MIG Reports data shows recent online discussions about economic hardships with inflation as a critical point of anxiety. Several key topics are frequently discussed among Americans as they react to their current economic struggles.
Many Americans are feeling significant cost increases day to day—particularly for essential items like food, gas, and housing. A lot of people point out this inflation disproportionately affects the middle and lower classes. Sentiment is frustration with anxiety about financial stability and the future.
Top Concerns for Americans
One of the big worries voters discuss is taxation. There is growing frustration about the fairness of the current tax system. Some critics—often on the left—say it favors the wealthy and large corporations at the expense of the middle class.
Higher taxes, particularly under Democratic policies, make people feel burdened as they are already struggling. Both working-class Democrat voters and right leaning voters have complaints about taxes on the middle class.
Employment and job security are also significant themes. People worry about corporations outsourcing American jobs, as in the case of Zoom cashiers in New York City. They also talk about the impact of union policies on job availability for blue collar workers.
Job concerns are intertwined with fears about the sustainability and dignity of the American middle-class workforce. Many middle- and working-class Americans worry about losing their jobs or not being able to find a job.
High inflation remains a top concern as well. Voters believe inflation rates are unacceptable and unsustainable. The rising cost of living, particularly groceries and housing, puts a significant strain on household budgets.
High interest rates also create a barrier for most Americans to purchase homes. This further adds to economic anxiety. Many voters also express displeasure with high gas prices, which have a cascading effect on their overall cost of living.
Dissatisfaction with Bidenomics
American families feel frustration, distrust in leadership, and a desire for change. Trump supporters are particularly vocal about reversing current policies they believe are detrimental to the economy. They dislike Biden policies they see as affecting fuel prices and border security.
Many argue Biden administration policies are increasing economic strain by exacerbating inflation and increasing layoffs. There is a distinct shift among some undecided voters and potential Biden defectors. They express sharp dissatisfaction with how Biden has handled the economy.
Talk about tangible economic outcomes which a second Trump administration might bring is increasing Trump’s support. Exasperated voters reminisce about the successes of his previous administration. They cite lower taxes, reduced regulation, and economic growth and appear to be attracting undecided voters and others dissatisfied with Biden.
Another positive discussion point is Trump’s proposal to exempt tips from tax. Many Americans hope for a return to policies that benefit the middle class. They want leaders who will address specific pain points like inflation and job security.
Conversely, Biden’s support drops with any spotlighting on his economic failures. Reminders of persistent inflation, high taxes, and a poor job market disheartens voters about his capability to manage the country's economy.
Stressing the immediate and visible impacts of pressing economic issues on everyday life resonates with those feeling the pinch in their own finances.
Over the weekend, a video of President Joe Biden ignoring a black woman holding Biden-Harris sign during a campaign rally quickly went viral. MIG Reports data show reactions to this video, amid larger questions of the President's fitness for office, are divisive and partisan.
Discussion About the Viral Clip
In the clip, President Biden is shaking hands and taking photos with supporters behind event fencing. People pointed out that he seemed to dismiss and pass over a smiling young black woman, instead greeting some white women beside her. Many people also commented on the young woman’s face which looked like excitement quickly turned to disappointment and rejection.
Smitten black girl rejected by Biden who instead stopped to take selfies with old angry white women. pic.twitter.com/iKWM52AMeP
The viral video quickly became a focal point for discussions about Joe Biden's relationship with his supporters, particularly among black and other minority communities. The video itself generated disappointment, outright anger, and ridicule. These emotions were palpable across various social media platforms as Americans shared the clip.
Several people recalled a 2020 campaign moment when then-candidate Biden asserted any black Americans who vote for Trump “ain’t black.” Another clip of a white woman standing beside the young black woman seemingly angrily rebuking her also drew criticism. Many on the right highlighted it as an example of white Democrats who virtue signal about race while, themselves, treating minorities poorly.
Look at how poorly the rude little old lady treats this young woman on Biden's rope line.
Lots of people are posting the clip of Joe ignoring the woman, but her mistreatment by the hag on her left needs to be seen as well.
Many Americans expressed frustration that the President would seemingly disregard a supporter. They view the incident as indicative of broader troubles his administration is facing with African American communities.
Frustrations for black Democratic voters are often tied to feelings of being undervalued or ignored by the party claiming to protect their interests. Critics argue this moment exemplified a pattern of neglect which needs to be addressed more broadly which only worsens tensions within the party.
Racial Dynamics and Democrats
Broader conversations around Joe Biden have evolved significantly between 2020 and 2024. In 2020, the focus was largely on Biden’s history, particularly his past legislative roles which adversely affected black communities. People pointed out his involvement with the 1994 Crime Bill.
Many also highlighted his choice of Kamala Harris as a running mate as being a progressive move toward diversifying leadership and as a strategic effort to secure the African American vote. The conversations then were a blend of cautious optimism and skepticism, with many adopting a “wait and see” attitude.
In 2020, many black voters viewed Biden as a preferable alternative to Trump, largely due to his association with Barack Obama and promises of restorative justice and policy reforms targeting systemic racism. Since then, there appears to be a notable shift.
In 2024, there is growing frustration over Biden’s unfulfilled commitments on racial issues. This sentiment is evident in the discussion surrounding the video and broader topics of economic disparity, police reform, and equitable healthcare access.
Some Democrats also view Kamala Harris’s achievement as the first female, black vice president as being overshadowed by unaddressed systemic issues. This leads to debates within the Democratic voter base about the efficacy and sincerity of the current administration's efforts.
Related Conversations About Race
There are several topics dominating online discussion:
Disenfranchised black Democratic voters
Perceived racism within the Democratic Party and broader politics
The performance and future of Kamala Harris
Sentiment among Democratic voters centers on feeling disenfranchised and ignored by party leaders. This amplifies a sense of betrayal on promises unmet since the 2020 election.
There are also internal debates among Democrats about the party’s true commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Some are questioning actions by Biden and other progressive Democrats that appear tokenistic and pandering rather than substantive.
Conversations about Kamala Harris often intersect with these themes. Some view her candidacy as integral to the future of racial equality in American leadership. Others criticize her performance and accuse the administration of using her as a shield against accusations of racism while not delivering on substantial policy changes.
The Supreme Court's decision on June 28 to overturn the Chevron deference doctrine has led to heated debates and fluctuating sentiment. MIG Reports shows overall sentiment towards the Supreme Court seems has slightly decreased as many Americans express concerns about the implications on future judicial coherence and executive actions.
Critics argue this decision could destabilize established regulatory norms, while supporters believe it aligns with a more originalist interpretation of congressional intent.
Trending Discussions
Discourse around the Chevron deference decision has primarily focused on the implications for administrative law and environmental regulations. Many worry the decision could undermine the ability of federal agencies to enforce regulations effectively. They especially worry about environmental protection, labor standards, and public health.
The Chevron deference doctrine granted agencies leeway to interpret ambiguous statutes. This enabled them to issue and enforce more comprehensive rules based on their expertise. Removing this deference calls into question the future robustness of agency regulations.
Another prominent discussion trend revolves around the political ramifications. Trump's supporters see the decision as a win, aligning with their broader agenda of reducing what they consider to be the overreach of federal agencies. This ruling, in their view, empowers smaller government and state rights, integral to their ideological framework.
Impact on Voter Sentiments
Among Trump supporters, the reaction has been largely positive. They view the decision as a step towards reducing what they perceive as government overreach and an unelected bureaucracy. This group expresses increased support for the Supreme Court, seeing it as a corrective force against Executive Branch agencies' expansive interpretations of laws.
The decision aligns with their broader desire for a more limited government and a stricter adherence to constitutional principles. Consequently, this demographic is likely to feel more empowered and validated, potentially increasing voter turnout in support of candidates who promise to uphold similar judicial philosophies.
For undecided voters, the reaction has been mixed. Some are cautious of the decision’s implications on regulatory oversight and public safety, seeing the potential for diminished protections in daily life. This demographic is watching the aftermath closely, particularly in sectors like environmental protection and consumer rights. They hope to see how the ruling will translate into real-world impacts before solidifying their stance.
Potential support movement from Biden to Trump due to this decision is likely minimal. Biden supporters underscore the importance of maintaining robust regulatory mechanisms to ensure public welfare and environmental health.
However, frustrations with administrative sluggishness and bureaucratic inefficiencies could push some voters to reconsider. Especially if they perceive the Supreme Court’s decision as a much-needed disruption to an inefficient system.
Former President Donald Trump's statements regarding Project 2025 have sparked varied reactions, significantly impacting his support base. MIG Reports analysis shows:
Hardcore supporters see his disavowal as consistent with his style, maintaining loyalty and denouncing mainstream media and Democratic opposition.
Critics and undecided voters are increasingly skeptical of Trump's inconsistencies, viewing him as untrustworthy and fearing potential rollbacks of rights and liberties.
Trending Discussions
Is Trump’s Influence Dangerous for Democracy?
Much of the discourse centers on the perceived risks of Trump's influence on American democracy. Critics argue his actions and rhetoric undermine democratic institutions and processes, fostering concerns about potential authoritarian tendencies.
Potential Consequences of Project 2025
Discussions are rife with fear about the implications of Project 2025, as critics warn it could lead to a rollback of rights and liberties. They fear it may revert societal progress to a pre-1960s framework. This has sparked alarm among progressive groups and civil rights advocates.
Trump vs. Biden Crisis Management
There is considerable debate comparing the crisis management abilities of Trump and President Biden. Supporters of Biden argue he represents stability and a safeguard against authoritarianism. Trump supporters highlight Biden's increasingly public vulnerabilities and inconsistencies.
Legitimacy of Biden’s Election Victory
The legitimacy of Biden's election victory remains a hot topic, with a growing percentage of Republicans expressing doubts about its validity. This trend is concerning for those who worry about the erosion of trust in the electoral process.
Trending Sentiment
Staunch Trump Supporters
Among hardcore Trump supporters, sentiment remains either stable or slightly increased. This group tends to rally around Trump in the face of criticism, reinforcing their loyalty and denouncing mainstream media and Democratic opposition as sources of misinformation.
Skepticism Among Critics and Undecided Voter
Critics of Trump and undecided voters exhibit growing skepticism towards him, particularly considering his inconsistencies regarding Project 2025. This group perceives Trump as increasingly untrustworthy, which has intensified their opposition.
Potential Voter Shift
The complex scenario reflects a potential shift in voter sentiment. While Trump’s loyal base may solidify turnout, indecisive and moderate voters are leaning away from him. Additionally, internal Democratic critiques and concerns about Biden's campaign capabilities could lead some 2020 Biden voters to seek alternative candidates unless effectively addressed by the Democratic party.
Anti-Trump Positions
Trump detractors often link Project 2025 to extreme, regressive policies like the suppression women's rights and the degradation of social security. This stokes fears of a return to a severely constrained society. This camp is deeply concerned about Trump's association with authoritarian tendencies and potential threats to democracy.
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.
The trend of job report numbers consistently being revised down is revealing a worse job market to Americans who are unhappy. Many feel deceived by the initial reports indicating a more robust job market, only for them to be corrected later to reveal a less optimistic reality—which more closely aligns with many workers’ experiences.
There is a growing sense of distrust and frustration towards the agencies and media sources reporting current job figures. People feel misled and uncertain about the true state of the job market, which complicates personal and financial planning.
JUST IN: The unemployment rate has ticked up to 4.1%, going over 4% for the first time since November 2021.
- 74% of jobs added last month came from government and healthcare education.
One viral topic around jobs includes news that most of the new job creations were government and education jobs. For many Americans, this has multiple implications on their perception of economic health and labor market dynamics.
In general, reactions are negative. Many interpret this as a sign of an economy relying too much on government intervention rather than private sector growth. They say it’s indicative of a stagnant private sector that is being choked by inflation and regulation.
Government employment is typically considered more stable, implying a potential increase in job security for those lucky enough to secure these roles. However, an economy heavily tilted towards government employment makes many workers feel that unnecessary jobs are being artificially created instead of driven by private sector growth.
Some also claim these government jobs are created specifically to pad job numbers.
This is how the Biden Department of Labor is fudging the data now: all job openings are government. pic.twitter.com/udxQSeKj0f
Many people are doubtful about the sustainability and impact of government job creation. They say an increase in government jobs does not create a healthy, flourishing economy. They also point out the rising unemployment rates among certain demographic groups, questioning the effectiveness of the administration's policies.
Arguments Over “Black Jobs”
A particularly contentious point of conversation is around employment for black Americans. During the first presidential debate, Donald Trump used the term to underscore issues like job displacement due to illegal immigration or underemployment in black communities.
On social media, this controversy led to heated debates over terms like "black jobs" and "black unemployment," illustrating the divide in how different groups interpret and discuss labor market outcomes. Democrats and progressives took the opportunity to criticize Trump for differentiating “black jobs” in their own category.
Republicans mostly reacted by highlighting the rise in black unemployment rates over the past year, despite reported overall job growth. They allege the gains in government jobs are not translating into meaningful employment opportunities for black workers.
Voters on the right argue Trump’s main point was to highlight unemployment specifically within the black community. They assert discussing "black jobs" is merely a way to highlight employment opportunities and challenges faced by black Americans, akin to other demographic-specific economic indicators.
Preferences for the Trump Economy
Trump supporters of all racial and ethnic backgrounds express a strong belief that the job market was at its peak during Trump’s administration. They especially point to black unemployment rates. They cite figures showing black unemployment hit a record low of 5.3% in 2019 under Trump. These supporters often frame their arguments around the belief that illegal immigration is undercutting job opportunities for black Americans.
They maintain that Trump’s administration ushered in significant gains for minority employment, despite sharp rises in unemployment during COVID. To conservatives, Biden’s tenure has not continued these successes. They say economic recovery, especially for black Americans, has been dismal.
Conversely, Biden supporters and liberals accuse Trump and his constituents of using racially charged rhetoric to pit black Americans against immigrants. They point to the record lows in black unemployment achieved under Biden administration in 2023 as evidence that Biden is improving the job market for black Americans.
Democrats highlight investments in infrastructure and historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) as part of a broader strategy that includes focusing on economic development and community welfare. Many liberal voices decry the term “black jobs” as racially insensitive and misleading. They emphasize that job creation and employment statistics should not be segregated by race.
The media landscape swiftly turned after the first debate as mainstream outlets suddenly started calling for Democrats to remove President Joe Biden from the ballot. This sudden narrative shift is generating a mix of heated rhetoric and disagreement among Democratic voters.
Following his disastrous debate performance on CNN, even the most notoriously partisan pundits quickly turned against Joe Biden. However, there is growing tension in the Democratic Party about whether this is the right move. Those who want Biden to continue are growing more critical of anyone calling for Biden to step down.
The Overnight Media Pivot
Biden's recent debate performance acted as a catalyst for discussions about his ability to win—or even last through a second term. Many voters point out that, prior to the debate, any discussion of Biden’s cognitive or physical health was completely dismissed by mainstream media. This stark contrast is igniting severe criticism toward the perceived hypocrisy of media figures who seem to parrot Democratic Party lines.
After the debate discussion exploded about Biden’s stamina, cognitive ability, and overall suitability to continue in the race. In the days following, there has been a flood of fact-checking claims and accusations of bias against mainstream media outlets.
The responses from media giants like CNN and MSNBC are being scrutinized by American voters who notice the sudden shift. Opinions are split along party lines about whether these networks are demonstrating adequate journalistic integrity.
Americans on Both Sides Distrust Media
Democratic sentiment on social media and in media reporting reflects widespread concern about Biden's viability as a candidate. This worry manifests through suggestions and editorial pieces from outlets such as the New York Times, calling for Biden to step down. They, Democrats hope, can create a stronger Democratic position against Trump.
Many view increasingly frantic calls for Biden's removal as a sign of panic within Democratic ranks. They say the panic is exacerbated by multiple media outlets suggesting alternative candidates. CNN, for instance, reported internal Democratic anxieties post-debate, highlighting a sense of unrest and the potential for significant changes in the party's strategy.
Conversely, there's a palpable frustration and backlash from Biden supporters who argue against this narrative. They insist the President, despite an off night, should not be disqualified based on a single performance. This camp is vocal about perceived double standards, noting the lack of calls for Trump to withdraw despite his numerous legal challenges and controversial actions. This sentiment is particularly strong among individuals actively engaged in political discourse online, suggesting an ideological battleground over media fairness and accountability.
Democrats Align with Party Narratives
Reactions from Democratic voters to media stories that align with party talking points seem to indicate the base will move with shifting narratives. Poll results post-debate indicate some movement in public opinion, with noticeable swings among Democrats regarding Joe Biden.
There are also many undecided voters reacting to the debate performance with evolving views. However, the predominant view among Biden supporters is the idea that focusing on one debate will damage the party’s chances amid larger policy and cultural conflicts.
With a SCOTUS decision confirming that Donald Trump does have presidential immunity, Trump filed a motion in the NYC “hush money” case, in which he was convicted, to delay his July 11th sentencing date. A cascade of partisan disagreement followed when the delay was approved, fueled by voter views of Trump. MIG Reports data shows voters largely unwilling to be swayed by unfolding events, instead holding more strongly to their preconceived viewpoints.
Discussion Trends
Critics express frustration, viewing the delay as another instance of Trump evading accountability. They suspect the delay is a strategic maneuver that will benefit him politically.
Trump supporters justify the delay, framing it as a necessary response to clear legal overreach and bias. Many discussions also intertwine this case with other legal and political challenges Trump is facing. They highlight the polarized nature of political discourse where each development is interpreted through partisan lenses.
Sentiment Trends
Trump’s delayed sentencing exacerbates feelings based on existing political divisions. Critics, frustrated and skeptical of the legal system, see the delay as a tactic to benefit Trump. Trump supporters, however, view the delay positively, citing it as a necessary check on prosecutorial overreach and referencing recent Supreme Court rulings in Trump's favor.
Comparisons between Trump and President Biden also feature prominently, with each side reinforcing their beliefs and skepticism towards the other, underscoring the entrenched polarization in American society.
Allegations Against the Courts
Many liberals feel distrust toward the Supreme Court, viewing it as biased and corrupt and shielding Trump from accountability. This has spurred calls for judicial reform, including impeaching justices, introducing ethics codes, and packing the court.
There is also fervent advocacy for bold executive actions by President Biden to counteract perceived judicial manipulation. Democrats suggest things like appointing new judges or using extreme measures to restore democratic integrity.
Discussions also highlight systemic corruption across government branches and historical grievances, reflecting broader anxieties about justice, political integrity, and the durability of democratic institutions.
Voters on the right are more likely to highlight accusations that Biden misused the DOJ against Trump. There are strong opinions on whether Trump deserved prosecution at all. This group views the timing and nature of Trump’s cases as a tactic to influence elections, raising broader concerns about judicial politicization and the integrity of the political system.
The polarized sentiments reveal anger over the erosion of democratic norms versus constitutional justifications for SCOTUS rulings. This consternation underscores the differences between liberals and conservatives in their views of how the courts are or should be used.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)