The recent assassination attempt on former president Donald Trump has generated a tsunami of conversation online. In the immediate aftermath, social media platforms lit up with comments from various factions across the political spectrum, showcasing a mixture of disbelief, conspiracy theories, and outright hostility.

Some anti-Trump individuals went so far as expressing regret that the shooter missed Trump, causing significant backlash. Objections show a mixture of anger, condemnation, and a call for accountability. Many express outrage at such statements, labeling them morally bankrupt and indicative of deeper issues within American political discourse.

Liberal Reactions to Trump Being Shot

The left responded to the attempted assassination with a mixture of denial and downplaying of the severity of the incident. Some maintain it was an isolated event not indicative of a broader trend of political violence among their ranks.

However, there are also clear divisions within the left. Some moderate voices condemn the assassination attempt unequivocally while radicals either dismiss the event as fabricated or suggest it was deserved. Many, like Tenacious D band member Kyle Gass, made comments like, “Don’t miss next time,” or expressed similar disappointment.

Conspiracy theories quickly spread on the left, with some suggesting the assassination was a staged stunt designed to garner sympathy for Trump. These theories range from accusing Trump’s own team of orchestrating the attempt, to claims of a false flag operation to paint the opposition in a negative light.

Conservatives Object

Republican circles and Trump loyalists have taken the assassination attempt as further proof of what they describe as an unhinged and violent leftist agenda. They point fingers at the mainstream media, liberal politicians, and social media rhetoric for increasing the chances of violence. Many also speculate about how badly the Secret Service mishandled the situation, with critiques focusing on security lapses, lack of preparedness, and potentially cynical negligence.

Liberal reactions and the disappointment over Trump’s survival have caused many on the right to claim hypocrisy among those calling for “unity” and “lowering the temperature.” After Biden’s statements and the media’s relentless insistence on Republicans toning down rhetoric, many conservatives are enraged. Some are calling for anyone making heinous comments about the assassination online to face consequences.

Many perceive leftist sentiments as not only inflammatory but contributing to a dangerous climate of political violence. People condemn both individuals and the media for perpetuating or tolerating aggressive anti-Trump rhetoric.

Jack Black and Tenacious D

The incident involving Jack Black and Tenacious D showed a video of Kyle Glass making outrageous statements against Trump on stage at a show. This generated severe anger from conservatives—many of whom called for accountability for the celebrities.

BREAKING: Jack Black and Tenacious D are halting all future shows after bandmate Kyle Gass said on stage he wishes Trump was shot and k*lled.

In a new statement, Black says he was blindsided by the statement and was postponing shows.

“I was blindsided by what was said at the… pic.twitter.com/T1B5iDA3WT

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 16, 2024

Soon after the controversy, Jack Black released an apology and announced the band’s tour would be canceled. Some attributed this turn of events to an Australian senator calling for Tenacious D to be deported from Australia.

Australian Senator Ralph Babet calls for the immediate deportation of Tenacious D after Kyle Gass called on other would-be assassins not to miss their shots on Trump. pic.twitter.com/uNkD6ZJ5tB

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) July 16, 2024

Some Black fans criticized perceived censorship, arguing for artistic freedom and the right to controversial expression. Most on the right celebrated the acknowledgement and apology from Black. They also expressed satisfaction when reports emerged that Kyle Gass was dropped from his talent agency.

Cancel Culture Discussions on the Right

Jack Black and Tenacious D are a high-profile example of leftists facing consequences for their divisive rhetoric. But many on the right are also calling for average Americans to suffer punishments for their comments about the assassination attempt.

The prominent X account LibsOfTikTok has been calling out and documenting firings of many who shared Kyle Gass’s sentiments online. These “cancelations” have sparked controversy on the right about where the line should be for accountability versus cancel culture.

A particular case of a Home Depot worker losing her job has generated sharp disagreement. The woman was let go for making comments about the shooter online, allegedly saying he, “should have been a better shot.”

BREAKING: Home Depot confirmed this person is no longer an employee. https://t.co/LMfoMU5ava pic.twitter.com/DoH9JR2lsL

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 16, 2024

Some on the right say fervent backlash against average Americans like the Home Depot worker are taking cancel culture too far. This group often says they approve of consequences for those with large platforms and influence like Tenacious D, but getting minimum wage workers fired is “punching down.”

Others on the right argue that, to stop leftist censorship tactics, they must receive a taste of their own medicine. This group argues conservatives being canceled for their religion, COVID vaccine or lockdown objections, and denial of gender ideology now have an obligation to turn the tables.

Among those advocating for taking a harder stance, cancel culture is sometimes reframed as a form of "accountability culture." They differentiate between canceling someone for their beliefs and addressing statements that endorse or incite violence. Under this framework, calling for the firing or shaming of individuals who make particularly egregious or dangerous comments is seen not as cancel culture, but as holding them accountable for harmful behavior.

On a more strategic level, some conservatives argue utilizing cancel culture could be an effective short-term tactic in a broader cultural war. By demonstrating they are willing to fight fire with fire, conservatives aim to force progressives to reconsider their use of cancel culture. This, they believe, might lead to a mutual disarmament, where both sides agree to cease leveraging social and professional exclusion as political weapons.

Americans frequently talk online about censorship and the dangers of Big Tech and corporation gatekeeping. When they discuss these things a common subject, especially among right leaning voters, involves political discrimination.

One of the themes in online discussion includes credit card companies that track customer purchases and could potentially report certain purchases or even block usage. American reactions to this are deeply influenced by broader socio-political contexts, personal privacy concerns, and economic security apprehensions.

Americans Worry About Privacy

A huge concern for Americans across the political spectrum is privacy and surveillance. People express unease at the idea of Big Tech companies or other corporations having detailed records of their purchasing habits. This creates a sense of being constantly watched, which feels invasive to most citizens.

Many people also fear how their data might be used. There are worries around data marketing strategies or information being shared with third parties including government entities. Some see it as a breach of personal freedom, challenging the right to privacy in a digital age increasingly dominated by data capitalism.

Financial Surveillance and Censorship

Many Americans question whether they can trust banks or credit card companies. Discussions about the Canadian government shutting down trucker bank accounts during the protests of 2022 are frequently mentioned, especially among Republicans and conservatives. U.S. voters do not want to see similar political and financial discrimination emerge in America.

The potential for credit card companies to block usage based on political statements or purchase history adds a layer of anxiety. This is especially true considering how dependent modern society is on credit for daily expenses and emergency situations.

For those with precarious financial standings or who are living paycheck to paycheck, financial censorship could spell disaster. The power wielded by credit card companies—capable of determining a person’s financial solvency—fuels apprehension about corporate overreach and its implications on individual economic stability.

Regulation for Big Tech and Corporations

There are conversations about how to effectively implement regulation and accountability for credit card companies and other businesses. Voters call for greater transparency and oversight to prevent abuse of power.

There is also a vocal segment advocating for more stringent data regulations to ensure tracking and data collection are done ethically. Some want protective measures in place to prevent arbitrary withdrawal of services which customers cannot protest.

Most Americans are vocal about the need for stronger consumer protections. This includes calls for clearer guidelines on data usage and stricter penalties for companies that violate consumer trust. Different voter groups on both sides of the aisle discuss stricter regulations, although opinions about the method and degree of regulation differ.

Apprehension About Social Credit

Across the political spectrum, there is also considerable apprehension about a system that would evaluate personal behavior and use those evaluations to grant or restrict access to societal benefits or market participation.

This idea, often called a social credit score system, gets criticism as a dystopian measure that would bring unprecedented levels of government surveillance and control. Critics argue social credit would infringe on basic civil liberties like freedom of expression and privacy. They fear it would lead to an authoritarian state where compliance is coerced through the threat of social and economic penalties.

One of the main concerns Americans express is the potential for misuse and discrimination. There is a widespread belief that a social credit system would disproportionately affect marginalized groups, exacerbating existing prejudices.

Liberals tend to fear minorities and the underprivileged would face economic or racial discrimination. Those on the right tend to fear political discrimination and censorship of conservative beliefs.

The fear of constant monitoring and the subjective nature of what constitutes "good" or "bad" behavior exists for many groups and demographics. Depending on which groups a person identifies with, concerns emerge about outsiders setting social credit standards, leading to arbitrary and biased decision-making.

The idea that market participation could be contingent on adherence to specific behavioral norms is deeply unsettling for many Americans.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a government censorship case is causing controversy online. SCOTUS ruled 6-3 in Murthy v. Missouri, declining to hear a lawsuit aimed at limiting the government's ability to communicate with social media companies about content moderation.

The majority decision asserted the plaintiffs lacked standing, as they couldn't show a concrete link between their claimed restrictions and government actions. The case involved claims the Biden administration's 2021 efforts to censor COVID-19 vaccine information infringed on free speech.

Americans React to the SCOTUS Decision

Many Americans express feelings of betrayal and disappointment, viewing this ruling as a failure to protect First Amendment rights. Voters believe free speech extends to online spaces, as it does in person. There are online expressions of anger and determination to legally challenge any perceived infringement.

Some voters voice concerns that SCOTUS is endorsing government overreach and censorship. They fear it will set a dangerous precedent for future government control over private entities and free speech.

However, others argue the Supreme Court's decision was less about endorsing censorship and more about the intrinsic legal standing of the plaintiffs. They view the ruling as an indication that the case was weak, rather than the Court's approval of government involvement in social media regulation.

People fear the potential future ramifications for free speech both online and offline. There are assertions this ruling may embolden the government to increasingly suppress opposition via surreptitious means. Many people say they hope other, more solid legal cases can be brought to SCOTUS which will address big tech and the government’s increasing encroachment on civil liberties.

Partisan Reactions to the Decision

Conservatives and proponents of free speech are disappointed, arguing the decision undermines the fight against government overreach and censorship. This group largely views social media platforms as essential public forums where free expression should be protected. They fear the government’s influence on these platforms is a dangerous lever of control over discourse and information. They believe in the strong likelihood of partisan regimes stifling dissenting opinions.

Some libertarian leaning voters, while also critical of the decision, focus more on the implications for private enterprise and autonomy. They argue social media companies should operate free of governmental pressures and be allowed to moderate content according to their policies and independent of any state influence. This perspective centers on the belief that private businesses should not be coerced by the state, maintaining that such intervention violates key principles of a free market.

Liberals and moderates tend to support the Supreme Court’s decision, arguing the government’s involvement with social media platforms is often necessary to mitigate the spread of misinformation and harmful content. They view it as especially important during critical times like elections or public health crises.

For most Democrats, the primary concern is preventing what they deem as misinformation, which they believe can undermine democratic processes and foment social discord. They trust government oversight will safeguard the public interest and ensure social media does not become a breeding ground for radicalism.

Debates About SCOTUS Corruption

The decision also intensified ongoing political and ideological struggles, particularly from liberals, about a biased Supreme Court. There are many references to Trump's influence on the Court via his nominations. This rhetoric from Democrats fuels debates about the lasting impacts of SCOTUS appointments.

However, amid Democrat lamentations of a biased or corrupt court, conservative commenters say this ruling debunks the idea that Supreme Court Justices are in Trump’s pocket. Many argue that, if the court was biased, they would not have declined this censorship case.

Julian Assange’s release from HM Prison Belmarsh in London on June 24th ignited a firestorm on social media. Assange’s plea deal with U.S. prosecutors has generally been met with enthusiasm from free-speech crowds. However, online discourse cascades into deeper conversations about more than just Julian Assange.

MIG Reports data shows the discourse around Assange's release generates intense debates over free speech, freedom of the press, global politics, and government transparency. Much of the conversation is shaped by political orientation and national identity.

How People Are Reacting to Assange’s Freedom

Much of the online conversation celebrates Assange's release as a victory for freedom of the press and free speech. Many Americans praise Assange for his role in exposing government secrets and misconduct. They view him as a hero who has suffered unjustly for his commitment to transparency. This group often includes references to government overreach and the importance of safeguarding journalistic freedom as a cornerstone of democracy.

There is also skepticism and outright disapproval of Assange, questioning his methods and the legality of his actions. This sentiment often comes from those who believe Assange's activities endangered lives and compromised national security. For these Americans, Assange's release is a troubling precedent that could embolden similar actions in the future.

Both sides of the argument include emotional intensity with passionate language and strong opinions from those involved. Many posts include references to past grievances with political establishments, underscoring deeper, long-standing frustrations with issues of governance, accountability, and civil liberties.

Demographic Patterns

Younger generations, particularly those active on digital platforms like X and Reddit, tend to champion Assange as a symbol of the fight against corrupt institutions. This demographic often aligns with more libertarian or left-leaning political views and is deeply concerned with issues of digital rights and government surveillance.

Older demographics, particularly those with a military background or conservative leanings, are more likely to voice concerns about Assange's impact on national security. This group often promotes narratives of patriotism and the protection of state secrets as paramount to national safety, reflecting a more traditional perspective on law and order.

Impact Analysis

For some, Assange's release is a catalyst for deeper reflection on their political beliefs and actions. Assange supporters indicate this event reinforces their distrust in government institutions. They also say it increases their likelihood of supporting candidates who prioritize transparency and civil liberties.

For others, particularly those concerned with national security, the release reaffirms their support for tougher policies on government whistleblowers and classified information leaks. Moderates and independents show a strong interest in the issue, as it speaks to governmental accountability and civil liberties. These topics are becoming increasingly central to American political discourse.

Based on current trends, these demographics will likely remain engaged with the issue, potentially influencing their voting behavior in future elections. They might lean toward candidates who emphasize civil liberties and whistleblower protection, seeing the issues as important to democratic principles.

Reactions also highlight potential interest from undecided voters and Independents. While Assange's release might not be the sole consideration for their votes, it could influence these segments. Framing themes of government accountability and personal freedom will likely appeal to this group.

Those who are disillusioned with both major political parties might view Assange's predicament as indicative of systemic issues that need addressing. This could cause them to gravitate towards candidates who advocate for reform and transparency.

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

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

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

Very Fine People Hoax

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ashley Biden’s Diary

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

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

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

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

News of U.S. prosecutors recommending the Justice Department criminally charge Boeing for violating the settlement on fatal 737 Max crashes, is generating discussion. On June 18, Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun testified in the U.S. Senate about numerous issues which sparked widespread public reactions.

Public commentary focuses on the aviation giant's apparent safety lapses and retaliatory tactics against whistleblowers. Americans seem deeply concerned and outraged over the company's negligence and the emerging whistleblower claims, which add fuel to an already blazing fire of public discontent.

Sentiment Trends

American attitudes are predominantly negative towards Boeing. There is a strong sense of betrayal, with people feeling Boeing's leadership, including Calhoun, place profits above human lives and safety. The CEO's large salary amid these allegations only exacerbates public anger. This highlights a stark disconnect between Boeing's top brass and any serious consequences for their actions.

Many Americans draw parallels between Boeing's corporate practices and broader systemic issues within American political and business practices. Americans believe Boeing's safety issues represent a larger problem in which corporate malpractice goes unchecked due to weak regulatory oversight and prioritizing corporate profit over public welfare. The speculation about favoritism and insufficient criminal prosecution by the Justice Department fuels the narrative of systemic corruption.

Belief in corrupt corporations leads calls for a more extensive overhaul, beyond penalizing Boeing. Public opinion suggests holding individuals at the top levels of management accountable, including demands for Calhoun's resignation, could be a starting point. However, transforming this sentiment into a broader movement against systemic corporate and political negligence requires strategic framing.

Corporate Corruption in America

Many voters believe Boeing's quality control issues and lack of repercussions are emblematic of larger problems in corporate America. There are recurring mentions of corporate greed, regulatory failure, and political complicity. Voter suspicions include:

• Whistleblower deaths and retaliation show grave moral and legal corruption.
• Boeing's situation with other corporate malpractice cases reveals a pattern of corporate negligence under weak administration.

While the public's immediate reaction is one of anger and disappointment towards Boeing, there is potential to channel this sentiment into a broader movement against corporate hubris. People seem to want robust regulatory governance, which they hope can lead to a significant systemic overhaul.

Online discussion about corporate corruption isn't limited to Boeing. Many people draw parallels between Boeing's situation and other issues like corporate tax evasion, legal loopholes, and the perceived inadequacy of regulatory frameworks.

Some Americans further associate these corporate malpractices with a corrupt political establishment. They believe politicians across party lines tend to protect the interests of big corporations over those of ordinary citizens.

This negativity seems to be impacting Boeing’s stock, which is down in 2024. It also remains lower than when the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) between Boeing and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was announced on January 7, 2021. The agreement required Boeing to pay more than $2.5 billion to resolve the criminal charge of conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

On June 18th, the New York court of appeals declined to hear an appeal to remove Trump’s gag order. Americans took to social media with their reactions and MIG Reports is tracking a boost sentiment among anti-Trump voters. Outside of liberals celebrating the gag order remaining in place, the rest of Americans seem to disapprove of court actions against Donald Trump.

Reactions to Politicized Courts

The continuation of the gag order against Trump reveals both strong support and opposition to the former president. Those who support the gag order claim it is important to uphold the rule of law and maintain judicial integrity. They cite concerns over Trump's potential influence on ongoing legal proceedings.

Critics of the gag order view it as politically motivated and a violation of judicial integrity. They believe the order is aimed at silencing Trump and his supporters, describing it as blatant judicial overreach and partisan manipulation of the legal system. Discussions often extend to broader political issues, highlighting societal divisions and concerns about the precedent set by the court's decision.

Sentiment Trends

Those who support the gag order express glee and satisfaction at its continuation. They feel relieved at Trump’s continued hamstringing and feel cautiously optimistic about the justice system’s ability to "take down” their opponent.

Americans who view the judicial actions against Trumps as politically motivated react with intense disapproval and anger. They see the gag order as an attack on free speech and an attempt to weaponize the court against political opposition. They feel frustrated and perceive the decision as unjust, sparking calls for resistance and highlighting fears of future political reprisal.

Voter reactions to Steve Bannon being ordered to jail are divided but with severe negativity, much like opinions on Donald Trump's conviction. The rhetoric varies sharply, with a considerable number viewing the order as a red flag for the state of democracy in the U.S., while others believe it's necessary for the government to maintain its authority.

Discussion Trends

Critics of Jailing Bannon

• Critics of the order to jail Bannon view it as political persecution. They believe Bannon is a pawn in a political game orchestrated by the Biden administration.
• Comments accuse Biden's administration of using power to silence and jail political opponents. They equate these actions to tactics used by dictators and communist regimes.

• Critics see Bannon's indictment as a threat to governance and an attack on free speech. Common phrases include "deep state," "lawfare," and "banana republic," indicating distrust in institutional justice.
• There is a trend of linking this situation to broader conservative grievances. These grievances include perceived infringements on First Amendment and Second Amendment rights.

Those Cheering the Order

• Some view Bannon's indictment as a step towards accountability and upholding the rule of law. This narrative portrays Bannon as challenging institutional authority and jeopardizing democratic norms.
• These views are less visible compared to the critics of the actions taken against Bannon.
  

Rule of Law

A recurring topic within these discussions is the perceived decline of the rule of law in America. While both sides invoke this term, they interpret and apply it differently based on partisan perspectives. Some believe Bannon's punishment upholds the rule of law because he broke the law and must face the consequences just like any citizen.

However, others feel the rule of law is being undermined, contending that Bannon's case is an instance of political persecution rather than a lawful procedure.

There is disparate sentiment depending on a person’s political orientation. However, across the board, there is a shared concern for the health of American democracy and the country's justice system, though opinions on the current state of these institutions vary sharply.

Demographics play a significant role in the polarized viewpoints, with partisan affiliations primarily driving the discourse. Ideological differences aside, there appear to be shared anxieties about the rule of law, democracy, and the use of power in politics—themes that resonate with Americans of all political stripes.

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

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

Deep State

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

• Government bureaucracy
• Mainstream media
• The Biden administration

Discussion trends include:

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

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

Discussion and Sentiment Analysis

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

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

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