The FBI made waves on social media by announcing racist text messages targeting black students. This ignited strong reactions from voters across the political spectrum. The incident elicits different reactions from Republicans and Democrats, each viewing it through a lens of political belief and social priorities.

FBI Statement on Offensive and Racist Text Messageshttps://t.co/vpQYAO6LT7 pic.twitter.com/iDtN36WhX4

— FBI (@FBI) November 7, 2024

• Republicans emphasize personal responsibility, downplaying claims of widespread racism as a distraction from pressing issues like the economy.
• Democrats see the messages as evidence of systemic racism and call for reforms to address broader social inequities.
• Independents show mixed reactions, with some expressing frustration at the divisive narratives and calling unity.

Republicans React

On the right, voters largely interpret the reports of racist texts as “woke” overreactions. They are skeptical of racial incidents being given unwarranted attention for political gain. This group says news and federal agencies should focus on more pressing issues.

Many Republicans who already have very low trust in institutions like the FBI question the motivation for investigations. And some, including Rep. Thomas Massie, even jokingly suggest the FBI itself is creating a hoax.

It’s probably y’all sending them. Pack your bags. https://t.co/1EazekPpwI

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 8, 2024

• Skepticism: 54% of Republicans see the emphasis on these incidents as politically driven. They question the motivations behind amplifying the issue, often viewing it as Democratic leaders “pouncing” to sway public opinion.
• Individual Responsibility: Many Republicans argue incidents like these reflect individual behavior, not an indictment of Republicans writ large. They emphasize personal accountability over sweeping indictments.
• Economic Concerns: 63% of Republicans tie these racial issues to a perceived neglect of bigger issues like the economy. Some see the focus on racial grievances as misdirected energy, diverting attention from unifying issues.

Conservative voters say the Democratic approach to racial issues polarizes rather than unites. They criticize focusing on identity politics at the expense of addressing more substantive issues.

Democrats React

The left sees the text messages as part of a much larger problem of systemic and cultural racism. Their responses emphasize the importance of recognizing and addressing issues in educational institutions and communities, often condemning MAGA supporters as racist.

Let me just say I’m thankful for the texts & the calls, but nothing that I do has ever been about me. The pain that I feel is for “US” collectively, as a World.

I NEVER like being wrong but I’m praying that I am… the immediate aftermath 👇🏾doesn’t give me much hope, but… pic.twitter.com/GIKTmeM9ct

— Jasmine Crockett (@JasmineForUS) November 7, 2024

• Outrage: 83% of Democratic responses voice anger toward the incident, demanding immediate action and accountability for those responsible.
• Systemic Hatred: Democrats consistently view incidents like these as symptomatic of systemic racial issues. Many also say it’s representative of Trump voters and those on the right.
• Mobilization: They call for requirements around racial sensitivity and inclusivity, particularly on college campuses. They argue inclusion training is essential to prevent incidents like these and foster equity.

For many Democrats, these reports confirm assumptions that Republicans and conservatives are largely racist. They point to jokes and memes among Republicans as contributing to the problem—including black and gay Republicans making jokes about themselves being “sent to camps” or other tropes.

Independents React

Independents generally express a desire for unity and moderation, but they are torn between the polarized narratives. Some Independents resonate with the Republican emphasis on personal responsibility, while others decry racism.

• Mixed Reactions: Some Independents are frustrated by the grave responses to what they perceive as a troll. Others call for accountability, wary of greater division through racism.
• Local Over National: Many prioritize community-level solutions, such as fostering dialogue and understanding rather than calling for systemic or partisan action.
• Practical Solutions: Some Independents express frustration with both parties, advocating for addressing local needs rather than feeding into national ideological divides.

Themes of Division and Polarization

Both Republican and Democratic voters feel a sense of betrayal but for different reasons. Those on the right accuse the left of amplifying and even fanning the flames of racism, while Democrats cry out against unacceptable and harmful language.

• Narrative Framing: Republican voters view these incidents as overblown to push a divisive agenda, while Democrats interpret them as vital warnings of entrenched national racism.
• Distrust: Voters on both sides express distrust toward opposing party motives. Republicans see this as an attempt to demonize conservatives, while Democrats see Republican resistance as complicit or enabling.
• Irreparable Division: A sense of antagonism adds to the intensity of responses, as each group sees racial issues as symbolic of broader cultural problems.

Recent reports allege the Harris campaign spent the $1 billion dollars it fundraised, and after only 107 days, ended the campaign with a $20 million debt. This news elicits sharply negative voter reactions.

Reactions point to widespread perceptions of fiscal irresponsibility and elite detachment from American concerns. Voters express thankfulness that Harris lost, fearing such spending habits are indicative of Democratic tendencies with U.S. tax dollars.

Spender Versus Earner

Harris’s spending failures brighten the promises of fiscal conservatism by Trump.

• Financial Accountability: Trump supporters contrast his fiscal conservatism with Harris’s extravagant spending. Many align with his message of spending cuts, small government, and prioritizing taxpayer interests.
• Good for Trump: As the Harris budget deficit fuels perceptions of elitist excess, GOP and Independent voters call for Trump’s straightforward approach to budget efficiency and fiscal responsibility.
• Public and Private: Some point out that Trump’s success in the private sector earning money contrasts sharply with a career politician like Harris who is used to only spending.

Government Disgust

Across voter demographics, reactions indicate a strong sense of distrust and disgust at the Harris campaign’s fiscal management.

• Democrat Finances: Voters are in disbelief at the scale of spending by the Harris campaign, tying it to their criticism of overall government inefficiency.
• Wasting Money: Many see the campaign’s budget handling as emblematic of Democratic financial mismanagement. They say funds are wasted on ineffective initiatives that do not produce results—just like the Harris campaign.
• Incompetence: People criticize Harris’s campaign, linking it to longstanding frustrations with the Biden administration’s economic policy. Voters say budget issues reinforce views of Democratic leadership as fiscally irresponsible.

Disconnected from Voter Reality

The budget revelations come at a particularly tense economic time, with inflation and cost-of-living concerns dominating public sentiment.

• Elite Waste: Americans contrast their financial struggles with the extravagant political spending by elites for celebrity appearances and concerts. They say the billion-dollar fundraising was squandered, producing no benefits.
• Economic Realities: People view Harris’s spending as out-of-touch with economic reality and offensive to families struggling to make ends meet. They say the campaign prioritized campaign optics over reaching out to voters.

The anger and criticism are especially pronounced among working- and middle-class voters. The economic divide between political elites and regular Americans intensifies disgust as people express hope for budget accountability from the coming Trump administration.

The FBI quietly revised its crime statistics, revealing a 4.5% increase in violent crime under the Biden administration. This directly contradicts a widely reported 2.1% decrease touted by the media and Democrats for weeks.

There it is: FBI "revised" violent crime data, now reporting that instead of a 2.1% drop in violent crime in 2022, it was actually a 4.5% increase. https://t.co/Bvbg0wKy1A pic.twitter.com/h6nfjRRlUb

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 16, 2024

Americans are outraged, confirming their beliefs that crime is on the rise, supported by their own observations in the face of media narratives. Analysis identifies why Americans perceive the FBI's revision as politically motivated and their anxieties about governance and law enforcement in the United States.

What Americans are Saying

Voters are extremely frustrated an angry with the Biden-Harris administration, particularly directing their ire at VP Harris. Dissatisfaction stems from perceptions that the government is failing to manage crime, immigration, and economic issues.

Many express a sense of betrayal, arguing promises made by the administration have not been fulfilled. There are also many critiques of the government's approach to public safety and economic recovery, with some tying rising crime rates to policy failures.

Anger about crime statistics dovetails with growing distrust in institutions. Skepticism toward the FBI, mainstream media, and other government entities is rampant. Voters are doubtful about the integrity of official statistics and narratives.

People believe traditional sources of authority are no longer reliable, especially when it comes to reporting on politically charged issues like crime. Discussions also show stark partisan division, with Trump supporters contrasting his presidency with Biden’s, emphasizing the perception of greater safety and stability under Trump's leadership.

Perceptions of the FBI Revision

Voters believe the FBI's revision of crime statistics serves a political purpose. Many speculate the incorrect initial numbers were not mistaken, but politically calculated to protect the Biden administration from scrutiny.

Many view disparate reports not as honest corrections but attempts to manipulate public perception. They say reports attempt to paint a more favorable image of crime under Biden's leadership.

The notion that the FBI is involved in political maneuvering connects with wider themes of distrust in government institutions. Increasingly, voters view various federal agencies as operating in service of political elites rather than in the public interest.

People use terms like "gaslighting," saying they feel the government is trying to deceive them about the reality of rising crime. Those on the right also point out media bias—particularly David Muir fact checking Trump during the presidential debate, saying the FBI reports show crime is down.

Reasons Americans Think Crime is Up

Many voters say government policy—specifically immigration—contributes to increased violent crime. They say lenient immigration policies allow criminals into the United States, increasing violent crime. This belief reflects broader concerns about border security and the failure of the Biden administration to maintain law and order.

People also mention economic instability, saying inflation, unemployment, and stagnating wages lead to desperation and more criminal behavior. There is a sense that economic hardship under Biden’s administration has created conditions conducive to crime, further exacerbating public safety concerns.

Voters are also disillusioned with law enforcement. Some argue Democrats demoralize police forces, weakening their ability to effectively prevent and respond to crime. People say law enforcement has been neutered under Democrat rule allowing criminals to proceed without fear of serious consequences.

Deeper Underlying Sentiments

Voters voice specific grievances about crime and policy as well as more thematic anxieties about the state of the country. People fear rising crime is a symptom of more serious societal decline.

Americans are concerned about the future, suggesting the country is headed toward chaos and instability. These fears are often linked to nostalgia for stronger leadership, particularly under Donald Trump. Many view his presidency as a period of greater safety and prosperity.

In general, there is little middle ground in these discussions. Voters typically fervently support Trump or Democrats—though a sense of doom if the opposition gains political power crosses into both camps. The stark divide reflects partisan tension in American society, where crime and public safety have become deeply politicized issues.

American feelings toward the government show emerging fears tied to historical, socioeconomic, and political disillusionment. People are highly frustration with a government they view as disconnected from their needs. They say leaders are more aligned with political correctness or international obligations than with the people’s needs.

Frustrations are particularly evident in discussions about immigration, crime, inflation, and inadequate government responses to crises like Hurricane Helene. Many citizens feel their safety and local economic stability are ignored, further eroding trust in governance.

Everybody Is Feeling It

Voters are overwhelmingly concerned about government overreach and a lack of accountability. They mention things like "totalitarian control" and "censorship,” demonstrating anxieties about the potential erosion of civil liberties.

New Poll: 74% Worry Americans Could Lose Our Freedoms If We’re Not Careful https://t.co/W1yoH4Vxt8 via @CatoInstitute #4thJuly #IndependenceDay

— Emily Ekins (@emilyekins) July 4, 2024

This sentiment is not limited to any one group but spreads across diverse demographics, from rural voters concerned about systemic failures to younger, urban voters focused on social issues like climate change and police reform. Both groups share a common feeling of being abandoned by political leaders, although their concerns often manifest in different areas of policy.

Generational Divides

• Voters under 35 tend to be more complacent or negative about the country’s founding principles. They are skeptical of traditional governance structures.
• Older generations strongly support the U.S. Constitution and view the founding of the country in a more positive light.
• There’s frustration in minority and working-class communities, where voters view economic instability and cultural tensions as exacerbated by poor leadership.

While many express distrust toward the government, a majority still hold favorable views of foundational documents like the U.S. Constitution. This juxtaposes reverence for the country’s ideals and disillusionment with current leaders.

Despite calls for reforms, 60% of Americans oppose redesigning or discarding the Constitution. Voters want to maintain the nation's institutional framework while seeking accountability from elected officials.

Finding a Means to an End

The most vocal groups are rallying around populist figures who promise to dismantle existing political systems like Trump, RFK Jr., and Tulsi Gabbard, and Elon Musk. These figures tap into fears of government corruption and inefficiency, leading citizens to embrace more radical solutions.

Voters want transparency, enhanced community engagement, and bipartisan efforts to address economic and social issues. Restoring trust likely requires major overhauls to address the root causes of disillusionment and overhaul entrenched establishments. Americans want solutions to economic struggles and cultural fracturing, and they want their voices to be heard in policy discussions.

A conversation between Ana Kasparian and Jillian Michaels went viral, reaching nearly 50 million viewers. In the interview, The Young Turks host Kasparian shared about being molested by a homeless man in Los Angeles and how it reframed her thoughts about progressive governance.

NEW: The Young Turks producer Ana Kasparian says she left the Democratic party after she was mol*sted by a homeless man with an er*ction in Los Angeles.

Kasparian said she was shamed by liberals for stating that she felt fearful to leave her house after the incident.

Kasparian… pic.twitter.com/R1Ds980urO

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 12, 2024

Discourse about the story highlights political divisions, particularly around personal trauma, political ideologies, and public policy. Kasparian’s experience became a lightning rod for discussions about progressive activism and societal tensions about crime, safety, and homelessness.

Empathy Rooted in Realism

A prominent theme in reactions to Kasparian’s comments is tension between personal trauma and political ideology. Kasparian’s fear and emotional response following the assault resonates with many concerned about safety in urban environments.

Women especially empathize with her fear, viewing it as a legitimate response to danger and a reflection of their own experiences with personal safety. However, their empathy is counterbalanced by pushback from liberal voices who say her expressions of fear are harmful to progressive causes.

For liberals, acknowledging the danger posed by homelessness conflicts with efforts to protect and advocate for vulnerable populations. This divide contrasts personal stories about safety with an ideological commitment to systemic social justice—an idea which avowed leftist Kasparian says she is coming to reassess.

Liberals Shutting the Overton Window

Americans also discuss the role of gender and political identity when reacting to Kasparian’s story. Many women and conservatives align with her experience and validate her fears. But liberal commentators, particularly men, downplay her concerns or criticize her for perpetuating harmful stereotypes.

This dynamic suggests an internal conflict within progressive circles, where expressions of fear—particularly by women—are sometimes dismissed in favor of ideology or activism. Kasparian’s experience exposes a cultural struggle to reconcile vulnerability with ideological commitments. There seems to be a blind spot in how some progressives address personal trauma.

Circling Back to Liberal Governance

Kasparian’s testimony also reignites debates about crime, homelessness, and public policy. For conservatives, her experience reiterates the need for stricter law enforcement and urban policy reforms, particularly blue cities like Los Angeles.

Many conservatives frame her story as an example of the failures of liberal policies in managing homelessness and crime. They want tougher policing and more punitive measures.

Liberals and progressives argue for systemic solutions, framing the issue as one of societal failure rather than individual accountability. This clash between pragmatic safety concerns and broader systemic reform reveals ideological differences about how to address urban decay and public safety.

On October 11, a cargo train robbery in Chicago sparked significant online discussion, with many concerns emerging, from public safety to economic stability and governance. The discussions intertwine layered responses that highlight growing anxiety, frustration, and polarization in American communities.

🚨#BREAKING: Dozens of people are actively looting and breaking into a cargo train ⁰⁰📌#Chicago | #illinois⁰⁰At this time, an estimated 50 to 150 people or more are actively looting and breaking into a cargo train on the west side of Chicago, Illinois. Police have been… pic.twitter.com/SwDIOnSE90

— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) October 11, 2024

Cities Aren’t Safe

Public safety is a top discussion theme with 60-65% of reactions across different demographic groups reflecting negative sentiment.

Americans view the robbery as emblematic of rising crime in urban environments. This exacerbates fears about the breakdown of law and order. Many commenters link the event to overall urban violence and decline. There are heightened feelings of vulnerability, particularly among older populations and those living in urban areas. Americans insist on the need for increased vigilance in the wake of the robbery, with some saying they are altering their daily routines in response to the incident.

Political Problems

Political accountability is another dominant topic, with around 60% of comments expressing criticism of local and national leaders for failing to uphold community safety.

Voters blame politicians, particularly those aligned with liberal policies, accusing them of failing to address crime effectively. This sentiment is particularly pronounced among conservative voices and those advocating for law-and-order. Progressives focus on systemic factors, citing economic inequality and the need for community investment, rather than punitive measures following incidents like this.

Top Issues for Urban Americans

Economic Factors

Around 40-50% of comments express economic anxiety, with some linking crime to inequality and some fearing long-term repercussions for local economics.

The economic impact of the robbery is a significant concern, especially regarding how crime affects businesses and the local economy. Discussions about the robbery frequently mention the destabilizing effects of organized crime on small businesses, the logistics industry, and local commerce. Reform vs Reckoning

Some advocate for increased law enforcement and harsher penalties. Others call for systemic reforms to address poverty and inequality. This polarization is greater among urban residents who express more anxiety than their suburban counterparts.

We The People, Can’t

In addition to concerns about safety and governance, many point to growing distrust in government and law enforcement ability to handle crime effectively. Roughly 70% of commenters express frustration with ineffective policies. Many say these policies prioritize political agendas over community safety. This frustration feeds into disillusionment with institutions, spurring demands for systemic change.

Overall, Americans talk of a fractured society grappling with questions about security, governance, and justice. The robbery, while a singular event, has become a focal point exemplifying anxieties about the future of urban life in America. Voters want accountability, demanding politicians and law enforcement officials take decisive action to restore trust and security.

A viral post on X discussing the state of decay across many elements in American life received more than 46 million views. The commentary on American life, which some call a “competency crisis,” resonates with people across the country.

I'M SHOCKED.

After living in Japan for over two years, I recently visited the USA with my wife. It made me realize that the USA is dysfunctional in so many ways and has such a low-quality standard across the board.

Here are the things I noticed:

— Nathan Lands — Lore.com (@NathanLands) October 11, 2024

MIG Reports analysis shows Americans are grappling with perceptions of systemic dysfunction, institutional failure, and declining competence. Discussions reveal embedded anxieties about leadership, governance, and the future of the country.

Public sentiment on topics like efficiency, service degradation, and operational decline includes distrust, frustration, and a desire for more effective leadership.

Distrust in Government

Across multiple crises, the common thread of distrust in government dominates American discussions. There is perceived inefficiency in economic management and government failure to address key national concerns. Many Americans express profound skepticism toward leadership.

• In discussions about the "efficiency crisis," 34% of comments highlight a lack of faith in political leaders from both major parties. Many view government actions as ineffectual or disingenuous.
• In discussions about “institutional failure" 78% of Americans are frustrated with current leadership, particularly regarding rising living costs and the government's inability to manage public resources effectively.
• Distrust extends to concerns over “systemic dysfunction,” where 60% say governmental institutions are either corrupt or incompetent.
• The pervasive lack of confidence in leadership underlines a broader societal shift where citizens feel increasingly disconnected from their representatives.

Economic Hardship and Anxiety

Economic concerns feature prominently in discussions about institutional failure, service degradation, and operational decline. Many Americans directly attribute economic instability to government mismanagement, particularly regarding rising living costs and inadequate disaster responses.

• In discussions about "Institutional Failure," 70% of comments cite economic hardship as a direct result of government policies. Most people feel the government's reported economic successes, such as low unemployment, do not match reality.
• In discussions about “service degradation,” 22% emphasize economic anxiety as a key concern. People mention fears of a "1929-style depression."
• In discussions about "operational decline," 45% focus on the increasing cost of living, feeding resentment toward political elites.

Polarization and Disillusionment

Political polarization and disillusionment are central to the discourse on governance and systemic decline. Many Americans feel the country is more divided than ever, with the discourse about leadership featuring an "us versus them" mentality.

• In discussions of “systemic dysfunction,” 35% of comments reflect the growing political divide. Many view those with opposing political views as a threat to societal stability.
• In discussions about the "competency crisis," 40% express frustration with the two-party political system. People accuse Democrats and Republicans of failing to address the needs of ordinary Americans.
• “Distrust in institutions” is high, with 50% questioning the integrity of political leaders. Some discuss the belief that elections are rigged or manipulated.
• Disillusionment with the political process fosters a climate of cynicism, where many Americans feel neither party offers meaningful solutions to the country's problems.

Desire for Leadership and Accountability

Amidst the frustration and disillusionment, there is a clear desire for strong, effective leadership to address crises.

• 28% say they hope for progressive leadership, particularly from Kamala Harris, who they believe can advocate for marginalized communities.
• 75% want assertive leadership that can implement decisive and strong actions to resolve national crises.
• Among both groups, there is a consistent call for accountability in leadership.
• Around half of the discussion expresses urgency for political change, emphasizing the need for citizens to vote to prevent future failures.

Emotional and Social Impacts

Americans are not just concerned with governmental inefficiencies—they are emotionally affected by the perceived failures of their leaders.

• Discussions about “service degradation” show 32% are disappointed in leadership, particularly over inadequate responses to natural disasters like Hurricane Helene.
• Many feel the government's inability to meet their needs has led to widespread social division.
• People feel emotional strain, expressing fear about safety, financial stability, and the future of the country.
• This emotional toll is compounded by a sense of isolation, as people notice social divisions are deepening, with neighbors turning against each other based on political beliefs.
• Despite this, there is also an undercurrent of resilience, emphasizing the importance of community solidarity in overcoming institutional failures.

A recent video of assault on former New York Governor David Paterson and his stepson has ignited conversations about safety, crime, and political accountability. Discussions reveal societal concerns about urban violence, the vulnerability of public figures, and systemic issues tied to race and governance.

Video has been released showing former New York Gov. David Paterson, who is blind, being beaten with his stepson in Manhattan: pic.twitter.com/DKISbohRWg https://t.co/xHX7tx9sch

— Andy Ngo 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) October 9, 2024

MIG Reports analysis shows Democratic and Republican reactions, while both focused on the event’s implications, diverge in their framing of the underlying causes and necessary responses.

Patterson Beaten

The assault on Paterson prompted voter discussions spanning concerns over public safety to critiques of political leadership.

• 70% of discussions express fear about rising urban violence.
• 55% advocate for accountability and systemic reform.
• Overall sentiment expresses urgency for change, but there is also skepticism about the efficacy of law enforcement.

There is a wide spectrum of emotional responses, with many framing the assault as part of a broader societal trend of instability and inequality.

Democrat Viewpoints

The Democratic narrative emphasizes racial justice and systemic reform. For many, the assault on Paterson—a prominent African American leader—is framed as part of ongoing struggles against racial violence and systemic inequalities.

• 75% of discussions among Democrats express outrage over the incident, calling for immediate legislative changes and reforms to address these systemic issues.
• Conversations highlight solidarity with marginalized communities, focusing on the disproportionate impact of urban violence on minorities.
• The language uses a tone of urgency, with frequent calls for justice and reform and a focus on systemic change.

Republican Viewpoints

Republicans focus more on crime rates and government accountability. They view the assault as part of larger concerns about the safety of public figures and the failure of local governments to address urban crime effectively.

• 62% of Republican conversations mention concerns about public safety and the lack of effective law enforcement.
• There is fear and frustration, but emphasis is on individual accountability and critiques of leadership.
• Around 9% of Republicans are indifferent, viewing the assault as an isolated incident rather than indicative of systemic issues.

Differences in Linguistic Patterns and Sentiment

There are also linguistic differences between political viewpoints. Democrats emphasize reform-oriented language, frequently using phrases like “enough is enough” and hashtags like #JusticeForPaterson. This language calls for systemic change and structural reforms to address both violence and inequality.

Republicans more often use language of fear and nostalgia. Older demographics in particular reminisce about safer times and express fear over current urban crime trends. The Republican focus on law enforcement and individual safety rather than larger societal critiques.

A recent declaration by the National Health Institute (NIH) admitted fluoride exposure reduces children’s IQ, sparking public discussion. MIG Reports analysis shows concern over the health risks associated with fluoride, while skepticism regarding the findings also shapes the conversation. Though a smaller group is outright dismissive of the NIH’s conclusions, reactions generally reveal societal anxieties about health and institutional trust.

The government put fluoride in our water and attacked anyone who questioned it.

Now - the NIH (after major pressure) has declared it “reduces the IQ of children” and is “hazardous to human health” - and states are removing it from water.

This is under-covered news.

— Calley Means (@calleymeans) October 8, 2024

What Americans are Saying

MIG Reports data shows:

• 47.5% of the conversation centers on health concerns, with alarm about the implications of fluoride exposure on children’s cognitive development.

Worried Americans use emotional language, often referring to fluoride as a threat which experts and leaders have hidden. Voters emphasize the need for increased transparency and a reevaluation of the water supply, tying their concerns to broader distrust in governmental health institutions.

• 12.5% supports raising awareness about the potential dangers of fluoride exposure.

These voices urge further research and advocacy, pushing for policy changes, perhaps under the guidance of RFK Jr. in a second Trump administration—to protect children’s health. They emphasize a proactive approach, seeing this as an opportunity to address long-standing concerns about fluoride and promoting alternative measures for MAHA (make America healthy again).

• 30% of the discussion voices skepticism of the research itself.

This group questions the reliability of the NIH’s findings, with many suggesting the announcement may be politically motivated or part of a larger agenda. The language in these comments often references past public health controversies, such as vaccines. They say the fluoride debate fits into a broader narrative of eroding trust in scientific and government authorities.

• 10% of the commentary is dismissive of the revelation.

Uninterested voters either downplay the significance of the findings or outright reject them as sensationalism. They frame the NIH’s declaration as exaggerated, saying the risks of fluoride have been overstated for attention or ulterior motives.