Over the weekend, a viral story spread on social media pointing out “Trump assassination” and other variants were being removed from web searches on Google. The public's reaction shows a sharp disdain towards tech companies for this presumed act of censorship. Top keywords include:

• Trump assassination attempt
• Censorship
• Leftist media
• Google
• Secret Service
• Deep state
• Investigation

Sentiment about this revelation is predominantly negative, with most people expressing outrage and suspicion.

Hi Google @Google! Why are you censoring the ass*ss*nat*on attempt of DJT??

They’re trying to memory hole it. pic.twitter.com/NtvD9pNovn

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 28, 2024

Big Tech Censorship is Alive and Well

Analysis shows public sentiment and recurring themes focus on free speech and censorship.

• Freed Speech: Voters debate the integrity of free speech, expressing concerns that removing organic search suggestions is an attempt at election interference.
• Censorship: There are strong accusations of censorship, connecting broader concerns about the control and manipulation of information by Big Tech.
• Political Bias: Accusations against Google and Facebook for political manipulation and protecting Harris while censoring Trump are rampant.
• American Values: Many say liberty, freedom, and democracy are at stake, reflecting worry that these foundational values are being undermined.

Many voters, especially on the right, accuse both Google and Facebook of acting as the communications arm of the Democratic Party. Even after admissions of “accidental” censorship, many Americans still take umbrage. Facebook’s claim that blocking a photo of Trump during the assassination attempt was accidental, draws claims the algorithmic “accidents” always benefit Democrats.

Freedom Versus Safety

Voter sentiment around Google suppressing searches about Trump and assassination can be divided into a few clear trends.

• Defenders of Free Speech: Many voters say, to preserve free speech, even controversial topics should not be hidden from search results. They believe removing or hiding search results related to political figures is a direct attack on American voters.
• Concerns about Misinformation: People on the left are concerned about the potential spread of harmful misinformation. They argue removing search “harmful” suggestions is necessary to prevent increased violence and to ensure responsible dissemination of information.
• Accusations of Political Bias: There are strong accusations that Google and Facebook display bias towards Democrats. Conservatives feel targeted and express resentment towards Big Tech companies they believe are suppressing their viewpoints.
• Calls for Regulation: In response to perceived biases and censorship, some advocate for greater regulation of tech giants to ensure a balanced and fair platform for all users.

Voter Impact

Undecided and Independent voters are likely influenced by these discussions. Their perception of political neutrality or bias in search engines can significantly sway their views on broader political issues.

• Trust in Media and Tech: Those who are already skeptical of media and Big Tech might find their beliefs reaffirmed, pushing them towards candidates who promise to regulate these industries.
• Political Disillusionment: Some Independents, witnessing these debates, may experience a heightened sense of political disillusionment, feeling neither side offers a solution to the pervasive issue of biased information control.
• Swing Votes Based on Free Speech: Candidates like Trump who strongly advocate for free speech and oppose censorship might attract voters who prioritize these values as central to their decision-making process.

Debates about American values, such as free speech, reveal deep ideological divides in the electorate. The public reveres core principles of liberty, freedom, and democracy, often contrasting them with perceptions of oppression and censorship. Many argue for the inalienable right to express opinions without fear of censorship, celebrating historical champions of these values.

People defend democracy through the lens of a free press, which they deem as essential for a healthy society. These discussions increase scrutiny of political figures and tech companies which may be influencing elections. Voters call for reforms to better align with American values, emphasizing freedom, liberty, and democratic participation amidst contemporary challenges.

An apparent surge in support, positivity, and engagement for the Kamala Harris presidential campaign is confusing many Americans. Despite media claims that the highly relatable, meme-friendly, and accomplished Vice President is gaining historic levels of support, many voters remain skeptical.

In addition to feeling much of the hype seems insincere, Americans are talking about suspicious media and Democrat efforts to modify public understanding of Harris’s political track record. The discourse reveals a potent blend of ideology, identity politics, and performance in public office fueling public opinion.

Critics debate Kamala Harris’s qualifications and achievements, often within the context of identity politics, questioning whether her gender and race unjustly shield her from criticism or amplify her credentials. Many also skewer the mainstream media for its increasingly obvious hypocrisy in reporting the VP’s accomplishments and embarrassments.

Protective Cover from the Media

Many Americans view Harris's policies and political endeavors as extremely liberal. This perception would likely damage her chances given the majority of Americans do not align with the far, progressive left.

There's also a perception that media outlets are systematically erasing or altering aspects of her record to present a moderated version of her stances. Examples of this include:

• Her position as “Border Czar”
• Her complicity in covering up Biden’s health and reasons for withdrawing
• Her renown as the “most liberal” Senator
• Her support for the Minnesota Freedom Fund
• Whether she was chosen for her accomplishments rather than her identity

Border Czar

The accusations against media outlets began when headlines claimed Kamala Harris was never named “Border Czar” for the Biden administration. Many people pointed out that, until now, everyone agreed and accepted the colloquial title given to her as the administration’s person in charge of the border.

Americans and right leaning journalists criticized the media for walking this back and even retroactively changing pervious reporting. Axios received significant backlash for modifying one of its own articles from 2021, which mention Harris as Border Czar.

CALLED IT. These pathetic Democrat hacks are the most predictably dishonest people on earth. https://t.co/hzft99D9Zg pic.twitter.com/iox1dlRgGR

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 24, 2024

Some also criticized Wikipedia for apparently removing Kamala Harris from the list of historical Border Czars for the U.S.

Update: Wikipedia completely scrubbed Kamala from its executive branch czar page. The Axios article is no longer even listed in the citations. https://t.co/TBF6oHNrHx pic.twitter.com/oCn5Rp0I0h

— James Lynch (@jameslynch32) July 25, 2024

Criticism toward Democrats and the media grew overwhelming when a cue card was leaked which claimed to give the press talking point from the Harris campaign to deny and dismiss Border Czar claims.

Wow.

A Democrat lawmaker confirmed to FOX that Dems have received a piece of paper with talking points/lies about how to discuss Kamala Harris' role at the Southern border.

They are already using the exact lines.https://t.co/CITguKLWCD pic.twitter.com/Bo8pxla61M

— Bobby Burack (@burackbobby_) July 25, 2024

When asked about the cue card, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed to have no knowledge of it. This also generated criticism and backlash from voters who view the current administration as colluding with the media to promote Kamala Harris’s campaign.

JUST IN: Peter Doocy confronts KJP on the now-infamous "talking points" card that tells reporters to deny Kamala Harris was ever appointed "Border Czar."

Let the games begin. 🤣pic.twitter.com/QvfOWZy4a1

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) July 25, 2024

Most Liberal Senator

GovTrack's also received sharp backlash for deleting its 2019 rating of Harris as the "most liberal senator." This deletion is seen as an attempt by the media to cover up or obscure her true political leanings to make her more palatable to moderate voters.

BREAKING: GovTrack just DELETED their 2019 page that ranked Kamala Harris as THE MOST LIBERAL of all 100 Senators

It would be a shame if we made it viral: pic.twitter.com/Pi6KvngOTh

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 24, 2024

Harris critics often label her policies as “communist” and express concerns about her support for open borders, defunding the police, and providing benefits to illegal immigrants. This, people say, is the reason the establishment apparatus is being used to hide her legacy.

Commentary about Kamala’s support for programs such as the Green New Deal, socialized healthcare, and defunding law enforcement positions her even further left than other prominent Democrats, including Bernie Sanders. Most Americans think of these views as dangerously socialist or Marxist and in the minority.

BREAKING: Footage found of VP Kamala Harris supporting DEFUND THE POLICE:

"It's about upending the system"
"We need to look at police budgets"
"More safety with more cops is wrong" pic.twitter.com/0HxUQeov9x

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 26, 2024

Minnesota Freedom Fund

There is also controversy around claims asserting or denying Kamala Harris donated or promoted the Minnesota Freedom Fund—which helps bail out protesters. News outlets published headlines denying Harris donated to the fund, also implying she never supported it. This drew an avalanche videos, articles, and posts being shared to debunk the claim.

Reports from the same outlets and reporters in the past said, “Kamala Harris urged people to donate to the fund while it was bailing out protestors. Since then, it’s been posting bail for other offenders, including one who Republicans say committed a murder in downtown St. Paul.”

This might be the most blatant lie I’ve ever seen.

Esme, the author of this article, was literally at our press conference in 2022 on the light rail platform where a man was murdered by a criminal the Minnesota Freedom Fund had bailed out a short time before.

She then aired… https://t.co/hGinFk7DK0 pic.twitter.com/WSHurmPGBy

— Nick Majerus (@njmajerus) July 26, 2024

The reasons for significant negative sentiment toward Harris and the media appear to stem largely from a broader distrust in institutions. There is a growing perception that there are concerted efforts to hide truths about Kamala’s record to help the Democratic Party. This distrust is further exacerbated by a polarized political climate where ideological purity and alignment are heavily scrutinized and often radicalized.

Discourse about Kamala Harris and her stance on illegal immigration provides a history for Americans to navigate when forming opinions about her campaign platform. Many often reference Harris's tenure as San Francisco District Attorney, where she implemented the "Back on Track" program to help non-violent offenders, including illegal immigrants, avoid severe legal consequences.

This history, as well as her track record as “Border Czar” has been revisited extensively. Critics highlight Harris's efforts to clear the records of undocumented immigrants with drug offenses to protect them from deportation. This aspect of her history has ignited strong reactions from different voter bases.

A Breakdown in Kamala’s Prosecutor Image

More voters online are asserting that Kamala Harris let illegal immigrant drug offenders clear their records to protect them from deportation. This issue evokes strong negative sentiment, revealing a leniency on crime that betrays her tough prosecutor image. It is especially damaging when it involves illegal immigrants who have committed offenses. Negativity worsens with frequent assertions that Harris wants illegal immigrants who committed crimes to stay in the United States.

Harris promoted the "Back on Track" program, despite the case of Alexander Izaguirre, an illegal Honduran migrant in the program. Izaguirre allegedly assaulted a young woman, causing a skull fracture and long-term trauma. Harris later described the incident as, "A huge kind of pimple on the face of this program."

Another prominent topic is the border security bill negotiation that Harris supported and touted as bipartisan. This proposal aimed to invest $20 billion in border security, empower the President to close the border, and reduce asylum processing times from ten years to weeks. Public discourse emphasizes that Harris backed this comprehensive bill, despite its unpopularity for budget reasons and accusations of Democrat hypocrisy.

Experts Disavow Harris on the Border

Comments from public figures, such as the National Border Patrol Council President, Brandon Judd, also fuel discussions. Statements accusing Harris of refusing to implement existing policies and labeling her as indifferent to border security are widespread.

These statements intensely enhance negative sentiments towards Harris, portraying her as ineffective and uninterested in border protection. These augments also create positive sentiment towards Trump, who many view as proactive on border security, contrasting Harris's inaction.

Many on the right argue the Vice President’s disastrous legacy on the border could be a death blow to her campaign if Americans understand the truth. They argue this is the reason Democrats and the media are working so actively to reframe and even erase her border track record.

America Does Not Seem Fooled

The themes of border security and crime intertwine frequently, with passionate rhetoric framing Harris negatively as a "Border Czar" who failed in her duties. She is characterized as part of an "undemocratic communist regime" allowing a "terrorist invasion." This starkly illustrates the highly charged and negative language used to describe her role.

Positive sentiment toward Harris on the border is sparse, largely coming from her Party and media outlets. These entities often mention the bipartisan border security bill which Harris supported, while Republicans did not. However, the generally positive outlook on this aspect is overshadowed by broad negative sentiments.

Republicans also counter arguments that Democrats, including Harris, support border security with the proposed bill. They argue the administration already has the tools and laws it needs to control the border, but Democrats refuse. They specifically blame Biden and Harris for attempting to gain more funding with the bill, while ignoring existing border legislation.

Vice President Kamala Harris has recently made false claims about Project 2025 and Donald Trump. Her campaign and the media have spread claims that:

• Project 2025 will cut social security
• Project 2025 is Trump’s platform

Vice President Harris: Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda... Can you believe they put that thing in writing? Read it. It’s 900 pages. When you read it, you will see Donald Trump intends to cut Social Security and Medicare, give tax breaks to billionaires, end the… pic.twitter.com/msliYcmLuh

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) July 23, 2024

Harris’s comments about Donald Trump and Project 2025 during a campaign event have stirred significant public discourse. Many on the left and in the media defend Harris’s comments while those on the right are largely angry about alleged lies from Democrats.

Project 2025 is Trump’s plan for a second term.

Google it.

— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) July 10, 2024

Project 2025 as Democrat Cannon Fodder

Harris’s comments on Project 2025, which she criticizes as regressive and harmful to the middle class, dominate discussions. Public understanding of the project varies, with some viewing it as a radical conservative agenda, and others seeming unaware or dismissive of it.

The claim that Project 2025 rolls back social programs like Medicare and Social Security generates anxiety among voters. Harris’s support from groups like "March for Our Lives" also plays a crucial role in shaping her public image.

Many on the left use Project 2025 as an attack against Trump and conservatives, claiming its radical agenda will destroy the country. Meanwhile, on the right, many debunk false claims Democrats or making. Others simply meme about Project 2025, using hyperbolic examples of “what Project 2025 will do,” poking fun as Democrat fearmongering.

Project 2025 will put Zyn dispensers in all mens bathrooms pic.twitter.com/dcCHZJKRh7

— 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛 (@Aristos_Revenge) July 18, 2024

Project 2025 will put one of these bad boys back in every refrigerator in America. pic.twitter.com/0c8GRXOTUq

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 12, 2024

Trending discussions highlight Harris’s vocal opposition to Project 2025 and its framing as a threat to democratic values and social safety nets. This opposition resonates strongly with her base and some centrists, enhancing her image as a defender of social welfare.

Conversely, Trump’s disavowal of Project 2025 introduces complexity, as it partially neutralizes Harris's critique while still leaving room for debate about his broader policy agenda. However, Trump’s post on Truth Social distancing himself from Project 2025 is often glossed over by many in the media and voters discussing it online.

Project 2025 May Not Overcome Kamala Negativity

Online sentiment trends reveal a deeply divided public. Positive sentiment for Harris stems from her stance against Project 2025 and her endorsements, which boost her appeal among progressives and youth. Her claims of legislative achievement, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, are seen as evidence of her capability. However, previous MIG Reports analysis reveals these claims are mostly campaign strategy.

Negative sentiment arises from criticisms of her economic policies, causing inflation and high gas prices. There is also skepticism about her intentions within her own Party and negativity about the border.

For Trump, positive sentiment is driven by American admiration for his leadership and strategic moves, including his disavowal of Project 2025. His supporters view him as a resilient figure ready to tackle national issues. Negative sentiment towards Trump centers on fears of authoritarianism and concerns about his impact on democratic institutions, with Project 2025 seen as part of this troubling agenda.

MIG Reports data shows recent online conversations surrounding the assassination attempt on Donald Trump expose skepticism and doubt. This sentiment is largely driven by media reporting about the event, fostering a notable divide in public opinion. The overarching narrative reveals skepticism about the assassination attempt did not originate spontaneously but was significantly influenced by critical media coverage.

Top Topics

People are talking about revelations about the reluctance of the U.S. Secret Service to utilize drones for security. These allegations came to light through sources like Sen. Josh Hawley's whistleblower revelations. Discussions often center around why the Secret Service neglected to employ available drone technology, even after offers from local law enforcement.

People conclude this massive error allowed the assailant to fly his own drone over the venue, several hours prior to the rally. This aspect has given rise to various theories questioning the competence and motives of the Secret Service, leading to accusations of a deliberate stand-down.

Another prominent theme is the political alignment and social media activity of the would-be assassin, Thomas Matthew Crooks. Public discourse fixates on contrasting the portrayal of Crooks’s alleged pro-Biden stance with media suggestions that he may have been a Trump supporter—or at least a Republican. Many people say media bias is skewing coverage, highlighting or downplaying these affiliations based on the narrative they prefer.

Trending Sentiment

There are some who firmly believe in a deeply entrenched conspiracy. This is fueled by consistent Democrat and media skepticism and speculations that the event may have been an inside job or an act of negligence. Those who believe this express a sense of betrayal and frustration with government and media, often citing broader political conspiracies and failures of governmental institutions.

Other groups of voters express outright disbelief, deeming the assassination attempt as exaggerated or fabricated entirely. This skepticism is amplified by the FBI's statements questioning whether Trump was actually struck by a bullet or by shrapnel. These allegations further muddy the waters and feed theories of false flags or setups.

Many accuse the media of perpetuating theories that Trump was not hit by a bullet. This insistence on questioning something that many Americans saw with their own eyes further erodes trust, especially when people point out that Corey Comperatore lost his life.

Prominent keywords in these discussions include "drone technology," "whistleblower," "Secret Service," "leftist," "Biden support," and "media bias." The sustained mention of these terms indicates a profound preoccupation with the operational failures, perceived political motivations, and the credibility of media reporting.

Public sentiment is colored by distrust towards both the media and the government agencies involved. Many believe there's a concerted effort to obscure the truth, whether through deliberate action or systemic incompetence.

The skepticism surrounding the assassination attempt on Donald Trump owes much of its intensity to how media coverage has shaped the narrative. By framing the event with questioning tones and highlighting inconsistencies and failures in security measures, the media has inadvertently or otherwise, sown seeds of doubt and fostered a climate ripe for conspiracy theories.

MIG Reports data shows American perceptions of Vice President Kamala Harris’s economy as like Joe Biden’s, especially on inflation. Public sentiment about Harris as a potential president is negative based on her association with the Inflation Reduction Act and the broader economic conditions under the Biden administration.

Inflation Reduction Act Revisionism

Kamala Harris was the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to help pass the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. President Joe Biden, along with numerous economists, have since made it clear the Act didn’t address Inflation. More accurately, it was a government spending bill.

Several mainstream media articles even address this, including AP News. When people discuss Kamala Harris and inflation, they criticize the Inflation Reduction Act, decry record high prices and the cost of prescription drugs.

Public discourse frequently highlights Harris's efforts to build up the middle class. However, many attribute the 20.1%+ overall price hike and record high gas prices to her tenure as vice president. There is prevalent criticism that Harris has overseen the decimation of the American Dream.

Despite historical negativity and criticism for her economic record, Harris has enjoyed a sentiment boost in the last couple of days, likely due to coordinated fawning and revisionism by the media to rehabilitate her policy record.

False Support or Dismissal?

Conversations that increase Harris's sentiment often center on touted accomplishments alongside Biden like the Inflation Reduction Act. Despite evidence to the contrary, many supporters still praise them for decreasing costs for families, lowering prescription drug prices, and making historic investments in clean energy jobs and manufacturing.

Harris advocates say these measures demonstrate her efficacy in legislative processes and her capability in executive functions. They say this increases their confidence in her potential presidency. However, these discussions seem based on tribal loyalism as opposed to direct discussion of the Act.

Some on the right speculate that voter support is being astroturfed by biased media and Democratic leaders. They say establishment “machines,” which include the White House press team and mainstream media, are attempting to prop up Kamala Harris by lying about her track record.

Sentiment toward Harris decreases significantly when people consider the negative impacts of inflation directly. High prices, low savings rates, and a general sense of economic decline put many voters on edge. Criticism often revolves around the feeling that Harris, along with Biden, failed to adequately address or prevent these economic challenges, leading many to doubt her competency in managing the economy.

Critics closely associate Harris with unpopular aspects of Biden's administration, such as weak global leadership and failure to address critical domestic issues. Many voters believe Harris would be an extension of Biden’s flaws, citing her role as "Enabler in Chief" and highlighting her record during her time as District Attorney and Attorney General in California as indicative of her inadequacy in future leadership.

Fluff Over Substance

Discussion trends show the public is simply not having the same discussions across the aisle or compared to media discourse. Supporters are vague in their endorsements, leaving room frame Harris’s role in passing progressive legislation as a positive, regardless of specifics. They focus broadly on her stance on issues like reproductive rights, voting rights, and clean energy investments, seeing her as a champion for significant and needed reforms.

Detractors, however, cite specific examples of Harris’s failures and hypocrisies. They emphasize economic difficulties caused by the Biden-Harris administration, the border crisis, and her general alignment with the Biden administration’s less popular policies.

Views of Joe Biden in the wake of his withdrawal from the presidential race is complicated with a mix of relief, sympathy, and anger. Most Americans seem to believe Biden's decision to withdraw from the race is due to his declining health and perceived cognitive challenges, though opinions vary widely. Reactions to his Oval Office address, which did not clarify the issue, do not show a change in public opinion.

The Mask is Off About Biden’s Health

Online conversations about Biden mostly revolve around his health, with many people citing dementia, Parkinson’s, and COVID as concerns. These worries are aggravated by perceptions about how the Democratic establishment handled his withdrawal. Many feel Democrats are clearing Biden and other potential challengers out, manipulating the election process.

There is also a strong belief that circumstances just prior to Biden’s withdrawal, and some after, have been orchestrated to mask his condition. References to Biden's cognitive decline are rampant, with strong criticisms directed at Democratic leaders for not allowing his weaknesses to be questioned or observed much earlier.

Discontent About Kamala’s Nomination

The sudden and rapid replacement of Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party’s heroine and nominee apparent has also shocked many Americans. This reaction is not exclusive to Republicans, different factions within the Democratic Party also express grave concerns.

There is an odd sense of confusion over Democrats and media completely sidelining Biden in favor of Harris, despite his plan to finish his term in office. Voters express a mix of sympathy for Joe Biden as an aging old man and anger at his handlers and family. Others express anger at Biden himself for allowing himself to be put in such a position—however, most ire seems directed at Party leadership.

Kamala Harris is coming under scrutiny for being complicit in covering up Biden’s health. Sentiments about Harris taking over the presidential nomination carry a distinctly negative tone, accusing her of participating in a coup to oust Biden.

Unhelpful Oval Office Address

Biden's recent Oval Office address, meant to clarify his intentions and reassure the public, has only created more confusion and anger. Most observers feel the address offered no substantial answers and failed to address the root concerns about leadership, ideology, and the future direction of the Democratic Party.

The public perceives the address as offensively insufficient, leading to further frustration and a growing sense of distrust. There is a feeling of disrespect toward the American people, particularly concerning the president’s disregard for democratic processes.

Intra-party disagreement and disarray in the Democratic Party adds another layer to the public’s reaction. Even members of the voter base, notably from the Black Lives Matter movement, criticize the DNC for sidelining Biden through dubious means.

Accusations include the refusal to allow genuine appearances and interactions with Joe Biden in public, altering schedules without explanation, and ultimately forcing him out post-primary. Many voters on both sides view Democrat leaders as ushering in a new candidate without proper voter engagement.

Republicans Call it a Shadow Presidency

Most Republicans believe Biden has clear signs of cognitive decline, often sharing his public gaffes, mental lapses, and shuffling, elderly demeanor as evidence. People frequently use the term "unfit" about his capability to fulfill presidential duties. Many Republicans also argue that, if Biden is unable to campaign for a second term, he’s equally unable to serve the remainder of his term.

Voters on the right often suggest the 25th Amendment should be used against Biden, who they believe is clearly not in control of the county. These Americans express outrage that the White House and Democratic leaders are unwilling to admit Biden is not capable of executing his duties. There is also anger that leadership will not speak transparently about who is running the country.

Republicans suspect Biden is a figurehead, with decisions being made by a communist shadow government or the far-left wing of the Democratic Party. There are suggestions that Biden’s presidency is a continuation of Obama’s policies, calling it "Obama’s third term." People accuse high-profile Democratic figures like Jill Biden and former President Barack Obama of orchestrating Biden’s moves behind the scenes.

Democrats Still Praise Biden

Many Democrats still defend Joe Biden's presidency, believing he is actively fulfilling his role. They focus on his policy achievements such as making gender medical transition more accessible to minors and supporting Black Lives Matter (BLM) advocacy.

While there is recognition of Biden’s age, many Democrats view his experience as an asset, not a liability. Public conversations within the Democratic sphere often revolve around ideological alignment with Biden’s policies, underscoring a belief in progressive values.

Post-debate and following Biden’s withdrawal from the race, more Democrats are acknowledging the poor state of his health and mental capacity. However, they also say criticism of Biden's health is exaggerated and politically motivated.

However, even among Democrats, there is not unanimous support. The factions of Democratic voters who view Joe Biden as incapacitated by illness or old age also tend to be the ones who express anger at Party leadership for undemocratic practices.

Critical terms like “Party elites” and “billionaire donors” illustrate frustration over perceived undemocratic maneuvers within the party. This internal critique indicates a sentiment that progressive ideals are sometimes compromised by the party’s political strategies.

Recent protests in Washington D.C. against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dominated public discussion online. Pro-Palestinian protesters and leftists took to the streets of Washington D.C., the Capitol rotunda, and even the Watergate Hotel. Many recalled memories of 2020 as anti-American sentiment reached the level of fervor similar to riots during the last election cycle.

Conversations primarily focus on themes of justice, legal double standards, and national identity. Many Americans question and criticize the actions of protesters, considering the broader implications on democracy and international relations.

Flag Burning

Many Americans are highly offended and outraged by pro-Hamas protesters publicly burning American flags, defacing monuments, assaulting police offices, and burning Benjamin Netanyahu’s effigy.

Videos of the protesters tearing down and burning American flags and replacing it with a Palestinian flag outside Union Station went viral. Many saw these actions as highly anti-American and antisemitic, stirring strong emotional responses. Public sentiment around the demonstrations largely skews negative, with significant outrage expressed about attacks on American symbols and values.

Liberal positions held by voters and representatives like Rashida Tlaib defend the protesters, emphasizing their right to free expression and sympathizing with their cause. However, this segment is notably smaller and often overshadowed by the louder opposition of pro-America and pro-Israel sentiment.

"Chickens for KFC"

In his speech, Prime Minister Netanyahu's made remarks about prominent "Gays for Gaza" signs, comparing them to "Chickens for KFC.” This comment has also become a focal point of public discussion. Netanyahu’s analogy elicits various reactions from laughter and agreement to anger.

Supporters of Netanyahu view his comments as a poignant critique of perceived hypocrisies within the protest movement. They argue the LGBTQ+ community would face persecution under governance like Hamas's, echoing Netanyahu’s sentiment. Many point out the contradiction of protesters demonstrating on behalf of a regime that would gladly kill them.

Conversely, critics argue Netanyahu’s comments are inflammatory and dismissive, exacerbating tensions rather than fostering dialogue. This group says equating protesters with KFC chickens undermines the legitimate grievances about Israel's policies. Terms like "insensitive," "dismissive," and "offensive" frequently appear in these criticisms.

2024 Riots Echo 2020 Riots

The events also ignite memories of riots across the country related to Black Lives Matter and the January 6 Capitol riot in 2020. The public draws parallels between the scale of the unrest and government responses then and now. People question consistency and justice for different protest groups.

Many voters highlight a perceived double standard in how authorities manage protests concerning different political or social issues. The phrase "two-tier justice" emerges as a recurrent theme, reflecting skepticism about fair treatment under the law depending on the nature of the protest.

Especially on the right, there are accusations that left leaning protesters like those supporting BLM and pro-Palestine causes face little or no consequences for their actions. Meanwhile, right leaning protesters like January 6 attendees and young people peeling out on “Pride” crosswalks face severe criminal charges and even imprisonment.

American Leadership Silence

Another significant element in the public discourse focuses on Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Harris not attending Netanyahu's speech. This is perceived by some as a political maneuver indicative of their stance on Israel-Palestine relationships. Many also criticize VP Harris for failing to comment on the vandalism and violence of the protests.

Misinformation and conspiracy theories also circulate, suggesting Israeli infiltrators staged some actions to provoke hatred against Gaza. Sentiment trends reveal a mix of support for both Israel and Palestine, but are driven by intense emotional responses, inflamed further by personal stories of suffering from both sides. The plight of kidnapped hostages and innocent victims fuels compassionate calls for ceasefire and humanitarian aid.

Discussion trends reveal dominant topics around national identity, free speech, and international diplomacy. The sentiment oscillates between highly charged outrage and staunch defense of either Israel, Palestine, or America. Reasons for these sentiment trends often connect to enduring national traumas, contemporary political divisions, and the pervasive influence of media portrayal of such events.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's popularity in the United States is increasingly polarized. Conversations online highlight a range of opinions influenced by political affiliation, geographic location, and demographics. There is a significant emphasis on Israel's military actions, Netanyahu's political maneuvers, and the implications of U.S. foreign policy.

Lukewarm on Netanyahu

American feelings about Netanyahu and Israel's policies are highly polarized. Discussions show intense emotions, with strong support or vehement opposition, influenced by recent military actions and political statements.

Since the October 7 attacks, there is a discernible shift in sentiment with increased scrutiny and criticism of Israel's military responses. This has led to heightened calls for a ceasefire and a reevaluation of U.S. support for Israel.

Political affiliations greatly influence sentiments. Younger voters and progressive groups, including many within the Democratic Party, display more critical views of Netanyahu's policies. Conversely, conservative and older demographics, particularly within the Republican base, showcase stronger support for Netanyahu and Israel. However, many on both sides of the aisle are growing fatigued with the financial cost of supporting Israel for Americans. 

Keywords

Many Americans view Netanyahu through the perspective of the Israel-Hamas War, therefore, discussion shaping these discussions are centered on the conflict. Common words mentioned include:

• Israel, Gaza, IDF, Hamas: Central to discussions about military actions and regional security.
• Ceasefire, U.S. Aid, Apartheid, ICJ Ruling: Frequent in conversations about international law, human rights, and U.S.-Israel relations.
• Kamala Harris, Netanyahu, Trump: Indicative of political figures' influence on public opinion and policy discussions.

Political Figures and Statements

Figures like Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump frequently feature in these discussions. Harris's refusal to meet Netanyahu upon his arrival in the U.S. and her comments about not dictating Israel's military actions are cited as evidence of a shift in the Democratic Party's stance towards Israel. Trump, on the other hand, is seen by his supporters as a strong ally of Israel, emphasizing his administration's actions such as recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Public Protests and Social Movements

Grassroots movements and protests, particularly those led by Jewish groups within the U.S., highlight a growing dissatisfaction with current U.S. policies towards Israel. Protests demanding an arms embargo and an end to military aid to Israel demonstrate a shift in public sentiment and a call for a more balanced approach that considers Palestinian rights.

Israel's Military Actions and the Gaza Conflict

People are talking about Israel's military actions in Gaza, particularly focusing on airstrikes and the resulting civilian casualties. There is a notable dichotomy where one side condemns Israel's actions as overly aggressive and harmful to Palestinians. Ther other side defends them as necessary for national security against Hamas.

International Court of Justice Rulings

There are debates around recent ICJ rulings declaring Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as unlawful and labeling its actions as apartheid. Supporters of the ICJ ruling argue it is a step forward for Palestinian rights and international accountability. Opponents, often pro-Israel, discredit the court's opinions, viewing them as biased and ill-informed.

U.S.-Israel Relations

The relationship between the United States and Israel is another significant topic, with discussions around U.S. military aid to Israel and the perceived political maneuvers within the American political landscape. More voters are beginning to express frustration with continued U.S. support for Israel. Some advocate for a ceasefire and others call for a reevaluation of or halt to aid. Others assert support for Israel remains crucial for regional stability and counterterrorism.