters fear such reversals may perpetuate a dangerous narrative and embolden extremist views. This skepticism towards media corrections could boost voter turnout among those who oppose Trump, particularly in urban and suburban areas where such views are more prevalent.

Ashley Biden’s Diary

Regarding Ashley Biden's diary, the Snopes reversal regarding it authenticity and content have further deepened partisan divides. Right-leaning Americans suggest the original fact-check of the diary was another among many attempts to shield the Biden family from scrutiny.

Biden critics argue this reversal exposes a concerted effort within the media to protect Biden. The reversal also reinforces their belief in a biased media that unfairly attacks conservative figures while ignoring liberal misdeeds. This perception bolsters support for Trump and could attract more undecided or moderate voters who are increasingly skeptical of media integrity.

Conversely, left-leaning voters and Biden supporters are disheartened by Snopes's reversals. They interpret these actions as caving to pressure and contributing to the spread of misinformation. Many believe such admissions could have a demoralizing effect, potentially dissuading some voters from participating in the election due to a feeling of disillusionment with the political process and media landscape.

However, there's also a counter-effect among those who perceive these reversals as hair-splitting. These exhausted voters may be energized to fight against what they see as manipulation and misinformation.

In a White House press conference, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre recently claimed clips of Joe Biden looking confused are "cheap fakes." These comments, particularly dismissing footage of former president Barack Obama leading Biden off stage by his wrist, are causing uproar among those who view the president as clearly in cognitive decline.

White House Gaslighting

Most average voters who witness Biden’s ongoing deterioration at public appearances perceive the White House comments as blatant gaslighting. This group says the White House is attempting to dismiss any negative portrayal of Biden as fabricated, attempting to undermine any legitimate criticism.

Many say labeling inconvenient clips as "cheap fakes" is a tactic to delegitimize opposing voices and maintain a favorable image of the administration, even at the expense of reality. These voters are concerned that Democrats are actively eroding trust in American, reinforcing a belief that government is manipulating information to maintain control.

Others see the White House’s dismissal of any negative story related to Biden as consistent with past efforts to suppress information. For them, Hunter Biden’s laptop denial by Democrats and the media symbolizes a broader pattern of lying to and insulting the public.

Some also say the White House Press Secretary made up the term “cheap fakes,” as a desperate attempt to confuse people. They say Jean-Pierre wanted to imply the videos are deep fakes but knew she could not say it outright since they’re not deep fakes.

Memes and Resurfacing Biden Clips

Online reactions to Press Secretary Jean-Pierre claiming footage of Joe Biden walking around confused and fumbling his words are “cheap fakes” often include memes, insults, and outright disbelief.

Drefanzor Memes for the win. Karine and her cheap fakes.pic.twitter.com/Ud3ScoXyxX

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) June 19, 2024

Many right leaning voters took the opportunity to post clips of Joe Biden currently and from years past, reminding everyone the White House has broadly labeled them all “cheap fakes.”

CHEAP FAKE ALERT:

A new video is out that seemingly shows President Biden struggling to go inside a Suburban.

An anonymous source says that what ACTUALLY happened was Biden was demonstrating how difficult life is for handicapped people of color. pic.twitter.com/3yotZYPKj1

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 19, 2024

Wow look at these “deep fakes” and “cheap fakes” and “manipulated” videos of Biden’s gaffes and mumblings! Why would Republicans do this?!

It would be really bad if everyone tagged @PressSec asking her about this!! pic.twitter.com/qCJ1jqo3j3

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 19, 2024

Frustrated Americans who are fed up with feeling the White House and mainstream media constantly lie to voters also ripped outlets like CNN, CBS, and MSNBC for unquestioningly regurgitating Biden administration talking points.

BREAKING: @CBSNews falsely claims that raw footage of Joe Biden at the G7 was "DIGITALLY ALTERED."

Here is a video comparing the "cheap fake" with the raw footage. Please note that they are EXACTLY THE SAME! pic.twitter.com/41AwLVC32Z

— Andrew @ Don’t Walk, RUN! (@DontWalkRUN) June 19, 2024

CNN spent almost all day warning people about cheap fake videos yesterday.
They needed to interview their own staff. pic.twitter.com/GyTamOniNW

— Big Fish (@BigFish3000) June 19, 2024

Mainstream news figures like Brian Stelter and Nicole Wallace both received flack online for their breathless support of the White House narrative about Joe Biden. Many in the media focus on the alleged cheap fakes, while leaving questions of Biden’s health completely unasked.

‘CHEAP FAKES!’ The Biden campaign is so screwed that today, they rolled out a new strategy to tell Americans they can't believe their own eyes when seeing video evidence of Biden's mental decline.

They're panicking. pic.twitter.com/ShG2M8ikm5

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 18, 2024

CNN must be desperate for talking heads since they brought on Potato Head to defend Biden from “cheap fakes.”

Apparently, Biden’s campaign is worried that people will see, with their own eyes, Joe's mental and physical decline. pic.twitter.com/iSqAVA5KsS

— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) June 20, 2024

Democrats Spout White House Talking Points

Progressive Democrats say they believe Jean-Pierre’s explanation and insist it's a necessary effort to address misinformation in the digital age. They argue with the proliferation of sophisticated editing tools, it is crucial for the administration to call out manipulated content. For these partisan voters, promoting the party line is a matter of safeguarding democracy, even if they don’t personally believe it.

Though many Democrats are unwilling to speak out publicly about Joe Biden’s mental and physical health, MIG Reports data suggests many are questioning it. Plummeting approval numbers for Biden and increased conversations about Biden’s ability to lead the country suggest even Democrats don’t believe White House rhetoric. However, many Democrats also seem willing to prioritize beating Trump over shielding the country from an incapacitated Joe Biden’s second term.

Hillary Clinton's unexpected appearance at the Tony Awards has gotten fawning praise from liberals and disgust from conservatives. In her short speech, she mentioned her failed presidential campaign, celebrated women’s suffrage, and appealed to all Americans to get out and vote.

Many viewers were exhausted to see such a divisive figure like Clinton at an event traditionally dedicated to celebrating theatrical achievements. They view this disconnect as another indicator that mainstream media and entertainment are biased to the left.

Hillary Clinton gets standing ovation in surprise appearance at #TonyAwards pic.twitter.com/wtiKBLDjxK

— Deadline Hollywood (@DEADLINE) June 17, 2024

A tweet from Deadline Hollywood showing a clip of Hillary Clinton's appearance garnered significant criticism both for Hollywood and Hillary herself in the replies.

Liberal Elites Can’t Get Enough of Themselves

Supporters argue Clinton's presence is a positive endorsement of the arts and a recognition of their cultural significance. To them, her participation symbolizes how politics and entertainment can collaboratively advocate for important social issues.

Partisan celebrities and political figures say they appreciate a seamless integration of political figures into entertainment venues. They view it as an opportunity for politicians to engage with different audiences and to humanize political discourse.

Media and progressive narratives frame Clinton's appearance as an endorsement of the arts, rather than an opportunistic and desperate attempt to pump up Joe Biden’s campaign. Many in this group deny that entertainment is increasingly being politicized by Democrats, instead claiming both art and politics stand to gain from greater visibility and mutual reinforcement.

Normal Americans are Exhausted by Elite Smugness

Conversations surrounding her appearance also bring attention to the disconnect between political elites and average voters. Many people see her presence at such events as indicative of a cloying political strategy that fails to resonate with everyday concerns.

They argue political figures hobnobbing with celebrities at glamorous events, like Joe Biden’s recent fundraising event, reveals they are out of touch. People feel the struggles of ordinary Americans who face real-life issues are diminished by theatrical political pandering.

Many who used to be fans of art and culture also believe awards shows, which have become extremely politicized, should be apolitical entertainment. They believe the arts should be an escape from the relentless news cycles and partisan battles.

Normal voters say the appearance of political figures at entertainment events feels invasive, turning what should be moments of levity and creativity into platforms for political grandstanding. This sentiment is particularly strong among those who feel the entertainment industry already leans too heavily into political advocacy, often at the expense of diverse viewpoints.

Criticism Toward Hillary and the Media

Critics also argue that Clinton is one of the worst offenders when it comes to alienating voters and appearing insular and self-congratulatory. For this group, Clinton’s appearance is not only out of place but downright insulting. Most view Clinton as a washed-up politician who cannot let go of her loss to Trump in 2016.

This perception is particularly acute among voters who are weary of the symbiotic relationship between mainstream media, Hollywood, and the political elite. They view these entities as working together to marginalize dissenting voices and dismiss substantial issues facing Americans.

Further exacerbating these tensions is a broader sense of frustration at the entertainment sector becoming increasingly politicized—and almost exclusively in service to liberal ideologies. Leftist bias, conservatives say, diminishes trust in both the media and political figures. It also alienates conservatives, promoting a sense of disenfranchisement in those being sidelined by elite and media narratives.

Overall, Hillary Clinton's appearance at the Tony Awards once again spotlights the contentious relationship between politics and entertainment in America. While liberal elites praise the gesture, most Americans view it as a cringey attempt by elites to maintain their power over politics and the culture.

Video of former President Barack Obama escorting President Joe Biden off stage at a high-profile fundraiser is igniting conversations on social media about Biden's regular gaffes and confusion. The main themes revolve around concerns about Biden’s health, political strategies, and broader societal and institutional implications.

Biden freezes before Obama grabs his arm and leads him off stage. Yikes! 😳 pic.twitter.com/nCgAGitoQ6

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 16, 2024

Is Biden Unfit to Serve?

Many users are expressing alarm at President Joe Biden’s recurring moments of confusion or freezing on stage. More Americans are viewing these increasingly frequent episodes as a clear sign of his deteriorating health. The sentiment that Biden cannot be responsible for running the country is growing.

Discussions frequently reference Biden’s age and present it as a critical issue that impacts his capacity to govern. Sentiment is often inflammatory, highlighting a sense of urgency and alarm. There is also frequent mockery, memes, and brutal criticism, as Americans watch Biden's cognitive abilities erode in disbelief.

Biden’s supporters and those who dismiss the event downplay Obama leading the president off stage. These voices argue the incident was overblown by political opponents and media seeking to distort the narrative for sensationalism. They deflect, highlighting Biden’s accomplishments and capabilities, suggesting the short video clip does not reflect his overall performance and leadership.

Blue Collar Versus Tinsel Town

Another trend in the discussion is the increasing association of the Democratic Party and its key figures, including Obama and Biden, with Hollywood elites. This fundraiser, which featured high-profile celebrities like George Clooney and Julia Roberts, has resulted in criticism about the Democratic Party being out of touch with ordinary Americans. Social media posts imply a growing discontent with what some perceive as liberal elites' ignorance of the challenges everyday citizens face.

There is also a resurgence of the long-standing political rhetoric portraying leftist ideologies as communistic or socialistic. Some take the opportunity to paint Democratic leadership and their policies as fundamentally un-American or destructive.

These conversations often assert Democrats are utilizing manipulative strategies, like including amnesty for illegal immigrants and mass propaganda through mainstream media, to secure electoral victories. Many even believe Biden has escaped serious problems like potential prosecution because of special treatment.

Trump Supporters Pounce

Furthermore, there is significant backlash when people compare Biden to former President Donald Trump. Trump's supporters are leveraging this incident to emphasize their belief in Trump’s competency and leadership strengths. They say, despite his own controversies, Trump represents a more robust and capable alternative to Biden.

There are also comparisons between the fundraising efficacy of both political figures. Many point out that, despite glitzy Biden fundraisers and Trump's legal woes, Trump’s campaign is generating substantial grassroots financial support from many small donation donors. This draws a stark contrast with the Hollywood-centered donations for Biden.

Lastly, a segment of voters are focusing on the broader societal consequences of current political actions. They argue Biden’s administration, perceived as aligned with extreme liberal policies, is making the United States vulnerable to internal and external threats.

Concerns about border security, perceived leniency towards illegal immigrants, and an alleged erosion of American values are frequently mentioned. This fuels a broader narrative of an existential crisis facing the nation, with Biden depicted as a figurehead in a larger ideological battle.

Recently, a group of 57 scientists from around the world who used United Nations-approved methods concluded a study which determined global warming is increasing. However, the study was only able to point to an increased use of fossil fuels across the globe. The collection of authors was formed to provide annual scientific updates every seven to eight years for major U.N. scientific assessments.

MIG Reports performed a comparative analysis of public discussion and sentiment about climate change and reactions to the U.N. study.

Discussion Trends

Analysis compares views of climate change in general and reactions to the recent U.N. study. When discussing climate change overall, analysis shows:

• Sentiment: Americans are polarized, with a consensus of urgency around climate change curbed by significant skepticism.
• Consensus on Urgency: Those who view climate change as urgent warn of extreme temperatures and rising CO2 levels. They call for renewable energy investment, fossil fuel reduction, and recognition of environmental and economic benefits. There is also an emphasis on the impact of climate change on health and agriculture.
• Expert Input: Contributions from scientists, medical professionals, and environmental experts call for immediate action and policy measures (e.g., executive orders, clean energy endorsements).
• Skepticism: There are also recurring doubts about the ability of modern science to predict weather, framing climate change as a natural occurrence. This group cites historical climate cycles and claims there is manipulation and exaggeration in studies motivated by control and financial gain. These conversations reveal severe skepticism about accelerating global warming and highlight contradictory data.
• Engagement Level: Americans are very engaged with discussions about climate change related to personal lifestyle, economic implications, and political ideologies.
• Conclusion: Data suggests there is a deep divide among Americans on the topic of climate change. There is strong advocacy on one side and skepticism on the other, as some see climate change as a geopolitical or financial tool.

Analysis of discourse reacting to the recent U.N. study indicates shows:

• Sentiment: American attitudes toward the study are mixed, similarly to overall views of climate change.
• Awareness and Concern: Many express concerns about global warming, referencing environmental changes (e.g., floral blooms in Antarctica and deforestation) and public health impacts. Many strongly advocate for climate action, clean energy, and celebrating World Environment Day.
• Skepticism: However, skeptics attribute changes in the study to natural cycles, critical theory, or population control. There is some doubt around human-made CO2 as a major factor in global warming. This group accuses scientists of using climate change to gain status or money, claiming much of their conclusions are fearmongering.
• Engagement Level: There’s significant engagement about the U.N. study, which includes confrontations and personal attacks.
• Branching Topics: Conversations about the study also tend to include discussions about personal lifestyle choices, economic implications, and political ideologies related to climate change in general.
• Conclusion: Data suggests Americans are polarized, despite the scientific study, emphasizing the need for clear and reliable information.

Disparity Between Perspectives and Sentiments

Conversations about climate change broadly and the U.N. study also show some disparity:

Level of Consensus

Overall, there are mixed opinions about climate change. There are both significant concerns and strong skepticism, highlighting a polarized public view.

Public consensus on the recent study shows a sense of urgency toward climate change, but there is also substantial skepticism about its causes and severity.

Focus on Advocacy vs. Skepticism

The subject of climate change sees a balanced focus on advocacy for climate action and skepticism about the science and motives behind climate change claims.

Regarding the study, there is a stronger emphasis on urgency and a need for immediate action. There is some skepticism and mistrust of the scientific community and perceived motives.

Nature of Skepticism

Skepticism towards climate change in general includes doubts about human impact, claims of natural cycles, and accusations of fearmongering for control or monetary gain.

Skepticism toward the U.N. study focuses on scientists' predictive abilities, historical climate cycles, and manipulation for control or monetary gain, with added doubt about accelerating global warming.

Engagement and Confrontation

Both topics show high engagement levels, with significant confrontations and personal attacks, reflecting the deeply polarized nature of the discourse.

Branching Discussions

Both topics extend discussions beyond climate issues to personal lifestyle choices, economic implications, and political ideologies.

In summary, both general and more specific discussions about climate change reflect a highly engaged and polarized discourse online. There is a clear divide between advocacy for urgent action and skepticism about the causes, severity, and motivations behind climate change narratives. The need for reliable, understandable information is evident in both discussions.

Recently, Infowars owner Alex Jones took steps to liquidate his assets to pay legal damages. These costs were money he owes victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre. The original court-ordered payment totaled approximately $1.5 billion.

Online reactions to possibility of Alex Jones being forced to sell Infowars are contentions, dividing people along political lines. The debate largely revolves around certain keywords and phrases like the "deep state,” "globalism,” “freedom of speech,” “the Biden administration,” and “MAGA.”

Deep State

Sentiment toward the deep state is predominantly negative and critical of:

• Government bureaucracy
• Mainstream media
• The Biden administration

Discussion trends include:

• A perception that deep state entities mislead the public.
• The deep state is often blamed for negative events. People believe the deep state is a clandestine network within the government manipulating national affairs.
• Media and politicians burying the Hunter Biden laptop story during the 2020 election is frequently cited as evidence of deep state action.
• People express worry over perceived threats to free speech by the deep state. This is frequently mentioned in refences to Alex Jones and Infowars.
• Infowars viewers suggest Jones being forced to sell his platform could be a coordinated attack by the deep state.
• There is strong support for the MAGA movement, indicating a large conservative presence within these discussions.

A main theme in discussions is an “us versus them” attitude, suggesting strong distrust and suspicion towards government institutions and mainstream media. 

Discussion and Sentiment Analysis

As people discuss the situation with Alex Jones and the potential loss of Infowars, there are several discussion and sentiment trends:

• There is a pervasive sense of dissatisfaction and anger among Jones supporters.
• Many people frequently use terms like "uniparty," highlighting a distrust in both political parties which people view as colluding against conservative interests.
• There is specific dissatisfaction with Republican representatives for failing to uphold conservative values.
• People are calling for action from figures like Rep. Marjorie Tayler-Greene and Speaker Mike Johnson, albeit with skepticism about their effectiveness.
• Many conversations mention people like Steve Bannon, indicating a link between personal grievances and larger political events.
• There is a desire for grassroots mobilization and resistance, with MAGA supporters viewed as a counterforce to perceived political wrongdoings.

Despite an overall negative sentiment, are also optimistic calls for concrete action to address perceived injustices against Jones, Bannon, Trump, and other conservative figures. Among the dissatisfaction and disillusionment, there's a hint of rallying and a call for tangible action.

A video went viral which claimed President Joe Biden may have soiled himself during the 80th Anniversary of D-Day in France. Other videos showed First Lady Jill Biden swiftly leading the president away while French President Macron thanked veterans.

MIG Reports analysis of social media commentary shows different interpretations of what Joe Biden was doing in the video, like many of his well-publicized gaffes. Most of the online speculation is based on unverified rumors and has not been officially confirmed or denied by any credible sources.

Because online discussion is so fractured, it's difficult to discern a majority consensus on whether people actually believe Biden experienced such an embarrassing mishap as incontinence. The political nature of conversations about president and his questionable cognition, as well as the overall mockery and humorous tones of social media make people’s true beliefs somewhat opaque.

Most Americans seem to believe the claim that Biden soiled his pants and take it as an opportunity to fuel political debate and criticisms. Many openly ridicule Biden with profane language and derisive commentary. Some Biden defenders dismiss the claim, but only citing their reasons as emphasizing more serious issues like the necessity to impeach Biden.

Despite rampant online memeing and speculations, no official denials have been made by White House officials.

Discussion and Sentiment Trends

There is an undeniable presence of derisive rhetoric from Biden's detractors. They use phrases like "poopy pants" and "filled his adult diaper" when talking about the video. Some insinuate Biden's inability to control bodily functions is evidence of weakness or mental decline.

On the other hand, some dismiss the accusations as baseless and criticize those who spread such rumors. They emphasize a lack of concrete evidence for the claim, pushing back against unfounded speculations. They emphasize other issues they believe should take precedence over personal ridicule, like impeachment inquiries and political wrongdoings.

Alternative Analysis

Some media outlets reported the incident as simply a momentary lapse in judgement. They say the president thought there was a chair behind him. Additional reporting from liberal blogs and op-eds crafted stories to shift away from the viral mockery, such as “Joe Biden Didn’t Poop Himself But These Celebs Did.” Other outlets had body language experts weigh in.

Overall distrust in liberal and mainstream media suggests Americans who believe Biden’s senior moment was more embarrassing than searching for a missing chair would not be swayed by media spin.

Recent House subcommittee hearings with Dr. Anthony Fauci have brought conversations about COVID-19 and vaccines to the fore. As more information comes out and members of Congress question Fauci about his role in alleged information suppression during COVID, Americans’ trauma and anger seems to be boiling up.

Fauci's credibility is in question with heated and partisan disagreements about whether American voters believe what he says. Some accuse him of providing conflicting or misleading information with guidance on masks and COVID origins. There are frequent complaints that he continued to back policies such as social distancing and masking children in the absence of substantial scientific proof for effectiveness.

In general, people express frustration and confusion at the perceived inconsistency. There is also significant suspicion that Fauci and others involved in both pandemic response and pharmaceuticals related to COVID vaccines intentionally hid, obfuscated, and suppressed important information.

What Americans Are Saying

Online conversations show strong disapproval toward inadequate and questionable management decisions during COVID by health officials and politicians. Many condemn mask mandates and vaccine shaming which they say was perpetuated by Fauci and the media. This group vocally blames Fauci for death, illnesses, and social and economic consequences associated COVID-19 restrictions and vaccines.

There is still considerable debate on the efficacy and safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Many are also expressing concern about potential side effects such as DNA alterations, increased risk of cancer, heart conditions, and sudden deaths.

Many on both sides of the political aisle have become skeptical and disillusioned with COVID narratives presented by Fauci, the media, and politicians. Those who remain strongly in support of Fauci tend to be left leaning. They view him as a competent authority figure, accusing his detractors of being political. They maintain Fauci's policies saved countless lives during a dangerous pandemic and provided necessary restrictions.

Conversations about COVID often also include criticism of government actions in 2020 and the divisive role of media and political narratives in shaping public opinion.

Anger Over COVID Origins

One recurring topic is the origin of the virus. Many suggest COVID-19 virus was a product of gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They blame Fauci for allegedly funding the research, suggesting he conspired to insulate himself from any repercussions.

Many people are also angry at the lack of consequences for the actions of officials who, voters believe, lied and covered up their own unethical behavior.

There is also some discussion about former president Donald Trump’s role in handling COVID. Many voters, including some of his supporters, criticize how President Trump handled the crisis and his rhetoric since. Most voters seem to have a negative view of any topic related to COVID.

Vaccine Skepticism

A significant portion of Americans are increasingly suspicious of the COVID-19 vaccines. They attribute a variety of adverse events, including sudden death and severe physical ailments, to the vaccines.

There’s talk about conditions people call "turbo cancer" and claims the vaccines alter human DNA in a way that can be passed on to future generations. This group is also highly critical of Dr. Fauci, questioning his integrity and blaming him for the negative effects they believe are related to the vaccines.

Those who believe vaccines are harmful are also likely to believe officials like Fauci participated in cynical cover-ups to suppress information and disparage dissenters. Recent testimony by Fauci only serves to further infuriate this group, entrenching their views that Fauci, big pharma, and the NIH conspired to protect themselves at the expense of public health.

Mainstream Media and Chris Cuomo

Many discussions also involve a deep-rooted distrust in mainstream media and institutions who remain "deathly silent" on the impact of COVID and emerging accusations. Some Americans accuse healthcare providers and media of altering death reports, misrepresenting vaccine safety, and silencing counter narratives

Infuriated voters call out media outlets and figures for ignoring critical pieces of information and remaining silent about perceived dangers of the vaccines. They also blame mainstream media for gaslighting and shaming Americans about COVID restrictions and vaccines.

A recent debate between Chris Cuomo and Dave Smith also generated viral discussion about Ivermectin, a drug notoriously debated during COVID-19. Cuomo’s claim that he did not agree with the criticism Joe Rogan received for advocating Ivermectin was very negatively received. The debate brought Cuomo’s credibility and consistency into question for many viewers.

Many people are labeling Cuomo a “liar,” suggesting the evidence contradicts Cuomo's denials about his role in shaping public opinion. This group believes Cuomo and others in the media intentionally demonized people who questioned the mainstream narrative. They insist these figures continue to ignore objective analysis as it unfolds.