Online political discourse shows a strong, and increasing, anti-establishment sentiment posture among Americans. There is growing frustration with the current state of governance and political ideologies.

Discussions suggest a growing discontent with traditional political structures and figures, reflecting a pronounced disdain for perceived liberal and establishment institutions. Key topics include socialism, communism, and perceived threats to the Constitutional Republic. These trends appear to be intensifying, indicating a significant shift in the electorate's mood.

Indicators of Rising Anti-Establishment Trend

Constitutionality and Governance: Discussions frequently focus on the idea that the United States, a Constitutional Republic, is under threat from various internal and external forces. Americans criticize the constitutionality of actions by political leaders, particularly the Biden administration. Discussion of our Republic, the Supreme Court, term limits, and separation of powers are pervasive. There is growing concern about overreach and disregard for constitutional principles.

Socialism and Communism: The discourse also heavily focuses on distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration, with strong negative sentiment towards illegal immigration. The term "socialism" is almost universally condemned, with discussions highlighting economic decline, loss of personal freedoms, and corruption as inherent to socialist regimes. Comparisons to foreign political situations, such as those in Venezuela and Europe, further underscore this disdain.

Voter Impact

The propensity of anti-establishment voters to participate in elections remains high. Many express a strong desire to vote against perceived socialist or communist policies being pushed by the Biden-Harris administration. Support predominantly aligns with Trump, who promises to uphold traditional values and resist the erosion of constitutional authority.

Common voter sentiment includes strong opposition to socialism and communism, which they associate with the Democratic Party. Emphatic endorsements and declarations of voting intentions are frequent, indicating a high level of political engagement.

Sentiment Trends

Biden Disapproval: Sentiment trends predominantly negative towards the Biden administration and associated liberal policies. This negativity is driven by concerns about economic policies, perceived erosion of constitutional rights, and fears of creeping authoritarianism akin to socialist regimes.

Support for Trump: MAGA and conservative voters frequently use positive language when discussing Trump's policies and 2024 presidential run. They view Trump as an antidote to the establishment, capable of restoring economic stability, upholding individual rights, and combating the alleged "woke" agenda.

Reasons for Sentiment Trends:

• Many feel socialist policies threaten personal freedoms and economic autonomy, citing recent regime oppression in Venezuela as foreshadowing.
• Americans blame economic instability and job insecurity on Biden’s policies, which they view as socialist or overly liberal.
• There is distrust in mainstream media and government institutions, which people believe are complicit in Democratic agendas and suppressing dissent.
• More Americans identify with conservative and libertarian principles, fueling negative reactions to increasingly progressive policies.

Keywords Analysis

Top keywords in these discussions include:

• Socialism
• Communism
• Biden
• Harris
• Trump
• Election fraud
• Supreme Court
• Venezuela
• Freedom

These keywords indicate a strong focus on governance style, international comparisons, and fundamental freedoms. Public sentiment towards establishment structures is negative and largely antagonistic toward the Biden administration.

The "White Dudes for Harris" online Zoom event has evoked disbelief and harsh criticism from the American public regarding race and abortion. Many who consider themselves “non-woke” deride the event as embodying the racism progressive wokeism claims to abhor. This group also strongly criticizes Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, and white male progressives who attended the event—including multiple celebrities.

One significant trend in voter reactions questions Harris's qualifications and capabilities. People express deep concerns about her competence and potential impact on the country's future. Those voicing negative sentiments often express fear of worsening economic and border conditions and potential escalations of war should Harris assume the presidency.

White Dudes for Abortion

The topic of abortion remains a contentious issue. There are strong reactions on the left to the idea that Democrats have failed to protect women’s rights despite holding power. Many left leaning voters voice displeasure at Roe v. Wade being overturned and speak frequently about and alleged "Trump abortion ban."

Among progressives there is appreciation for the coalition-building efforts promoting Buttigieg during the "White Dudes for Kamala" initiative. Some express hope at his potential pick as Kamala’s VP. This “white dude” coalition is touted on the left as a strategic advantage that could potentially mobilize significant male voter turnout in the upcoming election.

However, comments made by Pete Buttigieg during the Zoom fundraiser have caused severe backlash. His statement that, “Men are more free when women have access to abortion,” has incited anger across many groups.

Pete Buttigieg says that men are freer when abortion is legal because men can have consequence free sex and simply kill their unborn babies instead of taking responsibility for them.

But J.D. Vance is weird or something.
pic.twitter.com/4Mj24p3USK

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 30, 2024

Moderate and right leaning voters express shock and disgust at Pete Buttigieg's remarks. They suggest he’s promoting the idea of men killing their unwanted children as a societal positive.

• National sentiment toward abortion and abortion rights has largely stayed below 50% in the last week with abortion topics briefly reaching 53% on July 28.

Mayor Pete Silencing Women

Following Buttigieg’s comments, social media blazed with anger. People highlight their moral and ideological objections to the notion that abortions contribute to men's freedom.

Americans characterize Buttigieg’s comments as antithetical to life and freedom, questioning the moral and social horror of Buttigieg’s views. Criticisms also touch on his personal life, suggesting a gay man, by his own progressive identity politics standards, should not be speaking on abortion rights. They say issues which deeply impact women should not be a talking point for politicians like Buttigieg.

There is outright frustration and anger, not just toward Buttigieg but also broader Democratic policies. Voters describe Buttigieg’s comments as vile, suggesting they promote misogyny by advocating for male support in promoting abortion.

Critics argue many abortions result from male pressure and emotional blackmail, negating the notion that abortion promotes freedom for anyone, male or female. The use of emotionally charged language such as "disturbing," "misogyny," and "emotional blackmail" underscores the deep-seated opposition to Buttigieg's stance.

Further sentiment indicates many view his comments as bizarre and tone-deaf. Comments like, "WTF does this actually mean? You want abortions so men don't have to take care of the children?" and "How misogynistic is that? Abortion was never intended to be a form of birth control," reflect confusion and indignation.

• In the last day, general support for Buttigieg remains steady, even increasing to 53%. Meanwhile, sentiment toward him on abortion topics sharply dropped to 42%.

Liberals Praise Buttigieg, Ignoring His Comments

A minority of comments align with Buttigieg's view, emphasizing that legal access to abortion is a matter of personal choice and bodily autonomy. They say this contributes to overall societal freedom. However, these supportive voices are drowned out by the vast number of detractors.

Progressives highlight Buttigieg as articulate with good communication skills and a strong progressive stance. They appreciate his ability to frame arguments about freedom and rights in ways that resonate with progressive values. They focus on phrases like, "Pete is so beloved," "would be an amazing Veep," and "an incredible communicator" instead of addressing the abortion comment directly. These voters also emphasize his effectiveness in debates and public appearances, praising his capability to challenge Republican narratives.

The conversation also reveals dynamics within the Democratic Party, including debates on the most suitable candidates for the 2024 election. Buttigieg's potential role as Vice President with Kamala Harris garners mixed reactions. Some Democratic voters say he would be a great choice, while others point to his lackluster performance as Transportation Secretary.

The Abortion Debate in America

While abortion tends to be a more popular issue for Democrats than Republicans, many vocal groups online strongly criticize Buttigieg’s comment. They say it endorses irresponsibility among men, suggesting normalized abortion allows men to avoid the responsibilities of fatherhood.

This perception frames men who make abortion an important issue as expressing thinly veiled misogyny rather than equality. People argue that, despite claiming to be the pro-women Party, Democrats are placing undue pressure on women to have abortions and encouraging men to pressure women as well.

Public sentiment also frequently references the moral dimensions of abortion. While conservative arguments typically do not resonate with pro-choice voters on the sanctity of life, spotlighting the hypocrisy of claiming to protect women while pressuring them into unwanted abortions may be a more convincing strategy.

Supporters of Pete Buttigieg who advocate for abortion rights frequently emphasize "freedom," underscoring women's autonomy to make decisions about their bodies. This group interprets Buttigieg's remarks about abortion providing more freedom for men as an extension of broader social liberties. However, counter arguments point out that “white men” gathering to discuss women’s health is contradictory to women making their own decisions.

Online discourse about Israeli children recently murdered in a bombing reinforces divided public sentiment in the United States. Most discussions focus on the grief and outrage at the loss of life, condemning Hezbollah, and outcry against silence from the Biden administration, particularly Vice President Kamala Harris.

Many Americans fear attacks like this increase the possibility of conflict escalation for a variety of reasons:

• Questions the U.S. president and uncertainty about Biden transferring power to Harris
• The possibility of a terrorist attack during the Olympic games
• Turkey-Israel tensions rising

Double Standards

There are accusations of double standards, accusing the American media of highlighting loss of Palestinian lives, while downplaying Israeli casualties. Critics of Israel's government call it hypocritical, instead saying the U.S. and Israel are overlooking or downplaying Palestinian casualties.

Conversations about children killed in Gaza evoke deep sympathy and anger from anti-Israel groups. The criticism is not just aimed at Israel but also at international actors, including the European Union and the United Nations, for their perceived inaction or bias.

Meanwhile, Israel supporters express intense anger and mourning over the worsening situation and escalating tensions. Descriptions such as “innocent Druze children” and “playing soccer” emphasize the brutality and injustice of the attack. This sense of tragic loss underpins broader discussions, acting as an emotional catalyst.

Those who support Israel contrast American mainstream media coverage of Israeli victims compared to those in Gaza. They say reports and sympathies for Israel are buried while pro-Palestine, often, pro-terror protests get massive coverage.

Anger Toward Hezbollah

Those who are discussing the recent attack focus ire at Hezbollah, describing its actions as “terrorism” and “pure evil.” It is repeatedly framed as an “Iranian proxy,” reinforcing hostile views towards Iran and its influence in the region. Many Americans view Hezbollah as a primary antagonist, promoting Israel's right to self-defense and decisive retaliation.

Substantial frustration is also directed at the Biden administration for its lack of response. A significant number of comments criticize Vice President Kamala Harris for her silence, indicating a broader discontent with the administration's handling of foreign policy concerning Israel. Descriptors like “weak” and “ineffective” are repeatedly employed to characterize the administration, implying a need for stronger leadership.

This hesitancy and silence have sparked claims that the administration's inaction emboldens groups like Hezbollah. Some also draw stark contrasts with former President Trump’s foreign policy.

There’s a noted disdain for political figures perceived as too closely aligned with or supportive of pro-Palestinian and terrorist entities. For instance, mentions of figures like Kamala Harris and her connections to groups like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) spurred critical backlash.

Americans continue to discuss and disagree on geopolitical analysis. For instance, people discuss President of Turkey Erdogan's threats to Israel. Discussions are set against the backdrop of Turkey's geopolitical ambitions and historical hostility.

Conversations draw parallels to historical events like the Iraq War, interpreting them as part of a broader pattern of American and Israeli foreign policy actions in the Middle East. Critics claim Israel's strategic moves, including blaming Hezbollah for the Majdal Shams attack, are tactics to draw the U.S. into a larger regional conflict.

Views of Harris

Many Americans are also angry about the lack of leadership from the White House amid worsening international conditions. Reports that VP Harris is receiving briefings on the situation in Israel draw demands for explanation at Biden’s lack of visibility as President.

.@VP has been briefed and is closely monitoring Hezbollah’s horrific attack on a soccer field in Majdal Shams in northern Israel yesterday which killed a number of children and teenagers. She condemns this horrific attack and mourns for all those killed and wounded.

— Phil Gordon (@PhilGordon46) July 28, 2024

Some voters label Harris as anti-American, associating her with antisemitic and globalist ideologies. Discussions here are deeply negative, accusing both Harris and Biden of failing to deter threats to international stability. People use phrases “utter silence” to describe both Biden and Harris’s response, underscoring frustration at leaders dodging their responsibility.

Discussion largely contrasts Harris’s actions and statements with President Biden's silence. On one hand, Harris's "ironclad" support for Israel, as emphasized by her national security advisor, Phil Gordon, aligns with pro-Israel sentiment. However, many Israel supporters do not feel confident in the genuineness of these statements.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's recent statement that Kamala Harris, if elected president, plans to grant mass citizenship to 11 million illegal immigrants bombs. American reactions are sharply negative, with vehement opposition and a sense of urgency to prevent that from happening.

Illegal Immigration vs. Legal Immigration

Conversations heavily focus on distinguishing between illegal and legal immigration. There is a strong negative sentiment towards illegal immigration, with many expressing that legal pathways should be followed. Critics argue granting citizenship to illegal immigrants undermines those who have followed legal procedures. They say its a slap in the face to legal immigrants who have waited patiently.

Pathway to Citizenship

The term "pathway to citizenship" incites a mix of emotions but significant opposition when linked to illegal immigrants. The prevailing sentiment is one of frustration, as many feel providing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants rewards unlawful behavior and incentivizes more illegal crossings. This is seen as unfair to all Americans who are forced to carry the economic and social burden.

Open Borders

The idea of open borders carries a strong negative connotation. Most Americans feel Elizabeth Warren’s plan would lead to chaos, increased crime rates, and a drain on public resources. The discussion links current open borders to a lack of national security and the dilution of American societal values, further stoking fears about the nation's ability to manage.

Economic and Social Concerns

Concerns about the economic burden of a large influx of citizens dominate the conversation. Many express fears that granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants would strain healthcare, social security, and other welfare systems. They conclude it would result in increased taxes and reduced benefits for lawful citizens. The sentiment here is overwhelmingly negative, with worries about long-term sustainability.

Voter Impact and Political Motives

There is a strong belief that efforts to provide citizenship to illegal immigrants are politically motivated, aiming to create new voters to support Democrats. This view is coupled with distrust and allegations of election manipulation and societal engineering. Sentiment is decidedly negative, with accusations of anti-American motives and disregard for current democratic norms and the protection of citizens.

National Identity and Security

The debate also touches on broader cultural and identity issues. Many comments reflect fears of losing the cultural cohesiveness of the nation due to rapid demographic changes. The sentiment towards maintaining national identity and ensuring newcomers assimilate into American society is strong. The negativity focuses on the erosion of these values, should Warren’s plan be implemented.

Undecided and Independent Voters

The intense debate around these topics may significantly influence undecided and Independent voters. Acting as a microcosm of broader national sentiments, these conversations likely polarize opinion even further. For Independents concerned about economic stability, national security, and cultural identity, the negative implications from Democrats like Warren may push them towards Trump.

Conversely, those emphasizing ethical approaches to immigration and humane treatment may solidify their support for comprehensive immigration reforms but could also be swayed by the economic arguments of the opposition.

Donald Trump's speech at the 2024 Bitcoin conference in Nashville generated excitement and enthusiasm in the crypto community. Crypto Twitter celebrated Trump's pledges and his robust endorsement of Bitcoin and broader cryptocurrency policies.

While some still express skepticism about whether Trump can fulfill his promises, many others push back saying Kamala Harris and democrats are openly hostile to crypto. Many say—despite Trump’s divisive style—his promises to build a crypto-friendly administration are hopeful.

Fire Gary Gensler

The topic generating the most enthusiasm in the crypto community is Trump’s vow to fire Gary Gensler, the current SEC Chairman. This commitment pleases crypto enthusiasts who feel oppressed by the existing regulatory environment under Gensler.

Trump’s statement, “On day one, I will fire Gary Gensler and appoint a new SEC Chairman,” gained roaring applause, which even surprised Trump himself. The crowd's reaction underscores a widespread dissatisfaction with the SEC’s current stance on digital assets.

A U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve

Trump also proposed the U.S. government establish a "strategic national Bitcoin stockpile," maintaining 100% of the Bitcoin it owns. This was celebrated as a visionary policy and a profound commitment to integrating Bitcoin into the national treasury.

Many view this as a promising step toward making the U.S. a leading player in the global crypto economy. Voters see supportive strategies like this as crucial for Bitcoin’s mainstream adoption and its perceived legitimacy.

Free Ross Ulbricht

Eagerness in the crypto community to free Silk Road founder Ross Ulbrich also generated positivity when Trump promised to commute his sentence. Ulbricht’s cause is deeply embedded in the crypto community, representing issues of personal freedom, justice reform, and internet privacy.

Trump’s promise to commute Ross Ulbricht's sentence, who was sentenced in 2015, was met with palpable excitement. This issue particularly bolstered Trump’s image as a champion of financial and market freedom—values intrinsic to the Bitcoin ethos.

No CBDC for America

Trump also voiced strong opposition to any central bank digital currency (CBDC) under his presidency. He described CBDCs as a threat to economic freedom, promising to squash the possibility of implementing one if he is elected.

Crypto voters mostly view CBDCs as unjustifiable government overreach into personal financial autonomy. They say CBDCs will inevitably bring extensive surveillance and control, destroying individual freedoms and enabling censorship or a social credit system.

Criticism of Trump’s Crypto Message

There is some skepticism and criticism toward Trump from some segments of the crypto community. Critics argue Trump’s overture to Bitcoiners may not be out of genuine belief in crypto, but simply a strategic or populist move to gain votes.

Some point out that Donald Trump called Bitcoin extremely dangerous and a scam during his presidency. They say, now he’s realizing how important it is to Millennials and Gen Z, criticizing his pivot. This causes some to question whether Trump will make good on his promises.

Negativity Toward Kamala Harris

The political implications of Trump's speech haven't gone unnoticed. As Vice President Kamala Harris ramps up her political campaign, some are hoping for similar overtures toward crypto voters. However, many lodge the same complaints about Harris that critics levy against trump, questioning whether any move toward crypto would be genuine.

Negativity about crypto policies held by the Biden administration, which Harris has been party to, is strong. Rumors that Kamala Harris's advisers have approached top crypto companies to reset relations are often met with scorn and ridicule. Many encourage crypto advocates to decline conversations with a potential Harris administration.

Banking Freedom is American

The theme of the U.S. as the "crypto capital" and a "Bitcoin superpower" resonsates deeply with crypto voters who want this to become reality. Those who see potential for the U.S. to lead technological innovation welcome politicians who frame crypto as a positive for America.

Conversations strongly feature patriotic undertones, embracing the rhetoric of American leadership in the global financial ecosystem driven by blockchain technology. This vision appeals to those keen on seeing the United States at the forefront of the digital currency revolution, outpacing rivals like China.

Trump’s platform connecting Bitcoin and fundamental American values such as "freedom, sovereignty, and independence" generate strong support. This rhetorical framing resonates deeply with freedom-oriented voters and reinforces the view of Bitcoin as not merely a financial asset but a symbol of resistance against government overreach and monetary manipulation.

Gary Gensler

Public sentiment towards Gary Gensler, the current Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), is extremely negative in the crypto community. Discourse reflects a sense of antagonism, with many expressing strong dissatisfaction over his enforcement actions against the cryptocurrency market. People who mention Gensler recurringly use phrases like:

• Fire Gary Gensler
• SEC
• anti-crypto
• regulatory crackdown
• kill crypto
• Gensler out

Many voters perceive Gensler as the orchestrator of policies that stifle innovation and economic freedom within the crypto space. People repeatedly accuse the SEC under his leadership of initiating an "anti-crypto crusade." This stance is viewed as tyrannical and oppressive to free market financial innovations.

The sentiment favoring Donald Trump's promise to fire Gary Gensler is markedly positive among crypto enthusiasts. In general, people view Trump’s platform as crypto-friendly, fostering optimism toward an environment of reduced regulatory pressure and more supportive oversight.

A public and shocking mockery of the Last Supper during the opening ceremony of the Olympics sent social media into a frenzy over the weekend. Christians were particularly charged by this perceived disrespect and blasphemy against one of the prominent world religions.

The depiction, which many see as a blatant parody of a sacred Christian narrative, has provoked strong reactions across various online platforms. In a live action tableau, an obese woman dressed as the “Christ” figure sat at the center of the Last Supper table, surround by drag queens. The depiction was heightened by a man covered in blue paint and no clothes other than a vine being served on a silver platter.

This portrayal offended many Christians and non-Christians who called it a sacrilege. It has amplified existing cultural and religious fault lines, exacerbating tensions between conservative and liberal ideologies. The reactions highlight a significant aspect of the ongoing cultural war, manifesting an emotional battleground where art, faith, and politics intensely intersect.

VATICAN CITY—Pope Francis made a statement regarding the Olympics at today’s Sunday Angelus—on the “scandal” of war, not the scandal of blasphemy during the opening ceremonies.@HolySeePress Spokesman, Matteo Bruni, has failed to respond to inquiries, despite calls for the… pic.twitter.com/0pY8YSPXxI

— Bree A Dail (@breeadail) July 28, 2024

Hot Button Issue

Online discussions center around terms such as "mockery," "blasphemy," and "disrespect," frequently tied to expressions like "woke agenda," "Satanic," "LGBTQ," and "drag queens."

Americans show significant concern about the erosion of Christian values and traditions in the West, as evidenced by passionate calls for respect and the preservation of these beliefs.

Sentiment Trends

Most reaction are overwhelmingly negative among Christian viewers who perceive the ceremony as an affront to their faith. They express feelings of anger, offense, and sorrow. Specific criticisms point to the blending of religious symbols with what they consider "worldly and demonic ideologies."

Christians view the display as furthering progressive and woke agendas to undermine traditional Christian values. There is also a noticeable call to action within Christian communities, urging members to repent, believe, and stand firm in their faith. Many also committed to boycotting the Olympics.

Interestingly, this outrage is not confined to Christianity. Both Catholic and Protestant communities share in this collective indignation, along with many secular Americans and those who observe other religions.

There are notable criticisms from Catholics directed at Pope Francis for not condemning the act more aggressively. For a segment of the public, this inaction underscores a broader dissatisfaction with the perceived liberal shift in the church hierarchy.

The impact on Christian viewers is significant, leading many to call for boycotts, expressing a sense of alienation and increased vigilance against infringements on their religious values. Christian groups argue such representations indicate the erosion of religious reverence in public spaces, inciting calls for greater advocacy against similar future instances.

Orthodox hierarchs condemn blasphemous Olympics opening
Among the hierarchs who have condemned the blasphemy that was on display for the entire world to see, is Metropolitan Theologos of Serres of the Greek Orthodox Church. Preaching at the Holy Monastery of St. Paraskevi on… pic.twitter.com/aq03UWoNLL

— Robin Monotti (@robinmonotti) July 29, 2024

For non-Christian viewers, reactions appear more varied. Some share the sentiment that freedom of expression should be balanced against respect for religious beliefs. They align with the displeasure of Christian viewers, saying you don’t have to be a Christian to view it as inappropriate.

However, others staunchly defend the portrayal as a form of artistic expression. They emphasize the importance of freedom of speech, regardless of the discomfort it may cause. This group often associates critics of the ceremony with right-wing conservatism, highlighting broader cultural and political divides.

🇮🇷 🇫🇷 Iran says France should be ashamed of itself for its opening ceremony at the Olympics.

"The insulting representation of Jesus Christ in Paris yesterday was completely offensive and crossed all red lines.

France, a country with a major history of Christianity, must be… pic.twitter.com/qHW4FOnqW2

— BRICS News (@BRICSinfo) July 28, 2024

The reactions have influenced calls for action from both sides. Christians discuss boycotting Olympics and withdrawing from any associated media outlets, like NBC. They call for prayers, repentance, and a reinvigoration of faith-based activism. In contrast, those defending the ceremony advocate for ongoing support of artistic freedom and cultural progression.

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.