Hillary Clinton's unexpected appearance at the Tony Awards has gotten fawning praise from liberals and disgust from conservatives. In her short speech, she mentioned her failed presidential campaign, celebrated women’s suffrage, and appealed to all Americans to get out and vote.

Many viewers were exhausted to see such a divisive figure like Clinton at an event traditionally dedicated to celebrating theatrical achievements. They view this disconnect as another indicator that mainstream media and entertainment are biased to the left.

Hillary Clinton gets standing ovation in surprise appearance at #TonyAwards pic.twitter.com/wtiKBLDjxK

— Deadline Hollywood (@DEADLINE) June 17, 2024

A tweet from Deadline Hollywood showing a clip of Hillary Clinton's appearance garnered significant criticism both for Hollywood and Hillary herself in the replies.

Liberal Elites Can’t Get Enough of Themselves

Supporters argue Clinton's presence is a positive endorsement of the arts and a recognition of their cultural significance. To them, her participation symbolizes how politics and entertainment can collaboratively advocate for important social issues.

Partisan celebrities and political figures say they appreciate a seamless integration of political figures into entertainment venues. They view it as an opportunity for politicians to engage with different audiences and to humanize political discourse.

Media and progressive narratives frame Clinton's appearance as an endorsement of the arts, rather than an opportunistic and desperate attempt to pump up Joe Biden’s campaign. Many in this group deny that entertainment is increasingly being politicized by Democrats, instead claiming both art and politics stand to gain from greater visibility and mutual reinforcement.

Normal Americans are Exhausted by Elite Smugness

Conversations surrounding her appearance also bring attention to the disconnect between political elites and average voters. Many people see her presence at such events as indicative of a cloying political strategy that fails to resonate with everyday concerns.

They argue political figures hobnobbing with celebrities at glamorous events, like Joe Biden’s recent fundraising event, reveals they are out of touch. People feel the struggles of ordinary Americans who face real-life issues are diminished by theatrical political pandering.

Many who used to be fans of art and culture also believe awards shows, which have become extremely politicized, should be apolitical entertainment. They believe the arts should be an escape from the relentless news cycles and partisan battles.

Normal voters say the appearance of political figures at entertainment events feels invasive, turning what should be moments of levity and creativity into platforms for political grandstanding. This sentiment is particularly strong among those who feel the entertainment industry already leans too heavily into political advocacy, often at the expense of diverse viewpoints.

Criticism Toward Hillary and the Media

Critics also argue that Clinton is one of the worst offenders when it comes to alienating voters and appearing insular and self-congratulatory. For this group, Clinton’s appearance is not only out of place but downright insulting. Most view Clinton as a washed-up politician who cannot let go of her loss to Trump in 2016.

This perception is particularly acute among voters who are weary of the symbiotic relationship between mainstream media, Hollywood, and the political elite. They view these entities as working together to marginalize dissenting voices and dismiss substantial issues facing Americans.

Further exacerbating these tensions is a broader sense of frustration at the entertainment sector becoming increasingly politicized—and almost exclusively in service to liberal ideologies. Leftist bias, conservatives say, diminishes trust in both the media and political figures. It also alienates conservatives, promoting a sense of disenfranchisement in those being sidelined by elite and media narratives.

Overall, Hillary Clinton's appearance at the Tony Awards once again spotlights the contentious relationship between politics and entertainment in America. While liberal elites praise the gesture, most Americans view it as a cringey attempt by elites to maintain their power over politics and the culture.

Video of former President Barack Obama escorting President Joe Biden off stage at a high-profile fundraiser is igniting conversations on social media about Biden's regular gaffes and confusion. The main themes revolve around concerns about Biden’s health, political strategies, and broader societal and institutional implications.

Biden freezes before Obama grabs his arm and leads him off stage. Yikes! 😳 pic.twitter.com/nCgAGitoQ6

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 16, 2024

Is Biden Unfit to Serve?

Many users are expressing alarm at President Joe Biden’s recurring moments of confusion or freezing on stage. More Americans are viewing these increasingly frequent episodes as a clear sign of his deteriorating health. The sentiment that Biden cannot be responsible for running the country is growing.

Discussions frequently reference Biden’s age and present it as a critical issue that impacts his capacity to govern. Sentiment is often inflammatory, highlighting a sense of urgency and alarm. There is also frequent mockery, memes, and brutal criticism, as Americans watch Biden's cognitive abilities erode in disbelief.

Biden’s supporters and those who dismiss the event downplay Obama leading the president off stage. These voices argue the incident was overblown by political opponents and media seeking to distort the narrative for sensationalism. They deflect, highlighting Biden’s accomplishments and capabilities, suggesting the short video clip does not reflect his overall performance and leadership.

Blue Collar Versus Tinsel Town

Another trend in the discussion is the increasing association of the Democratic Party and its key figures, including Obama and Biden, with Hollywood elites. This fundraiser, which featured high-profile celebrities like George Clooney and Julia Roberts, has resulted in criticism about the Democratic Party being out of touch with ordinary Americans. Social media posts imply a growing discontent with what some perceive as liberal elites' ignorance of the challenges everyday citizens face.

There is also a resurgence of the long-standing political rhetoric portraying leftist ideologies as communistic or socialistic. Some take the opportunity to paint Democratic leadership and their policies as fundamentally un-American or destructive.

These conversations often assert Democrats are utilizing manipulative strategies, like including amnesty for illegal immigrants and mass propaganda through mainstream media, to secure electoral victories. Many even believe Biden has escaped serious problems like potential prosecution because of special treatment.

Trump Supporters Pounce

Furthermore, there is significant backlash when people compare Biden to former President Donald Trump. Trump's supporters are leveraging this incident to emphasize their belief in Trump’s competency and leadership strengths. They say, despite his own controversies, Trump represents a more robust and capable alternative to Biden.

There are also comparisons between the fundraising efficacy of both political figures. Many point out that, despite glitzy Biden fundraisers and Trump's legal woes, Trump’s campaign is generating substantial grassroots financial support from many small donation donors. This draws a stark contrast with the Hollywood-centered donations for Biden.

Lastly, a segment of voters are focusing on the broader societal consequences of current political actions. They argue Biden’s administration, perceived as aligned with extreme liberal policies, is making the United States vulnerable to internal and external threats.

Concerns about border security, perceived leniency towards illegal immigrants, and an alleged erosion of American values are frequently mentioned. This fuels a broader narrative of an existential crisis facing the nation, with Biden depicted as a figurehead in a larger ideological battle.

Recently, a group of 57 scientists from around the world who used United Nations-approved methods concluded a study which determined global warming is increasing. However, the study was only able to point to an increased use of fossil fuels across the globe. The collection of authors was formed to provide annual scientific updates every seven to eight years for major U.N. scientific assessments.

MIG Reports performed a comparative analysis of public discussion and sentiment about climate change and reactions to the U.N. study.

Discussion Trends

Analysis compares views of climate change in general and reactions to the recent U.N. study. When discussing climate change overall, analysis shows:

• Sentiment: Americans are polarized, with a consensus of urgency around climate change curbed by significant skepticism.
• Consensus on Urgency: Those who view climate change as urgent warn of extreme temperatures and rising CO2 levels. They call for renewable energy investment, fossil fuel reduction, and recognition of environmental and economic benefits. There is also an emphasis on the impact of climate change on health and agriculture.
• Expert Input: Contributions from scientists, medical professionals, and environmental experts call for immediate action and policy measures (e.g., executive orders, clean energy endorsements).
• Skepticism: There are also recurring doubts about the ability of modern science to predict weather, framing climate change as a natural occurrence. This group cites historical climate cycles and claims there is manipulation and exaggeration in studies motivated by control and financial gain. These conversations reveal severe skepticism about accelerating global warming and highlight contradictory data.
• Engagement Level: Americans are very engaged with discussions about climate change related to personal lifestyle, economic implications, and political ideologies.
• Conclusion: Data suggests there is a deep divide among Americans on the topic of climate change. There is strong advocacy on one side and skepticism on the other, as some see climate change as a geopolitical or financial tool.

Analysis of discourse reacting to the recent U.N. study indicates shows:

• Sentiment: American attitudes toward the study are mixed, similarly to overall views of climate change.
• Awareness and Concern: Many express concerns about global warming, referencing environmental changes (e.g., floral blooms in Antarctica and deforestation) and public health impacts. Many strongly advocate for climate action, clean energy, and celebrating World Environment Day.
• Skepticism: However, skeptics attribute changes in the study to natural cycles, critical theory, or population control. There is some doubt around human-made CO2 as a major factor in global warming. This group accuses scientists of using climate change to gain status or money, claiming much of their conclusions are fearmongering.
• Engagement Level: There’s significant engagement about the U.N. study, which includes confrontations and personal attacks.
• Branching Topics: Conversations about the study also tend to include discussions about personal lifestyle choices, economic implications, and political ideologies related to climate change in general.
• Conclusion: Data suggests Americans are polarized, despite the scientific study, emphasizing the need for clear and reliable information.

Disparity Between Perspectives and Sentiments

Conversations about climate change broadly and the U.N. study also show some disparity:

Level of Consensus

Overall, there are mixed opinions about climate change. There are both significant concerns and strong skepticism, highlighting a polarized public view.

Public consensus on the recent study shows a sense of urgency toward climate change, but there is also substantial skepticism about its causes and severity.

Focus on Advocacy vs. Skepticism

The subject of climate change sees a balanced focus on advocacy for climate action and skepticism about the science and motives behind climate change claims.

Regarding the study, there is a stronger emphasis on urgency and a need for immediate action. There is some skepticism and mistrust of the scientific community and perceived motives.

Nature of Skepticism

Skepticism towards climate change in general includes doubts about human impact, claims of natural cycles, and accusations of fearmongering for control or monetary gain.

Skepticism toward the U.N. study focuses on scientists' predictive abilities, historical climate cycles, and manipulation for control or monetary gain, with added doubt about accelerating global warming.

Engagement and Confrontation

Both topics show high engagement levels, with significant confrontations and personal attacks, reflecting the deeply polarized nature of the discourse.

Branching Discussions

Both topics extend discussions beyond climate issues to personal lifestyle choices, economic implications, and political ideologies.

In summary, both general and more specific discussions about climate change reflect a highly engaged and polarized discourse online. There is a clear divide between advocacy for urgent action and skepticism about the causes, severity, and motivations behind climate change narratives. The need for reliable, understandable information is evident in both discussions.

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.

A video went viral which claimed President Joe Biden may have soiled himself during the 80th Anniversary of D-Day in France. Other videos showed First Lady Jill Biden swiftly leading the president away while French President Macron thanked veterans.

MIG Reports analysis of social media commentary shows different interpretations of what Joe Biden was doing in the video, like many of his well-publicized gaffes. Most of the online speculation is based on unverified rumors and has not been officially confirmed or denied by any credible sources.

Because online discussion is so fractured, it's difficult to discern a majority consensus on whether people actually believe Biden experienced such an embarrassing mishap as incontinence. The political nature of conversations about president and his questionable cognition, as well as the overall mockery and humorous tones of social media make people’s true beliefs somewhat opaque.

Most Americans seem to believe the claim that Biden soiled his pants and take it as an opportunity to fuel political debate and criticisms. Many openly ridicule Biden with profane language and derisive commentary. Some Biden defenders dismiss the claim, but only citing their reasons as emphasizing more serious issues like the necessity to impeach Biden.

Despite rampant online memeing and speculations, no official denials have been made by White House officials.

Discussion and Sentiment Trends

There is an undeniable presence of derisive rhetoric from Biden's detractors. They use phrases like "poopy pants" and "filled his adult diaper" when talking about the video. Some insinuate Biden's inability to control bodily functions is evidence of weakness or mental decline.

On the other hand, some dismiss the accusations as baseless and criticize those who spread such rumors. They emphasize a lack of concrete evidence for the claim, pushing back against unfounded speculations. They emphasize other issues they believe should take precedence over personal ridicule, like impeachment inquiries and political wrongdoings.

Alternative Analysis

Some media outlets reported the incident as simply a momentary lapse in judgement. They say the president thought there was a chair behind him. Additional reporting from liberal blogs and op-eds crafted stories to shift away from the viral mockery, such as “Joe Biden Didn’t Poop Himself But These Celebs Did.” Other outlets had body language experts weigh in.

Overall distrust in liberal and mainstream media suggests Americans who believe Biden’s senior moment was more embarrassing than searching for a missing chair would not be swayed by media spin.

Recent House subcommittee hearings with Dr. Anthony Fauci have brought conversations about COVID-19 and vaccines to the fore. As more information comes out and members of Congress question Fauci about his role in alleged information suppression during COVID, Americans’ trauma and anger seems to be boiling up.

Fauci's credibility is in question with heated and partisan disagreements about whether American voters believe what he says. Some accuse him of providing conflicting or misleading information with guidance on masks and COVID origins. There are frequent complaints that he continued to back policies such as social distancing and masking children in the absence of substantial scientific proof for effectiveness.

In general, people express frustration and confusion at the perceived inconsistency. There is also significant suspicion that Fauci and others involved in both pandemic response and pharmaceuticals related to COVID vaccines intentionally hid, obfuscated, and suppressed important information.

What Americans Are Saying

Online conversations show strong disapproval toward inadequate and questionable management decisions during COVID by health officials and politicians. Many condemn mask mandates and vaccine shaming which they say was perpetuated by Fauci and the media. This group vocally blames Fauci for death, illnesses, and social and economic consequences associated COVID-19 restrictions and vaccines.

There is still considerable debate on the efficacy and safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Many are also expressing concern about potential side effects such as DNA alterations, increased risk of cancer, heart conditions, and sudden deaths.

Many on both sides of the political aisle have become skeptical and disillusioned with COVID narratives presented by Fauci, the media, and politicians. Those who remain strongly in support of Fauci tend to be left leaning. They view him as a competent authority figure, accusing his detractors of being political. They maintain Fauci's policies saved countless lives during a dangerous pandemic and provided necessary restrictions.

Conversations about COVID often also include criticism of government actions in 2020 and the divisive role of media and political narratives in shaping public opinion.

Anger Over COVID Origins

One recurring topic is the origin of the virus. Many suggest COVID-19 virus was a product of gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They blame Fauci for allegedly funding the research, suggesting he conspired to insulate himself from any repercussions.

Many people are also angry at the lack of consequences for the actions of officials who, voters believe, lied and covered up their own unethical behavior.

There is also some discussion about former president Donald Trump’s role in handling COVID. Many voters, including some of his supporters, criticize how President Trump handled the crisis and his rhetoric since. Most voters seem to have a negative view of any topic related to COVID.

Vaccine Skepticism

A significant portion of Americans are increasingly suspicious of the COVID-19 vaccines. They attribute a variety of adverse events, including sudden death and severe physical ailments, to the vaccines.

There’s talk about conditions people call "turbo cancer" and claims the vaccines alter human DNA in a way that can be passed on to future generations. This group is also highly critical of Dr. Fauci, questioning his integrity and blaming him for the negative effects they believe are related to the vaccines.

Those who believe vaccines are harmful are also likely to believe officials like Fauci participated in cynical cover-ups to suppress information and disparage dissenters. Recent testimony by Fauci only serves to further infuriate this group, entrenching their views that Fauci, big pharma, and the NIH conspired to protect themselves at the expense of public health.

Mainstream Media and Chris Cuomo

Many discussions also involve a deep-rooted distrust in mainstream media and institutions who remain "deathly silent" on the impact of COVID and emerging accusations. Some Americans accuse healthcare providers and media of altering death reports, misrepresenting vaccine safety, and silencing counter narratives

Infuriated voters call out media outlets and figures for ignoring critical pieces of information and remaining silent about perceived dangers of the vaccines. They also blame mainstream media for gaslighting and shaming Americans about COVID restrictions and vaccines.

A recent debate between Chris Cuomo and Dave Smith also generated viral discussion about Ivermectin, a drug notoriously debated during COVID-19. Cuomo’s claim that he did not agree with the criticism Joe Rogan received for advocating Ivermectin was very negatively received. The debate brought Cuomo’s credibility and consistency into question for many viewers.

Many people are labeling Cuomo a “liar,” suggesting the evidence contradicts Cuomo's denials about his role in shaping public opinion. This group believes Cuomo and others in the media intentionally demonized people who questioned the mainstream narrative. They insist these figures continue to ignore objective analysis as it unfolds.

The issue around illegal immigrants voting in U.S. elections has recently become a point of discussion, especially for those concerned about securing the border. In general, illegal immigrants, which Democrats have begun calling “non-citizens” do not have the right to vote under the U.S. Constitution. This is based on a belief in the immemorial prerogative of every independent nation. However, contentions are beginning to arise across different political and ideological lines.

Conservatives tend to emphasize the importance of citizenship in voting rights, arguing illegal immigrants voting would devalue the privilege and duty of citizens. They say anyone voting who is in the country illegally inherently commits voter fraud and allowing it is a manipulation by Democrats.

There are many who believe the increasing possibility of illegal immigrants from many countries voting threatens the integrity of the political process in the United States. They argue citizenship should be a minimum requirement for political participation. Voters express fears the open border will lead to an influx of non-citizens influencing U.S. electoral outcomes.

Many also emphasize the need for greater scrutiny and verification of the ballot process. This includes calls for every state to introduce ballot verifiers like voter ID to ensure free and fair elections.

Across the political spectrum, there seems to be an increased desire for transparency and scrutiny to maintain election integrity. However, Democrats tend to fear interference by figures like former President Trump. Republicans are more likely to fear Democrat cheating, including allowing illegal aliens to vote.

Democrat Hypocrisy and Election Cheating

Many Americans accuse politicians and of obfuscating their intentions and betraying their constituents’ desires. The House recently voted to repeal an existing law allowing non-citizens to vote in local D.C. elections. This generated criticism toward the 143 Democrats who voted against repealing the law.

🚨🚨🚨

143 extreme House Democrats just voted to allow ILLEGAL migrants to vote in DC elections. pic.twitter.com/1EhrM9T1V0

— NRCC (@NRCC) May 23, 2024

The existence of laws like the one in D.C. – and Democrat support for it – causes many Americans to disbelieve protests from Democrats denying their desire to allow non-citizen voting. Democrats deflect on humanitarian grounds, claiming allegations about illegal immigrants voting are just strategies to justify hardline immigration policies. They assert many immigrants are refugees escaping dire conditions and are not seeking to impact U.S. elections.

Liberal voters tend to believe illegal immigrants, especially long-term residents who contribute to the economy and society, should have a say in decisions that affect their lives. They argue if these residents are expected to obey the laws of the country, they should have a voice in creating them. Advocates say allowing non-citizens to vote can be a means of fostering civic participation and political integration, granting representation to the diverse communities within the country.

However, these arguments mostly serve to foment conservative fears that Democrats are being opaque about their true desires. More conservative and moderate voters are expressing fears that Democrat hypocrisy is driven by a desire to use illegal immigrants to cheat in the 2024 election. They point out Democrats want more options as Biden’s poll numbers continue to tank among traditional voting groups.

Mainstream Media Negligence

Conservative voters are skeptical of the mainstream media's reporting on the border and election integrity. They believe major news networks like CNN and the New York Times fail to report the truth about border and voting issues. They also think biased media narratives harm the legal voting system and undermine trust in the system.

References to the New York Times using anonymous sources reflect skepticism about whether these sources are reliable. There is a strong sense of media bias, with many voters discrediting media reports about election integrity or process.

Complaints about mainstream media carrying water for Democratic politicians become especially pronounced when outlet like AP News report that illegal immigrants voting is illegal and that, despite Republican fears, it’s not happening “in significant numbers.”

President Joe Biden's recurring public speaking and teleprompter gaffes have become a deep concern or even a meme for many Americans. These missteps, which include false statements, jumbled or wrong words, pauses, and sometimes confusion, fuel debates about his cognitive abilities. They also lead many to question his leadership capability and overall fitness for office.

Voter reactions to his continual public appearance incidents, which is influenced by social media and the mainstream media are mostly partisan. Biden’s speaking performance is frequently compared to former President Donald Trump’s more spontaneous style. While Trump’s rhetoric is often polarizing, his ability to ad-lib and engage crowds contrasts sharply with Biden’s reliance on prepared speeches and, as MIG Reports previously analyzed – prepared questions.

This dichotomy fuels narratives on both sides: conservatives highlight Biden’s fumbles as a sign of weakness, while liberals emphasize Trump’s unpredictability and controversial remarks as dangerous to democracy.

Social media platforms play a crucial role in amplifying Biden's gaffes. Clips of his verbal mistakes often go viral, reaching a broad audience and fueling discussions about his fitness for office.

Two of his most recent fumbles include:

• Calling January 6 protesters “erectionists” instead of what he presumably meant: “insurrectionists.”

• Reading from the teleprompter but including notes which aren’t meat to be spoken – in this case, “last name,” referring to his theology professor.

BIDEN: "Erectionists" 😬😬😬 pic.twitter.com/f1pS86zx7t

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 20, 2024

BIDEN's teleprompter troubles continue 🤦🏽‍♂️

"My theology professor at the Catholic school I went to was a guy named Riley [LAST NAME]..." pic.twitter.com/YkdwO44AVN

— Raj Aryal (@rajaryal07) May 8, 2024

Last week’s public mistakes are not the first of their kind. In April, Biden also read “pause” off the teleprompter instead of pausing his speech for audience participation. That incident also generated significant reactions from people online, criticizing Biden and his presumable handlers who allow these recurring embarrassing gaffes.

BIDEN, reading from his teleprompter: "Four more years? Pause?"

It's all completely staged. pic.twitter.com/vqkIt0SSTF

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 24, 2024

Voter Reactions Online

Some of the of the commentary online voices concern, but much of it also uses the president as a source of humor. Some of the jokes made at his expense include:

• "Biden’s teleprompter operator must have the hardest job in the world. They deserve a medal for bravery."
• “Biden just said 'America is a nation that can be defined in a single word: Asufutimaehaehfutbw.' I think he just invented a new language!"
• "Every time Biden speaks, it's like watching a toddler trying to explain quantum physics. Entertaining but confusing."
• "Biden: 'We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.' Did he just admit to something?"
• "Biden: 'I got hairy legs that turn blonde in the sun.' The man just gave us a free ticket to the weirdest carnival ride ever."
• "Biden’s latest gaffe: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the... you know, the thing.’ Clearly, he’s on a first-name basis with the Declaration of Independence."
• "Biden: 'I keep forgetting I'm president.' Well Joe, sometimes we do too. Thanks for the reminder!"

Although Democratic voters and political pundits who support the president are reluctant to talk about his clear cognitive limitations, it seems most Americans recognize he is not in top form. Approval ratings continue to slide and MIG Reports data shows that, even on good days, Biden cannot seem to break a neutral sentiment nationally, hovering in the low 40% range.

Leftist Comedians Subvert the Punchline

There is also a notable trend among some celebrities and public figures who dismiss concerns about Biden's gaffes and fitness for office as irrelevant or overblown. This dismissive attitude is alarming to many voters who cannot ignore his slip-ups.

Pro-Biden media personalities and celebrities actively work to reframe these gaffes, often deflecting punchlines or reframing the context to mitigate negative impact. For example, they often juxtapose Biden's gaffes with Trump's controversial statements and supporters imply Biden's mistakes are benign.

Regarding Biden’s “erectionists” comment, most of the left leaning comedians online tweeted similar jokes, shifting the punchline. Instead of roasting Biden for his error, most of them reframed their jokes as a critique of the January 6 protesters themselves.

• The Daily Show: "Biden said 'erectionists' instead of 'insurrectionists.' At least someone’s standing up for democracy."
• Seth Meyers: "Biden called them 'erectionists.' Well, I guess they did rise to the occasion."
• Sarah Silverman: "Biden called them 'erectionists.' Finally, a political scandal with some stiff competition."
• Stephen Colbert: "Biden called insurrectionists ‘erectionists.’ You know, it’s nice to see someone in politics with a sense of humor about their gaffes."
• Jimmy Fallon: "Biden’s 'erectionists' comment has people laughing. I guess he wanted to point out that they were really standing up for Trump."
• Trevor Noah: "Biden’s 'erectionists' slip is just another reminder: always proofread your speeches, folks. Or you might end up in a very awkward position."
• Conan O’Brien: "Biden called them 'erectionists.' Guess we know who’s really rising to the occasion of American politics."
• Samantha Bee: "Biden calling them 'erectionists' was a slip of the tongue, but let’s be honest, it’s probably the nicest thing anyone’s said about them."

Most People Are Critical of Biden’s Performance

Unlike the media and celebrities, average Americans often highlight Biden's gaffes as evidence of cognitive decline or incompetence. They argue his frequent mistakes indicate a lack of mental acuity necessary for the role of President. These fumbles often work to undermine his credibility and weaken his public image both domestically and on the international stage.

Critics argue Biden's frequent gaffes alone make him unfit for the presidency, regardless of their stance on his policies. Terms like "incompetent" and "the worst president in our history" are frequently used in these discussions.

There is a prevalent belief among more conservative voters that Biden is merely a puppet controlled by others in his administration. This perspective is often coupled with accusations that his regular confusion exposes the extent to which he is being manipulated.

Election Impact

For undecided or swing voters, repeated public appearance disasters may reinforce a perception of weakness or incapacity. This has the potential to sway their votes towards Trump if he is perceived as more robust and competent.

Media coverage and viral social media posts of gaffes could erode trust in Biden's ability to handle the responsibilities of the presidency. This could also lead to decreased voter confidence and turnout, even within his base.

Voters who prioritize policy or party outcomes over personal traits may overlook Biden's deteriorating state if it means they can avoid a second Trump term. In a head-to-head election, Biden's performance will likely be contrasted with Trump’s speaking abilities. If, in scheduled upcoming debates, Trump performs well, seeming articulate and mentally sharp, it could be a severe disadvantage for Biden.

The death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash has sparked a whirlwind of online discourse. The reactions encapsulate a broad spectrum of emotions, speculations, political leanings, and concerns about global stability. There’s a particular concern over the potential for escalating into World War 3.

What Americans Are Saying

Speculation

A significant portion of the discourse revolves around allegations and jokes suggesting Israeli involvement. The Mossad agent humorously named "Eli Copter" has become a focal point for conspiracy theorists.

Another prominent theory speculates that Israeli GPS jamming may have caused the crash, adding a layer of technological intrigue to the incident.

Some users assert the helicopter was shot down by the U.S. and Israel, pointing to a covert operation aimed at destabilizing Iran.

Political Tensions and Alignments

Russian President Vladimir Putin's condolences highlight the strategic alliance between Russia and Iran. This has been widely shared and with many commenting on it. This highlights the geopolitical ramifications of Raisi's death.

Reactions range from celebratory comments about Raisi's death perceived as "karma" for his stance against Israel, to grave concerns about the implications for regional stability.

Media Critique

Many criticize the mainstream media's gullibility and haste in picking up unverified reports from questionable sources like Hamas. This underscores an American distrust in traditional news outlets.

Worry About World War 3

There are palpable fears about the incident escalating tensions to the point of triggering WWIII. The possibility of Iran retaliating with nuclear force is a recurring theme.

Some voters emphasize the seriousness of the situation, warning against celebrating the death of Raisi as it could have dire global consequences which may obligate or drag the U.S. into deeper involvement.

Public Sentiment and Interpretations

A lot of people find the official narrative suspicious and lean towards believing in foul play, primarily by Israel or the U.S.

The incident is being used to validate existing political beliefs and biases, with both sides of the Israel-Iran conflict finding ways to leverage the event to their advantage. The broader implications for international relations and the potential for a larger conflict seem top-of-mind. Many express concerns over the fragility of global peace.

What This Means for the Future

Moving forward, the death of Ebrahim Raisi is likely to be a significant touchstone in American voter discourse.

Increased Polarization

Different groups are likely to become more polarized, with each side reinforcing their narratives about the incident. Conspiracy theories may gain more traction, especially in echo chambers that distrust mainstream media.

Both state and non-state actors might exploit the situation to disseminate propaganda, further muddying the waters of public perception.

Geopolitical Ramifications

Countries involved in the Middle Eastern conflict may adopt more aggressive postures, leading to an arms race or increased military readiness. The incident could solidify and perhaps expand existing alliances, such as between Russia and Iran, and conversely, between Israel and the U.S.

Public Anxiety

The fear of WWIII will likely remain a recurring theme, influencing public opinion and potentially impacting governmental policies. Discussions around nuclear proliferation and the dangers of nuclear conflict may become more prominent, affecting international diplomatic agendas.

Domestic Politics

The transition of power in Iran will be closely monitored, with speculations about the next supreme leader affecting both regional politics and international relations. In countries like the U.S. and Israel, the incident may be used as a political tool in upcoming elections. This could shape voter opinions and campaign strategies.

In conclusion, the death of Ebrahim Raisi has not only stirred immediate reactions but is also likely to have lasting effects on global politics, public sentiment, and online discourse. The event serves as a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of modern geopolitical conflicts and the role of digital platforms in shaping contemporary narratives.