Very soon after news of a plea deal for 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin revoked Brig. Gen. Susan Escallier's authority, reneging on the deal. This sudden reversal deepens already heightened concern among Americans over broader national security issues and the lack of clear leadership in the federal government.
Online discussions about this complete turnaround are heavily intertwined with worry about international conflicts, particularly in the Middle East. Americans are extremely worried about political and military leadership, viewing this situation as evidence that no clear direction or mission is driving decision making.
Partisan Disagreements Worsen Amid Chaos
Voters were generally angry about the plea deal to begin with and, while many are thankful it was negated, the complete disarray among leaders does not inspire confidence. There are national security concerns, evaporating governmental trust, questions about justice, and anger about the broader context of the War on Terror.
There is a stark divide among the public, with some arguing the government's reversal is a necessary stance to ensure that KSM faces the full weight of the law. These voices often advocate for the death penalty, reflecting a belief that the ultimate punishment is essential for crimes of such magnitude. Others viewed the plea deal as a pragmatic approach to preventing prolonged and potentially fruitless legal battles.
The most common keyword in these conversations is "trust," reflecting the erosion of public confidence in U.S. leadership. Voters express a shared sentiment that poor decision making contributes to an already growing distrust in political institutions and legal processes. There is also a belief that government selectively enforces the law based on political convenience.
The term "betrayal" surfaces frequently, encapsulating a sense of disappointment and disillusionment. There is a prevailing sentiment that reneging on the plea deal undermines the credibility of the U.S. justice system and anyone who allowed it to be made in the first place. The plea deal was divisive from the beginning, but the perception of bureaucratic infighting worsens optics.
Who is Running the Country
There is noticeable frustration about the glaring lack of leadership and governance from President Biden. As global conflicts intensify and various U.S. leaders seem to be in conflict with each other, these conversations grow increasingly critical and polarized. Americans worry infighting between various people with decision-making power shows their priorities are on their own agendas rather than America’s safety and security.
Mentions of Kamala Harris are often accompanied by sentiments of disapproval and censure. Many question whether she is the person running the country and, if so, whether complete administrative chaos is what a Harris administration would bring. There is also a wealth of rhetoric associating Harris’s leadership with ongoing crises such as the market crash, the border crisis, and extreme uncertainty about war.
Blaming Joe Biden and Kamala Harris
People discuss the role of Vice President Kamala Harris in the Biden administration and how she is perceived in various political and policy contexts. There is widespread concern about her ability to handle critical issues unfolding across international politics, the economy, and national security. Voters are divided on her performance, but many point out her failures, blaming her and Biden for the current confusion and disarray in U.S. governance.
Public sentiment toward Biden-Harris often leans negative, particularly when discussing issues under Harris’s influence. General perceptions of policy reversals, with terms like "flip-flopping" and "opportunist," lambast the inconsistency in her political stances, further fueling negative sentiment. This perception of inconsistency at the highest levels of leadership only domino down to the seeming confusion with events like this KSM plea deal and the Defense Secretary’s subsequent reversal.
The issue of terrorism and foreign policy also generates significant discussion. References to topics like "Middle East conflict" and explicit mentions of militant groups like "Hamas" intertwine Harris’s name with broader themes of national and international security. With many fearing the world is on the brink of war, failures in critical decisions like plea deals with terrorists terrifies Americans.
With several outlets publishing opinion polls on the presidential matchup of Donald Trump vs Kamala Harris, MIG Reports data shows American are skeptical. This skepticism is especially sharp toward traditional, or establishment, news and media outlets.
While perceptions of political polling's reliability vary greatly, a substantial portion of the public appears to distrust these polls. This skepticism stems from previous experiences where polls have failed to predict actual election outcomes accurately.
Currently, Kamala’s support base, while diverse, shows nuanced characteristics revealing both genuine admiration and reactive support spurred by political attacks. The overarching sentiment among Harris supporters online is a rallying around her in opposition to Trump. This "us versus them" mentality often fuels an online reactionary defense, rather than positive support or a nuanced understanding of policy issues.
Analysis of real-time conversations about Harris’s position on important voter issues betrays an underlying negativity that does not seem consistent with polling.
Border Security
Voter view of Vice President Kamala Harris and her failure at the U.S. border are negative, focusing on harsh criticisms for her policies. The primary sentiment is driven by frustration over her failure to manage immigration issues. People accuse her of being a key figure in allowing an extreme border crisis.
Discussion Highlights
Increased Illegal Immigration: Critics cite Harris's role in allowing unchecked illegal immigration, alleging 10 million or more illegal entries. They lament the strain on social services and infrastructure.
Border Wall and Security: There is significant discourse about Harris halting border wall construction and reversing previous policies, with anger over ending agreements like "Remain in Mexico.”
Impact on Safety and Crime: Many believe increased illegal immigration has led to a rise in crime, including drug trafficking and violence, posing threats to community safety and national security.
Economic Concerns: Critics accuse Harris policies of causing higher living costs, burdening taxpayers who feel they are supporting illegal immigrants through social services.
Policy Stance: People view Harris as supporting radical policies, such as abolishing ICE and offering free healthcare to undocumented immigrants, which are massively unpopular.
While support for Harris on border issues is limited, her supporters claim her efforts have been limited to addressing migration's root causes and advocating for comprehensive immigration reform. They view her approach as balancing security with compassion and aligning with American humanitarian values.
Sentiment Trends
Lack of Leadership: Many express dissatisfaction with Biden-Harris inaction, noting infrequent visits to the border and lack of communication with Border Patrol leaders.
Legislative Failures: Critics claim her policies have not led to substantive border security reforms and have resulted in bureaucratic inefficiencies and legislative gridlock.
Border Czar Failures
Harris's role as "Border Czar" also garners widespread criticism, along with broader views of border security. Voters express dissatisfaction, accusing her of failing in her leadership position, allowing record illegal crossings and compromising national security. Critics directly link her oversight to increased crime, drug trafficking, and threats to public safety.
This negativity suggests a lack of confidence in her ability to solve critical problems or speak meaningfully to Americans about things they view as important. With border security consistently among the top three critical issues to voters, and Harris’s Border Czar role providing direct oversight, border security serves as a gauge of Kamala’s administrative competence—or lack thereof.
Discussion Highlights
Negative Sentiment: People view Harris as exacerbating the border situation. They say she has allowed millions of illegal immigrants into the country, citing statistics to support claims of increased crossings and security risks.
Policy Criticisms: Discussions use phrases like "decriminalized crossing," "funding for ICE," and "border patrol agents," and indicate disapproval for her lack of action.
Lack of Positive Outcomes: Voters point out a lack of concrete, positive outcomes from Kamala's leadership. Critics often question her qualifications and effectiveness in managing important issues.
International Unrest
A huge focus also places heavy negativity on international security dynamics. Voters on both sides disapprove of Harris’s stance on Israel and Palestine, and her broader foreign policy. The most frequently discussed issues involve her support for Israel, approaches to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, and her strategies for managing threats posed by Iran and its proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas.
Discussion Highlights
Us vs. Them: Supporters rally around Harris as the savior from a potential second Trump term, touting her resilience and ability to tackle complex policy issues.
Support for Israel: Harris’s strong Israel support gains approval, especially with those who see Israel as a critical ally. However, pro-Palestine Democrats express dissatisfaction.
Bipartisan Unhappiness: Harris's advocacy for increased humanitarian aid to Gaza does not go far enough for pro-Palestine voters, while her support for Israel does not go far enough for pro-Israel voters.
Diplomatic Strategy: Harris’s theoretical focus on diplomatic solutions over military interventions, particularly regarding Iran, may appeal to a war-weary electorate. However, lack of action or public statements also concerns voters.
Reactive Support: Much of Harris’s support is reactionary, defending her against Republican criticisms and highlighting her management of issues like the Ukraine conflict and border security.
Sentiment Trends
Support for Harris is strong among those who appreciate her foreign policy positions. However, it is also possible that Democrats and anti-Trump voters project their own foreign desires on a candidate who has outlined very few concrete stances. Harris’s base is energized more by opposition attacks than by affirmative policy positions.
MIG Reports data analysis of Democratic voter opinions about Joe Biden shows top priorities are partisan. Mentions of "cognitive decline" and "cognitive issues" are notably absent from the discourse, suggesting a lack of concern or acknowledgment among Democrats. Instead, the prevailing discussions focus on Joe Biden's achievements, actions, and leadership qualities, reflecting a strong support base as the President rapidly recedes from public awareness.
A Love-Hate Relationship with Biden
Democratic sentiment toward Joe Biden appears highly favorable as many pronounce commendations of his policy successes and overall governance. This is disorienting for some who highlight Democrat and media hypocrisy in the last several weeks.
In a matter of days, Democrats seemed to do a 180-degree spin from fawning praise to vehement criticism before and after the first presidential debate. The confusion is deepened by Democratic voices again turning on a dime back to glowing praise following Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race—completing a 360-degree head spin.
Now, many Democrats extol Biden's competence in economic management, using phrases like "economic growth" and "master class in economic management.” These discussions emphasize a belief in the Biden-Harris administration's effectiveness at driving economic progress. These supporters actively promote further investment in the administration's vision.
Another prevalent theme in Democratic conversations is Biden’s perceived efficacy in international affairs and high-profile negotiations. The release of U.S. hostages from Russia provides a recent example for supporters to showcase Biden's adept diplomatic skills. They say things like, "Thank you, President Biden and VP Kamala Harris!" to underscore their appreciation.
The same group, however, fall silent during incidents like a seemingly confused President Biden boarding the plane which just delivered hostages Messrs. Gershkovich and Whelan. They also fail to comment on incoherent and confusing statements from both Biden and Harris.
Joe Biden climbed back up the stairs of an airplane that had just arrived and he wasn’t flying on, as Kamala watched in amazement
Criticism of Biden within Democratic circles is sporadic and tends to involve attacks from opposing political figures rather than internal dissent. Some use words like "backstabbing," presumably referencing rumors that Biden was pushed out by party leadership.
Those questioning Biden's legitimacy as the sitting president are framed as Republican sympathizers rather than Democratic voters with legitimate concerns. The overarching tone is defensive and protective of Biden against perceived partisan attacks.
Finally, the collaboration and mutual support within the Democratic political landscape are highlighted. There are swells of endorsements for Biden's administration, with Harris as the successor.
Voters discuss "gun reforms," "Biden-Harris saved lives," and accolades from "economics professors" in a collective effort to bolster the administration's accomplishments and rally continued support. This is despite numerous and consistent hits on Joe Biden’s approval throughout the past week of several key topics.
Recently, a plea deal was made involving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 terror attacks. The deal allowed terrorists, who have been held in Guantanamo Bay for decades, to plead guilty and resolve the case without a long, drawn-out trial. Reactions to this plea deal are polarized and emotional.
Public sentiment towards KSM includes anger, frustration, and a desire for justice. Many discussions highlight his role as an architect of the September 11 terror attacks, stirring emotions rooted in the collective trauma from that day. The name elicits strong reactions from Americans, often leading to harsh responses about failures of the U.S. legal and military systems in dealing with such high-profile terrorists.
A recurring keyword in these conversations is "justice." Many Americans would prefer tough, swift, and unequivocal justice when it comes to Mohammed's prosecution. This sentiment underscores frustrations with prolonged legal battles and the bureaucratic maneuvering which has delayed a sense of resolution.
Sustained Fury Over September 11
Many Americans view KSM exclusively through the lens of his role in 9/11. His name evokes memories of one of the darkest days in modern American history. This creates a collective sentiment of bitterness and demand for justice.
The prevailing sentiment among Americans is a strong desire for accountability and retribution for the atrocities of that day. This is compounded by an underlying sense of frustration with the protracted legal proceedings and the perceived inefficiencies of the justice system in dealing with such universally hated figures.
Much of the discourse criticizes the Biden administration and Vice President Kamala Harris for their involvement in the plea deal. Voters express outrage, seeing it as a symbol of weakness and a betrayal of promises made to the victims of the 9/11 attacks. This sentiment of anger and betrayal is coupled with a sense of national security being compromised.
Partisan Views of the Situation
Politically, discussions about KSM often intersect with broader debates on national security and counterterrorism policies. Conservatives use his case to argue for stringent measures and robust national security policies.
They advocate for a no-compromise stance on terrorism and criticize any perceived leniency or delays in bringing terrorists to justice. This viewpoint is often tied to broader support for policies that emphasize security over humanitarian leniency, including the continued use of Guantanamo Bay as a detention facility.
Progressive factions take the opportunity to critique the methods and strategies employed in the War on Terror. They highlight issues of human rights abuses, such as the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, or torture, and indefinite detention without trial.
Liberal critiques claim to address the ethical and legal ramifications of counterterrorism and war practices, arguing they undermine American values and the rule of law. Additionally, there is scrutiny on the transparency and accountability of military and intelligence operations.
The references to KSM also trigger discussions on America’s international relations, particularly in the Middle East. There is growing concern about the potential for global escalation and how the Biden administration’s actions impact these possibilities.
White House Rubs Salt in the Wound
During a White House briefing, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre's lackluster apology to the families of 9/11 victims generated anger. The predominant sentiment expressed by voters is one of dissatisfaction and frustration. Many feel that a simple apology is insufficient, perceiving it as a dismissive gesture rather than a meaningful acknowledgment of their grief and the longstanding impacts of the tragedy.
REPORTER: What's your message to the families of 9/11 victims who are upset the Harris-Biden admin spared the mastermind of 9/11 from a trial and the death penalty?
Public discourse also reveals a sense of betrayal and anger, as families of 9/11 victims see this response as emblematic of the government's insincerity and obfuscation. This perceived insensitivity has become a focal point for wider criticisms against the administration, especially concerning national security and veterans' affairs.
Negative reactions are not limited to one political faction. Both Democrats and Republicans find common ground in their shared disapproval of how the White House is handling this sensitive issue. Americans want accountability and more trustworthy leadership.
Many feel the Biden administration is failing to hold anyone accountable, exacerbating a climate of distrust toward politicians and the media. This impacts public perception of credibility and the President’s commitment to addressing issues Americans find important.
People use words like “dismissive,” “disrespect,” and “heartless. underscoring the emotional weight carried by the issue. Voters feel a profound personal connection to 9/11, and many are furious with leaders for insensitivity and claims of not being involved in the plea deal.
Americans express relief and gratitude for the release of American hostages held by Russia, including journalist Evan Gershkovich, ex-Marine Paul Whelan, and Alsu Kurmasheva. However, there is also a complex underlying discussion about the Biden administration’s strategy, timing, and competence.
Conversations online show a mixture of gratitude, skepticism, and critical evaluations of broader foreign policies. There are overt emotional tones as Americans express relief at hostages being brought home. Nevertheless, there is anger and disappointment from those who perceive the negotiation's terms as unfavorable.
Overall, sentiment regarding Russia and international security received a slight bump with news of American hostages coming home.
Americans are positive about returning our countrymen but express negativity about the terms of the swap and the Biden administration.
Praise and Criticism for the Hostage Swap
Biden supporters show profound relief and appreciation for the administration's efforts to secure the hostage release. They consider it a successful negotiation and a significant diplomatic victory. They cite it as evidence of Biden's leadership and capacity to manage complex international crises.
Critics express gratitude for the return of American citizens but question the timing and terms of the prisoner swap. This group laments what the United States conceded to Russia in the exchange. They use terms like "unknown trade-offs," "concessions," and "secret deals," reflecting an underlying distrust of the administration's transparency and decision-making processes.
Many also argue the administration's timing was politically motivated, strategically using the deal to bolster Democratic support leading into the election. They say, rather than prioritizing the hostages' welfare, Biden used them as leverage when it was convenient for Democrats.
There are comparisons between Biden and former President Trump with Democrats suggesting Biden successfully accomplished what Trump could not. Trump's supporters, however, accuse the Biden administration of undermining American interests and being overly conciliatory toward adversarial nations like Russia.
Larger International Issues
The hostage swap is also inevitably intertwined with broader debates on U.S. foreign policy and national security. Some accuse the Biden administration of being lenient or complicit in other international issues, such as its stance on Israel and Ukraine.
People use terms like "complicity," "leniency," and "appeasement" to suggest Biden policies embolden adversaries and create unnecessary dangers for America. Many say the administration's actions demonstrate a lack of strength, negotiating from a position of weakness.
Critics argue the deal’s terms give away too much in return, including lifting sanctions and releasing individuals involved in serious crimes. There are also claims that this deal could set a dangerous precedent, potentially encouraging future detentions of Americans abroad.
Detractors argue Biden's approach might embolden adversaries by demonstrating a willingness to engage in negotiations, which they equate with capitulation or weakness. This group says Trump secured the release of hostages without making concessions or paying ransoms, thereby maintaining a stronger posture on the global stage.
Kamala Serves Up a Word Salad
In their joint public statement upon the hostages landing on home soil, President Biden and VP Harris also generated discussion and criticism. Many on the right accused Harris of delivering incoherent statements in her signature “word salad” fashion.
Many use her extemporaneous statements, which are often confusing and seemingly circular, as a reason to question her capability in handling complex international diplomacy. These detractors often draw comparisons to Joe Biden’s declining cognitive capabilities and Harris’s similarly meaningless and vapid remarks. People also question who is actually in charge of the country, viewing Harris as essentially in power, despite Biden still appearing as a figurehead.
The fact that first Joe Biden and now Kamala Harris cannot speak coherently without a teleprompter is not a bug but a feature for the staffers who run the presidency. The Party is more comfortable vesting authority in a politburo than a chief executive.pic.twitter.com/uRvZrTylLR
Some also speculate about Biden’s apparent public confusion, sharing footage of him boarding the plane that brought U.S. hostages home. People wonder whether he wasn’t aware of where to go or what was happening. Others suggest perhaps he was using the airplane’s restroom.
Biden walked onto the plane after the prisoners got off
The rapidly increasing potential war between Iran and Israel amid recent assassinations is causing highly charged conversation. Americans are deeply polarized but concern seems to be the dominant point of agreement.
Online voter dialogue reveals strong opinions about recent military actions by Israel, especially the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, Iran, and the killing of other senior Hezbollah leaders.
A key determination of the tone of conversation is the lens through which Americans view the situation. This ideological viewpoint disparity has been dividing observers since the initial Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023.
War Focus: Israel Sets the Tone
Public sentiment appears to be divided into distinct camps. There is a significant pro-Israel group who justify Israel's actions as necessary for self-defense and the elimination of terrorist threats. This group emphasizes Israel's right to protect its citizens and the strategic importance of removing high-level adversaries like Haniyeh and threats posed by Hamas and Hezbollah. They often cite the brutality of Hamas' attacks on Israeli civilians as justification for military action.
On the other hand, there is considerable opposition to Israel's military actions, with many seeing the assassinations as provocative and unnecessary escalation. This perspective views Israeli actions as undermining peace efforts and provoking further violence. Critics argue Israel is pushing for broader regional conflict, destabilizing the Middle East further. They often say Israel wants to cause unnecessary civilian suffering. Many in the group regularly call for a ceasefire.
Discussion Trends
The two sides discuss the effectiveness and morality of Israel's military actions, the implications for regional security, the potential response from Iran, the role of international diplomacy, and the influence of U.S. politics on the conflict. There are heated debates on whether the assassinations are justified and whether they will lead to further violence.
There is high engagement and emotional responses to the unfolding events, reflecting a collective uncertainty about the future. Feelings vary sharply based on ideological viewpoints, with conservatives generally supporting the military actions and liberals often opposing them.
Electoral Impact
Conversations suggest moderate voters will likely vote according to their stance on Israel and the potential for war. Those who support a strong, pro-Israel stance and view decisive military action as effective in ensuring security tend to express a preference for Trump. They associate Trump with a strong security posture, citing past examples where no significant conflicts erupted under his watch.
Voters who support Palestine and emphasize a ceasefire or Israel backing down tend to prefer Kamala Harris. However, Harris receives significant criticism for extreme progressives for her perceived insufficient condemnation of Israel. She also gets criticism from the right on her association with groups sympathetic to Palestine.
Israel Focus: Security, or Escalation?
The situation between Israel and Iran is tense and Americans fear direct military confrontation. Iran's Supreme Leader, Khamenei, has reportedly ordered a strike on Israel in retaliation for the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.
This development highlights the geopolitical volatility of the Middle East, where Israel's actions are viewed both as necessary for self-defense and as potentially provocative. The assassination has sparked debates about the ethics and implications of Israel's advanced cyber warfare tactics.
Electoral Impact
Independent and undecided voters are closely watching these developments, often aligning with broader political affiliations. Those favoring former President Trump argue his policies prevented such escalations, associating his approach with maintaining peace.
Progressive undecideds support Joe Biden and Kamala Harris over Trump. However, Harris faces criticism for perceived leniency on Iran, which some believe emboldens aggression against Israel. Voters who sympathize with the Palestinians advocate for Harris to distance the U.S. from allyship with Israel.
Iran Focus: Diplomacy, or War?
The assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran sparks volatile emotions. This worsens concerns of rising tensions between Israel, Iran, and their allies. The assassination, attributed to an Israeli strike, has provoked both celebration and condemnation on different sides. Many fear this incident could lead to a wider regional conflict, potentially involving America and escalating into a full-scale war.
Electoral Impact
Independent and undecided voters are swayed by these developments. Supporters of strong military actions against groups like Hamas might lean towards Trump, viewing him as a guarantee of assertive foreign policy.
Those who oppose Israel are drawn to Kamala Harris, provided they see her as capable of managing international crises effectively. Sentiments fluctuate between fear of large-scale war and hope for decisive action against perceived threats, influencing political affiliations and voter inclinations.
Online conversations about Gen Z and Millennial Americans’ retirement prospects reveal anxieties about stability and future financial security. The younger generations harbor severe skepticism about their financial situations and the trajectory of the economy. They are critical of government and leadership actions, especially the Biden-Harris administration.
Retirement? I Can’t Afford Food
When thinking about the future, people talk about inflation, taxation, employment, and energy policies. One prominent concern is increasing inflation, which many attribute to legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Many view the IRA as exacerbating rather than alleviating inflationary pressures.
Others repeat government talking points that Democratic policies have been instrumental in curbing inflation. They reference statistics like the lowering of inflation to 2.5% over the past year.
Younger voters constantly worry about the rising cost of living. There is widespread sentiment that everyday expenses like gas, groceries, and housing, have outrageously unaffordable. Many attribute this surge in costs to the economic decisions made by the federal government.
Americans particularly criticize federal spending on various relief and infrastructure bills. These discussions prominently mention the adverse effects on average American households. They say financial strain is significantly hindering their ability to contribute to retirement savings and long-term financial planning.
Taxes are also a huge topic among younger voters, although many are split in their views on tax policies. Some express concern about increasing tax burdens, particularly related to Democratic plans to eliminate Trump-era tax cuts. People mention potential hikes and wealth redistribution through social programs, which they say disproportionately affect the middle and lower economic classes.
Trending keywords include:
Inflation
Taxes
Cost of living
Bidenomics
Inflation Reduction Act
Job market
Social Security
Economic policies
Sentiment Patterns
Voter sentiment is mostly negative about the current economic climate. This is especially pronounced with criticisms of the Biden-Harris administration's handling of economic policies, inflation, and national debt.
Demographically, the critiques appear to span various regions and economic classes, with large numbers of middle-class and working-class Americans expressing dissatisfaction. Millennials and Gen Z voices are prominent, expressing concerns about the future. They mention things like student loan burdens, job market uncertainties, and the feasibility of homeownership and retirement savings plans.
Geographically, sentiments fluctuate across both liberal and conservative states. However, there does seem to be a national preoccupation with economic issues. While sentiments occasionally vary, the core concerns of rising costs and economic instability appear to be universal.
As conversations of the increasing likelihood of global conflict dominate social media, many worry about America's role in global conflicts and other national security concerns. With a firehose of global and political news in the last month, many right leaning Americans wish for Donald Trump to return to X. They say his vocal presence might bolster his political influence, particularly among young, undecided, and Independent voters.
After being banned prior to Elon Musk buying Twitter and rebranding it as X, Donald Trump’s only post on the platform since Musk subsequently reinstated his account was his famous mug shot in 2023. Many MAGA voters say increased visibility and opportunities for direct interaction could amplify Trump's rhetoric and potentially sway voters in his favor.
Supporters argue limiting his posts to Truth Social sacrifices engagement opportunities, especially amid heightened interest in security-related topics. There are also reports about the Kamala Harris campaign account “Kamala HQ” generates significantly more engagement than the “Trump War Room” account.
REPORT: 'Kamala HQ' is crushing the Trump campaign on X, reaching almost 10x as many people as Trump War Room.
'Kamala HQ's' messaging is dominating on X as they are going all in on attacking Vance with their "edgy Gen Z" approach.
Online conversations greatly revolve around U.S. foreign policy, military engagements, and national security strategies. With growing concerns about the U.S. presidency—or lack thereof, Americans want a strong presence from strong leaders.
Many mention fears regarding Israel, Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas, and Middle East conflict. Trump's policy positions on these issues, especially his assertive stance on Israel's security and his criticisms of the Biden-Harris administration, resonate deeply with his core supporters. This leads them to call for his voice on X.
Discussion trends indicate Trump’s potential return to X might intensify these divides. Tweets and conversations often highlight major events such as the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, retaliatory actions by Hezbollah, and U.S. military presence in hotspots like Syria and Afghanistan. People often compare Trump and Biden-era foreign policies, reinforcing either support or opposition to Trump's potential political reinvolvement.
MAGA Misses Trump’s Voice on Global Issues
Sentiment trends reveal a fluctuating landscape. Many voice nostalgia for Trump's “peace through strength” doctrine, juxtaposing it with Democratic strategies. This sentiment is particularly strong with those who believe strongman tactics are necessary to counteract global threats and safeguard American interests.
MAGA voters want a return to Trump's hardline policies, viewing his approach as essential for maintaining America's global standing and ensuring national security. They say Trump's strong alliances with Israel, his firm measures against Iran, and his decisive military strategies were effective in keeping threats at bay.
Those calling for Trump to return to X typically blame recent escalations in global conflict zones on the ineffective leadership of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
There are some advocating for restraint in America's military engagements. They press for international cooperation and humanitarian considerations, preferring diplomatic solutions over military interventions. However, this group rarely acknowledges the lack of active conflict under Trump’s administration.
Possible Impact
The analysis of these conversations suggests Trump returning to X could significantly impact political dynamics. The heightened visibility and discourse on security issues might reinforce his appeal to those who prioritize a more assertive national security strategy and potential new supporters. However, it also risks deepening the existing chasms in public opinion, highlighting the complexities of navigating foreign policy in the modern geopolitical landscape.
After a biological male was allowed to box a woman at the Olympics, many Americans are voicing strong objections and outrage. Female boxer Angela Carini withdrew from the match after only 46 seconds, saying it was the hardest she’d even been hit and that she could not breathe after a blow to her nose.
Imane Khelif's participation highlights concerns about unfair competition due to biological male advantages. People argue Khelif’s inclusion undermines the integrity of women’s sports, given the athlete's previous exclusion from the World Boxing Championship for failing a testosterone test and possessing XY chromosomes.
This sentiment encapsulates a broader frustration with the disproportionate influence of woke ideologies in sports and politics. Critics call for separate categories for transgender or intersex athletes or the establishment of a Trans Games akin to the Paralympics to preserve fairness in competitive sports.
After 46 seconds and a few hits to the face by a male, Carini forfeited the fight.
Call me crazy, but It's almost as if women don't want to be punched in the face by a male as the world watches and applauds.
Many are also pointing out the International Boxing Association’s (IBA) statement on the matter, which urged people to question the Olympic committee on why this was allowed.
BREAKING. The International Boxing Association has released the following scathing statement regarding women’s boxing.
— Jennifer 🟥🔴🧙♀️🦉🐈⬛ 🦖 (@babybeginner) July 31, 2024
High profile figures like J.K. Rowling and Jake Paul have also spoken out on the issues, objecting to the event as a global outrage.
Could any picture sum up our new men’s rights movement better? The smirk of a male who’s knows he’s protected by a misogynist sporting establishment enjoying the distress of a woman he’s just punched in the head, and whose life’s ambition he’s just shattered. #Paris2024pic.twitter.com/Q5SbKiksXQ
Most reactions express anger, calling for fairness in women's sports. People often express concerns about fairness and safety, emphasizing that men are physically stronger than women—including intersex individuals with the physical advantages of biological men.
People vehemently argue that men do not belong in women's sports, criticizing the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and demanding action.
There are some supporters who call for "inclusivity," "progress," and "equity." They argue allowing men and women to compete in the same events is a step forward for gender equality in sports. This group seeks to challenge traditional gender norms and promote a more inclusive sporting environment.
Some supporters also allege that Khelif is not a transgender athlete but someone with DSD (differences of sexual development) or intersex. However, many in opposition argue this point is not relevant when intersex athletes with XY chromosomes still possess male physical advantages.
Overall, reactions are unified in their disapproval of Carini even being allowed in the ring with a male boxer.
Political Overlap
Reactions are not solely fixated on the match itself but connected with wider political battles. Discussions often include denunciations of liberal and socialist ideologies, highlight the progressive stance that transgender inclusion is the highest priority above female safety.
A male getting his feelings hurt matters more to @iocmedia & @TheDemocrats than a woman getting physically hurt
Conservatives tend to argue progressives aim to dismantle traditional structures and norms. This outrage is often paired with criticisms of Democratic officials like Kamala Harris. People on the right and even some moderates point out that progressives like Kamala Harris promote “inclusion” and “equity” in sports, staying silent when women like Carini pay a physical price.
Another prevalent narrative is the perception of hypocrisy and political exploitation. Critics accuse progressives of promoting policies that allegedly harm women under the guise of inclusivity. Discussions often highlight claims of inconsistency, pointing out that gender identity and transgender issues conflict with feminist principles. People also accuse Democrats of hypocrisy for calling Republicans like J.D. Vance “weird,” while staying silent on female boxers being punched in the face by men.
Dudes are beating up girls in the Olympics but @JDVance is weird…
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)