Memorial Day is dedicated to honoring and remembering military personnel who have died in service to the United States. The day is marked by various activities including parades, ceremonies, and moments of silence. MIG Reports analysis shows public sentiment and discussion around Memorial Day can vary significantly across different ideological backgrounds.

General Sentiment

Most Americans respect and honor Memorial Day as a solemn and significant day. However, many discussions emphasize different aspects of the holiday. The sentiment attached to these discussions can differ markedly between conservative and liberal or progressive circles.

Conservative Perspectives

Conservatives emphasize the themes of patriotism, sacrifice, and national pride. They use Memorial Day as an opportunity to celebrate the military and express gratitude for the freedoms secured by fallen soldiers.

Discussions in conservative circles focus on attending parades, visiting memorials, and participating in ceremonies. There is often a strong sense of community and collective honor in these activities.

The sentiment in conservative circles is predominantly positive but can also be solemn and reflective. There is a strong emotional attachment to the military and a high level of respect for those who have served and sacrificed.

Liberal Perspectives

Liberals often use Memorial Day as a time to reflect on the consequences of war and the importance of peace. They emphasize the human cost of conflict and the need for diplomatic solutions to global issues.

Discussions tend to focus on the experiences of minority groups in the military, how we treat veterans, and issues like mental health and homelessness among former service members.

The sentiment in liberal and progressive circles can be mixed. While there is respect and honor for fallen soldiers, there is also critical reflection on the reasons for war and the treatment of veterans. Emotions can range from solemn to critical, with an underlying call for systemic change.

Partisan Differences on Social Media

Platforms and forums conservatives congregate often feature highly patriotic posts and discussions supporting the military. Users share stories of bravery and sacrifice, often accompanied by American flags and other national symbols.

Liberal social media discussions tend to include tributes to soldiers but are also likely to feature critiques of military interventions and discussions on how to better support living veterans. There are calls for policy changes and discussions on the broader implications of military actions.

Despite ideological differences, both conservative and liberal discussions share a common thread of honoring those who serve the country. However, the context and additional themes discussed can differ widely.

The evolving landscape of digital currencies brings together perspectives from many voting groups. From conservative, small-government voters to progressive, anti-establishment advocates, many Americans are bullish on digital assets. However, as governments explore the implementation of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) or other forms of regulated digital currencies, crypto advocates are vocal in expressing their concerns, and skepticism.

CBDCs are digital assets that use blockchain in a similar way to Bitcoin or Ethereum. However, CBDCs are also owned and controlled by the government. Because digital assets are completely trackable and transparent, many fear a government issued digital currency would threaten financial autonomy.

Many in the crypto community fear the actions of figures like Fed chair Jerome Powell and SEC chair Gary Gensler. They suspect politicians and government officials who have an investment in protecting the financial system status quo will work to impose greater strictures on cryptocurrencies. They also fear the potential of these figures to push a government controlled digital currency, despite their claims that the U.S. has no such plans.

Why Americans Like Decentralized Currencies

The traditional banking system in the United States, sometimes called “TradFi,” is often viewed through a lens of skepticism and distrust. Many Americans mention private banks and the Federal Reserve in relation to corruption, lack of transparency, and political scandals. A growing number of Americans suspect TradFi institutions of being complicit in unethical behavior.

Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, on the other hand, are seen by some as a potential antidote to the corruption and inefficiency of traditional banks. The decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies promises a level of transparency and freedom from central authority. This appeals to Americans who are disillusioned with conventional financial systems.

However, this optimism can sometimes be tempered by volatility in crypto markets and regulatory uncertainty in the U.S. for digital currencies. Many who view the Federal Reserve, the SEC, and the IRS negatively voice concerns about government overreach. Crypto supporters often cite these agencies as a key reason for their support of decentralized finance.

The traditional banking system is highly regulated, which portends providing a level of security and protection for consumers. However, many voters view this regulatory framework as overly bureaucratic, slow to adapt to new technologies, and exploitative of Americans’ finances.

In contrast, the relatively unregulated nature of cryptocurrencies presents both an opportunity and a risk. Many say the appeal lies in crypto's innovation and the promise of financial sovereignty.

American Views of a Potential CBDC

Much of the crypto community prioritizes privacy and sovereignty over government sponsored consumer protections. These advocates, often supporters of privacy-focused coins like Monero, perceive CBDCs as tools for enhanced government surveillance.

Pro-crypto voters argue a state issued digital currency would erode financial privacy by enabling real-time tracking of individual transactions. Privacy advocates vocally resist and criticize the potential implementation of CBDC.

Many are also skeptical about involving regulatory bodies like the SEC in the crypto space. Recent controversies around figures like Gary Gensler and Joe Biden have fueled distrust. Many believe regulatory bodies unfairly favor certain crypto projects who play ball with regulators and stifle genuine innovation.

Crypto has a strong base among libertarians who advocate for minimal government intervention in personal finances. There are also many anti-establishment Democrats and progressives who want to oppose big banks and promote financial inclusion. Across political divides, crypto voters see blockchain assets as tools for financial freedom and decentralized ownership. CBDCs, being state controlled, are seen as antithetical to these ideals.

Democrats Emerge as Adversaries to Crypto Voters

Democrats take a cautious approach towards cryptocurrency, often advocating for strict regulations. They emphasize the need for robust regulatory frameworks, which the claim will protect consumers. Democrat politicians express a desire prevent financial crimes and ensure the benefits of crypto are equitably distributed. However, this stance is often diametrically opposed to the principles of sovereignty and ownership that many in the crypto community subscribe to.

Republicans are widely perceived as more pro-crypto than Democrats. They tend to view blockchain technologies as an embodiment of free-market principles and innovation. They are more likely to advocate for a regulatory environment fostering growth and minimizing government interference. For this reason, even Democratic crypto voters voice support for pro-crypto Republicans.

MIG Reports deep-dive analysis on Mexican cartel presence in the United States highlights a few notable trends:

• Increasing concerns about cartel activities
• Polarization on illegal immigration
• Evolving discourse on the border
• Media blame for information gaps among voters

Cartels inflict severe humanitarian and socioeconomic harm on their own country and the U.S. They drive violence, exploitation, and forced migration; destabilizing communities, undermining development, and contributing to poverty and corruption.

They also play a significant role in irregular and illegal immigration, with migrants often falling victim to cartel violence. Their activities threaten national security by infiltrating U.S. neighborhoods with drug and child trafficking and organized crime.

• Discussion trends show drug and human trafficking are two of the most prevalent keywords related to border issues.

Common Viewpoints Among All Voters

Despite significant ideological and political divides, recent escalations in the border crisis are driving down approval for the Biden administration’s policies. Democrats and progressives are still much more likely to support the existing border situation. However, there are several key points of agreement that a majority of Americans share:

• American sentiment towards Mexican cartels is overwhelmingly negative.
• Cartels are primarily viewed through the lens of violence, drug trafficking, and the ensuing social harm.
• The opioid crisis driven by fentanyl is a major concern linked to cartel activities.
• Cartels are perceived as a direct threat to American society.

There also seems to be certain knowledge gaps in various demographics regarding border issues. Analysis suggests this is largely a result of media outlets selectively reporting or framing political narratives.

• Conservatives and legal immigrants tend to have the most initiative in seeking out information about the border and Mexican cartels.
• Wealthier and more left leaning Americans may have some knowledge, but largely accept media narratives.
• Young Americans and elderly Americans may both have a skewed view of the border due to lack of or outdated information.

Views of Mexican Cartels

Political Trends

Republicans tend to view cartels as a major threat exacerbated by perceived lax border policies under Democratic administrations. The narrative often links cartels to broader criticisms of immigration policy, highlighting issues such as fentanyl trafficking and human trafficking.

Democrats, while also concerned about cartel activities, focus more on the humanitarian aspects of immigration and the need for comprehensive immigration reform. There is less emphasis on cartels as the primary issue.

Geographic Influence

Border State residents in places like Texas, Arizona, and California are more likely to have heightened concerns about cartels due to their proximity to the Mexican border. These areas are more directly impacted by cartel activities like drug trafficking and illegal crossings.

Concerns about cartels in non-border states are often more abstract and tied to national narratives than direct experience.

Socioeconomic Status

Lower income communities are often directly affected by the negative consequences of drug trafficking and illegal cartel activity. They tend to see increased crime and addiction rates. Higher income communities are more likely to be focused on broader national security and economic implications rather than personal safety.

Overall Sentiment Trends

The volume of discourse around cartels has increased significantly in recent years. It is particularly pronounced amid the opioid crisis and high-profile cases of human trafficking.

Negative sentiment has also intensified, especially among Republicans and residents of border states. There is a marked increase in the association of cartel activities with broader criticisms of the Biden administration's policies.

However, there are notable demographics who are relatively ignorant of the complexity of cartel operations. This group includes:

• Some urban liberal populations – particularly those insulated from direct impacts. They often do not fully grasp the nuances of cartel operations and the effects on border communities.
• Younger Americans – especially those not living in high-impact areas. They may lack a comprehensive understanding of the issue, often receiving information through filtered social media narratives.

Top Discussion Topics Related to Cartels

Drug Trafficking

The fentanyl crisis is a significant concern. Many attribute the influx of fentanyl to cartel activities. This is often mentioned with criticisms of current border policies.

Human Trafficking

There is strong negativity towards cartels perpetrating human trafficking, particularly child trafficking. This topic ties into broader concerns about immigration policies and border security.

Violent Crime

Many Americans associate cartels with increased violent crime. This is true in border states and across the nation as cartels expand their operations.

View of Illegal Immigration

Political Trends

Republicans typically express strong anti-cartel sentiments. They often link cartel activities to illegal immigration and border security. Messaging from conservative media and politicians emphasizes the dangers posed by cartels in terms of drug trafficking and violent crime.

As with cartels, liberals and Democrats tend to focus more on humanitarian aspects of the immigration conversation. They highlight the plight of asylum seekers and the socioeconomic factors driving migration. They may be more critical of aggressive border policies they feel unfairly target immigrants.

Geographic Influence

Border State residents have heightened awareness and therefore stronger opinions about illegal immigration due to proximity and direct impact. Experiences with border security issues and local crime rates influence their views.

Residents of non-border states are generally less directly affected and may be more influenced by national media narratives. Their opinions can fluctuate based on high-profile news stories or political campaigns.

Socioeconomic Status

Working-class and lower income groups are more likely to support stringent measures against illegal immigration due to perceived competition for jobs and resources. They also have higher exposure to drug-related issues in their communities.

Middle- and upper-class groups often focus more on policy and humanitarian aspects, advocating for comprehensive immigration reform and international cooperation to tackle the root causes of cartel power.

Overall Sentiment Trends

Recent data, such as the rise in fentanyl-related deaths and reports of increased illegal crossings, have heightened public concern about immigration. This is particularly pronounced among conservatives, who link these issues directly to border security failures.

The topic of cartels and immigration has become highly polarized, with significant differences in sentiment between political affiliations. This polarization is fueled by targeted media narratives and political rhetoric.

There is also a growing divide between those advocating for empathetic approaches to immigration and those prioritizing national security. This divide is often along socioeconomic political lines.

Ignorance of the Border Crisis

Urban residents in non-border states far from the crisis sometimes have limited knowledge of cartel operations and immigration. Their understanding is largely shaped by media consumption, which can vary widely in accuracy and focus.

While more informed on certain social issues, younger Americans often lack detailed knowledge about the operational intricacies of cartels, focusing instead on broader humanitarian narratives.

Residents in higher socioeconomic brackets can also be somewhat insulated from the direct impacts of cartel activities, leading to a less urgent perception of the issue.

Overall View of the Border Crisis

General Sentiments and Understanding

Republicans typically express the deepest concern over cartel activities, associating them with broader issues of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and national security. Sentiment is strongly negative, emphasizing the dangers posed by open border policies, which conservatives believe enables cartel operations. This group almost universally advocates for stricter border controls and increased law enforcement.

Democrats often frame the issue within a broader context of immigration reform and humanitarian concerns. While acknowledging the dangers of cartels, they argue for comprehensive immigration policies to address root causes and provide pathways to citizenship. Their sentiment is mixed, balancing concerns about security with empathy for migrants.

Media Influence

Media outlets play a crucial role in shaping public opinion. Conservative media often highlights violent incidents involving cartels and illegal immigrants. They disseminate information and bring awareness to what is happening while advocating for stringent border measures.

In contrast, mainstream and leftist media focuses on humanitarian aspects, critiquing harsh enforcement policies and highlighting stories of migrant suffering. Many view mainstream media as a critical cause for progressive and urban Americans’ lack of knowledge about border issues.

There is some media coverage, especially from outlets like NBC News and AP News, amplifying the perception of cartels as a pervasive threat. Reports on cartel violence and its impact on both Mexican and American communities reinforce the idea that cartels are a critical issue that requires urgent attention.

Public Awareness

There is a significant disparity in public awareness about cartel operations. Many Americans are aware of high-profile incidents and general issues related to drug trafficking and violence. However, detailed knowledge about cartel structures, operations, and their socioeconomic impact is limited. This is true across the board but is especially pronounced among those not directly affected by the border crisis.

Despite insufficient public awareness about border issues overall, discussions have dramatically increased during the Biden administration. Awareness also rises with high-profile incidents like the murder of Laken Riley, which many point out happens more frequently under current policies.

Social media platforms also amplify these discussions. This can result in viral awareness campaigns or sometimes lead to echo chambers where existing sentiments are reinforced.

Major Sentiment Trends

There is a noticeable increase in fear, especially among conservative circles. This is driven by increasing violent crimes and drug trafficking associated with cartel activities.

Among liberals and younger demographics, there is advocacy for balanced policies that secure the border while addressing humanitarian needs. This trend reflects an acknowledgment, even on the left, of unacceptable current conditions at the border.

A recent pivot by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Biden administration regarding the approval of an Ethereum ETF (Exchange-Traded Fund) has the crypto community buzzing. On Wednesday, speculation suddenly started whirling that an ETH ETF, which many saw as an extreme long shot, was rapidly becoming a sure thing.

The shift comes amid a broader regulatory landscape in which pro-crypto Americans feel adversarial towards Gary Gensler’s SEC and anti-crypto Democrats. This rivalry includes the contentious FIT21 Act, which aims to clarify the regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies and digital assets. A surprisingly bipartisan vote to approve FIT21 sent the rumor mill churning.

Have Democrats Actually Changed Their Minds?

Cryptocurrency enthusiasts and libertarians are mostly positive about the SEC's pivot from decidedly against crypto to sparking rumors an ETH ETF is imminent. This group has long advocated for the mainstream acceptance of digital assets, viewing the potential approval of an Ethereum ETF as a step towards legitimizing cryptocurrencies.

However, most remain skeptical that recent wind changes come from genuine support for crypto. They voice suspicions that Democratic politicians rather seek to avoid upsetting voters prior to the 2024 election.

Banks May Own Politicians

Many people praise the FIT21 Act and criticize regulatory figures like SEC Chair Gary Gensler. They perceive his outspoken opposition to FIT21 as an attempt to stifle innovation and pander to banks. Some even view the SEC and Biden administration’s newfound acceptance of crypto as an indication they are receiving pressure from banks. There is speculation that banks want to participate in crypto gains – and that politicians respond more to banks than voters.

Voters May Make Themselves Known

Others highlight the importance of crypto in the upcoming presidential election. Instead of pressure from banks interested in joining the crypto upside, this group believes crypto voters could be a decisive factor for Biden's campaign. This is especially true as the president continues to hemorrhage support from pro-Palestine Democrats and blue-collar Americans.

• Wednesday’s rumors Gensler would approve an Ethereum ETF likely account for his brief bump in approval over the last few days.
• Gensler’s approval reached a high of 53% as conversations gained steam about bipartisan votes and the possible ETF approval.

Partisan Views of the Issue

Many see recent shifts as a rebuke of what they perceive as overreach by regulatory agencies under the Biden administration. Comments from GOP figures and their supporters often frame the issue in terms of economic freedom and innovation. The enthusiastic support from Republicans reflects a broader GOP strategy to position themselves as champions of financial innovation and deregulation.

Progressive and Democratic voters tend to be more critical of the SEC's new position and the FIT21 Act. They echo concerns raised by SEC Chair Gensler about potential regulatory loopholes and undermining investor protections.

Financial industry professionals and analysts have a mixed but generally cautious perspective. They recognize the potential benefits of a regulated Ethereum ETF but are also mindful of the complexities involved in integrating cryptocurrencies into the traditional financial system.

Biden Admin and Crypto

The relationship between American crypto holders and the Biden administration has been fraught with tension. The prevailing sentiment towards Biden and Democrats is overwhelmingly negative. Crypto enthusiasts on the left and the right express frustration and anger, perceiving the administration's stance as overly restrictive.

Many crypto holders feel the administration, through Gary Gensler's leadership at the SEC, is creating unwarranted roadblocks. There is a palpable desire among crypto holders for a change in leadership at the SEC. His stance is often described as anachronistic, with critics arguing existing securities laws, which are nearly a century old, need updating.

Recent bipartisan votes suggest discontent with Democratic crypto policies is not confined to a single political ideology but spans across the political spectrum.

Playing Catchup with Crypto Voters

Many suspect President Biden is shifting his stance on crypto to accommodate younger voters – who largely disapprove of him. With broader political shift towards more crypto-friendly regulations, people attribute this to an attempt to win over voters.

The administration's perceived hostility towards crypto is increasingly viewed as a contributing factor to his disapproval. Especially given the high level of engagement with digital assets among younger demographics.

In addition, political figures like former President Donald Trump, have begun to embrace crypto more openly. Trump's campaign even accepts crypto donations. This move, which is perceived as an attempt to appeal to the crypto community, seems to be welcomed.

Despite some expressing skepticism that Trump truly embraces crypto, most seem willing to believe he won’t actively fight against it. The Biden administration, by contrast, continues to solidify its reputation of being antagonistic towards crypto holders. It remains to be seen whether voters will accept a pro-crypto pivot from Biden as readily as they have from Trump.

Recent reporting that sex offenders are being employed and housed in hotels with unaccompanied migrant children has sparked significant controversy and concern about a program already rampant with child trafficking.

MIG Reports analysis reveals an intersection of concern over immigration, child welfare, and public safety. This issue is particularly sensitive, given the heightened scrutiny around the treatment and care of vulnerable populations such as unaccompanied minors.

Americans Agree Child Safety is Crucial

The general sentiment on this issue is overwhelmingly negative. Concerns about the safety and well-being of unaccompanied migrant children are prominent. And reports of children exposed to registered sex offenders exacerbates fears of abuse and exploitation. Public outrage is pronounced, with calls for immediate reforms and stricter oversight of facilities housing unaccompanied minors.

Media Coverage

The topic has garnered media attention but has not received wall-to-wall coverage. Reports tend to spike following investigations or statements from public officials and advocacy groups. Mainstream media and social media platforms have been instrumental in amplifying the issue, often framing it within the broader context of immigration policies and government accountability.

Political Reactions

Political figures have responded with sharp criticisms and calls for action. There is bipartisan condemnation, though framing and blame often diverges along party lines. Conservative voices emphasize the need for stricter immigration controls and better vetting processes. Progressive voices focus on systemic failures and the need for comprehensive child protection measures.

Social Media Trends

Social media platforms have generated a robust conversation, with hashtags like #ProtectOurChildren and #ChildSafety gaining traction. Americans express a mix of indignation, fear, and demands for accountability. The discourse often overlaps with immigration debates, reflecting broader anxieties about border security and governmental oversight.

Voter Group Reactions to Government Failures

Parents and Families

Sentiment is highly negative for families. Parents are particularly alarmed by the potential risks posed to children. This demographic is likely to demand stringent background checks and reforms to ensure children's safety. Many are calling for increased advocacy and support for policies aimed at protecting children in institutional care.

Immigrant Communities

Voter sentiment is mixed among immigrants. While there is concern for the safety of children, immigrant communities might also fear increased stigmatization and punitive measures which could affect their own status and treatment.

This group seems to want child protection along with immigrant rights, emphasizing humane and safe treatment for all.

Public Safety Advocates

Sentiment is strongly negative with safety advocates. This group is likely to push for immediate actions and reforms to prevent similar situations. They promote advocacy for stricter regulations and oversight of facilities housing vulnerable populations.

Political Partisans

Conservatives are likely to argue for more restrictive immigration policies and enhanced security measures. Progressives may focus on systemic failures and advocate for comprehensive reforms in child protection and immigration policies.

Across the political aisle, there is increasing polarization, with each side using the issue to bolster their respective policy agendas.

General Public

Sentiment is generally negative among most Americans, driven by concerns for child safety and governmental accountability. There is heightened public scrutiny of governmental and institutional practices, along with potential shifts in public opinion towards more protective measures for children.

An intense clash between Reps Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG), and Jasmine Crockett during a House hearing went viral last week. Reactions ranged from amusement, offense, shock, and disbelief. Political affiliation largely determined which representative voters sided with. However, a general bipartisan response contained disapproval of what most saw as a juvenile exchange and breakdown of decorum.

This video lays out what happened in tonight’s heated exchange in the oversight hearing pic.twitter.com/7QTmpsa1eA

— Acyn (@Acyn) May 17, 2024

Responses to MTG

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's conservative base often views her as a fiery defender of their values and a fierce critic of leftist agendas. Following her exchange with Reps Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett, many expressed a strong loyalty to outspoken conservatives like MTG, affirming their view that Crockett’s intelligence as lacking. Supporters appreciate MTG's combative style and see her as a necessary disruptor in a political landscape they believe is dominated by liberal voices.

Conservatives and anti-establishment Republicans often harbor deep distrust and resentment towards the political establishment. Therefore, they often applaud the aggressive tactics of politicians like MTG. They see her willingness to confront other lawmakers head-on as a sign of her commitment to shaking up the status quo. However, this support is not without its criticisms, as some feel that her actions sometimes cross the line into unproductive theatrics.

Liberals and progressives mostly vehemently oppose MTG's behavior, labeling it as immature and a waste of taxpayer dollars. These critics focus on her lack of legislative accomplishments and her tendency to engage in what they see as performative and divisive rhetoric. Some suggest MTG is an embarrassment to the country, emphasizing her perceived failures and lack of decorum.

Voter Views of AOC

AOC's progressive supporters see her as a champion of social justice and economic equality. They appreciate her willingness to confront figures like MTG and praise her as a necessary counterbalance to conservative voices. AOC's support of progressive policies and aggressive challenge to conservative rhetoric resonates deeply with her base. This group often sees her as a leader in the fight for a more equitable society.

Moderate and conservative voters are more likely to characterize AOC's actions as overly confrontational and desperate for attention. Critics see her exchange with MTG as contributing to the overall dysfunction and lack of decorum in Congress. They argue such behavior detracts from meaningful legislative work and exacerbates partisan divides.

Some who identify as MAGA supporters feel their views are unfairly marginalized or misrepresented while those of AOC and Crockett are praise. They accuse politicians like AOC of hypocrisy and ignorance of real issues facing Americans.

• All three congresswomen generated online discussion with mentions of their name increasing after their House hearing row.
• MTG gained the most commentary with a peak of 5,915 mentions.
• Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett both took a slight hit to their approval after the argument while MTG gained a slight bump.

Perceived Unintelligence of Congress Members

Most Americans express a level of disillusionment with the competence and intelligence of the country’s Congress members. This is a bipartisan sentiment that gets applied largely to politicians on the opposite side of the aisle.

Liberals and Democrats are more likely to admire AOC and Crockett, viewing them as intelligent, professional, and highly qualified. Conservatives and right leaning voters often criticize the intelligence of both AOC and Crockett, defending the rhetorical skills and superior arguments of figures like MTG.

The criticism of unruly behavior and unintelligent conversation towards Congress members is not exclusive to voters. Senator John Fetterman — who himself has faced criticism about intelligence — took to social media to compare the women’s exchange to the Jerry Springer show.

In the past, I’ve described the U.S. House as The Jerry Springer Show.

Today, I’m apologizing to The Jerry Springer Show. pic.twitter.com/y6wxLX5FIV

— Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) May 17, 2024

Many online found Fetterman’s tweet and response by AOC on X as highly amusing, regardless of who they agree with politically. However, there was also a vocal response by those who criticize Fetterman’s commentary on decorum while himself being notorious for wearing sweatshirts and shorts on the Senate floor.

Conservatives view Fetterman's tweet as an opportunity to criticize perceived double standards and the influence of identity politics within the Democratic Party. Progressives see it as a candid reflection of political dysfunction and degradation of norms. Independents and libertarians likely view the analogy as a confirmation of their cynicism towards the political establishment.

There seems to be an irony or dissonance for many Americans who recognize the embarrassing behavior on both sides of the aisle — yet many cannot help feeling amused.

The Senate voted overwhelmingly to repeal SAB 121, which requires banks to place crypto assets on their balance sheets. The 60-38 vote suggests a bipartisan pushback against the SEC's approach to digital assets but is also generating discussion and disagreement.

Overall, Americans seem to feel a blend of optimism about technological innovation, concerns about regulatory overreach, and a growing recognition of digital assets' potential impact on the economy and society.

There is a noticeable call to promote pro-crypto representatives regardless of political affiliations. Most voters seem to believe the real battle is between corporations and the people, rather than a simple red versus blue political divide when it comes to crypto.

Americans Are Growing Bullish on Bitcoin

A substantial increase in cryptocurrency ownership shows 40% of American adults now own crypto. And the growing number of crypto holders worry stringent regulations could hinder innovation and drive crypto businesses out of the U.S. They argue legislation should involve more input from industry experts to ensure balanced and effective regulation.

Some people discuss potential risks and benefits of crypto. There are concerns about government control over digital currencies and how it might impact individual freedoms. Cryptocurrency is also highlighted as a hedge against inflation and currency devaluation, a topic that is particularly negative for the Biden administration.

Several high-profile Democratic senators, including Sen. Booker, Sen. Casey, Sen. Tester, and others, broke from the Party’s typical stance. The notoriously anti-crypto Biden/Gensler/Warren alliance seems to be facing a shift among Democratic voters towards a more pro-crypto stance.

Republicans May Become the Party of Crypto

Despite a bipartisan vote in the Senate, there are disagreements about whether crypto is truly a bipartisan issue. Some suggest Democrats fear losing donors more than they embrace cryptocurrency.

No crypto is most certainly is not a “bipartisan issue”.

Biden is a democrat, Gensler is a democrat, Elizabeth Warren is a democrat. The entire push to harm this industry has come from democrats.

The fact that a tiny handful of dems got afraid of fundraising numbers & voted… https://t.co/XQ9HqkYp9T

— Bruce Fenton (@brucefenton) May 17, 2024

Most of the politicians who are perceived as enthusiastically pro-crypto are Republican. This pushes many voters to conclude that Democrats, despite their words, are not ardently invested in digital assets.

A tweet from the popular crypto publication Bitcoin Magazine highlights its CEO David Bailey for working with Donald Trump's campaign to shape a Bitcoin and crypto policy agenda. This seems to encourage voices advocating for a president supportive of Bitcoin.

JUST IN: Bitcoin Magazine's CEO David Bailey has been working with Donald Trump's campaign to develop their #Bitcoin and crypto policy agenda.

It's time for a pro-Bitcoin President 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/TQs5S0bf38

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) May 11, 2024

Former President Trump has recently spoken of himself as the best and only option for voters who prioritize the issue of cryptocurrency. He said, “If you’re for crypto, you better vote for Trump.”

“I’m good with Crypto. If you’re for crypto you better vote for Trump.” pic.twitter.com/3ScdE0TfPR

— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) May 9, 2024

Backlash Against Anti-Crypto Politicians

Meanwhile, politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden face widespread criticism for their stance on crypto. Many people feel that anti-crypto policies are detrimental to financial inclusion and innovation, along with worsening already poor economic conditions and fiscal policy.

Supporting anti-crypto policies could materially impact Biden's support, especially among younger and independent voters who are more likely to own crypto. There is a sentiment that Biden could lose votes in the presidential election over the issue of crypto, even from voters who might otherwise voter for him.

Americans seem largely negative towards Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden regarding their anti-crypto policies. Gary Gensler the SEC Chairman also faces criticism for his comments and policies regarding crypto regulation.

There is also a vocal push from Bitcoin supporters who are warming to the idea of a pro-Bitcoin president, criticizing Biden’s promise to veto pro-crypto resolutions.

Accusations of Hypocrisy and Elitism

Another common criticism toward politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden is their crypto policies are "anti-freedom." There are accusations of communism, hypocrisy, and suggestions that they want to maintain their positions in a modern plutocracy.

Many voters mention Warren's wealth and accusations of insider trading. They believe she is aligned with major financial institutions like JP Morgan and is intent on shutting down non-governmental blockchain activities.

Those who view crypto as an opportunity to bring financial opportunity to all and inclusion for the unbanked are some of the harshest critics of rich politicians who push for tighter regulations on digital assets.

The New York Times reported that Justice Samuel Alito displayed an upside-down American flag during the January 6th events, interpreting it as a signal aligned with the "Stop the Steal" movement. The Supreme Court, which Justice Alito sits on, rejected a case challenging the election process in February 2021 and March 2021. It also rejected an appeal in February 2024 on a similar issue. MIG Reports analysis of reactions to this story highlight numerous issues regarding the Supreme Court, January 6, and the mainstream media.

Symbolism of an Upside-Down Flag

The traditional meaning of an upside-down American flag is a signal of distress or extreme danger to life or property. It is codified in the U.S. Flag Code as an official distress signal.

Within the context of political protests and movements, an upside-down flag has sometimes been used to signify a belief that the country is in peril or that the government is failing its people.

Justice Alito's Public Stance

Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, is known for his conservative judicial philosophy. However, there is no public record of him making overt political statements in support of the "Stop the Steal" movement.

Public scrutiny and ethical guidelines typically prevent sitting Supreme Court Justices from engaging in overt political activities, thereby maintaining judicial impartiality.

The New York Times' Reporting

The New York Times may once have been considered a reputable news organization, but public sentiment towards mainstream media has significantly deteriorated. Like many traditional media outlets, the NYT has faced increased criticism and scrutiny regarding its interpretations and reporting biases.

In identifying Alito's upside-down flag as a signal for "Stop the Steal," the NYT drew expressions of distrust from many Americans. They point out such a claim requires substantial evidence, including the context in which the flag was displayed. Some also ask for statements or actions taken by Alito that might corroborate such an interpretation.

Counterarguments and Criticism

Lack of Direct Evidence

Critics say the NYT’s interpretation is speculative without direct evidence linking Alito to the "Stop the Steal" movement.

The absence of public statements or actions by Alito supporting the movement weakens the assertion that the upside-down flag was intended as a political signal.

Misinterpretation of Symbolism

Many say it’s possible the flag was displayed upside-down for reasons unrelated to the "Stop the Steal" movement, such as a general statement of concern for the country's direction or a miscommunication.

There are assertions that interpreting symbols is inherently subjective and can vary widely depending on the observer's perspective and biases.

Potential Bias and Propaganda

Many voters also view the New York Times report as part of a broader narrative to associate conservative figures with the January 6th riot, potentially as a form of political propaganda.

This perspective argues media outlets, including the New York Times, often push skewed narratives which align with their editorial stances or audience expectations.

President Joe Biden’s decision to approve a $1 billion weapons deal with caveats regarding Israel's attack on Rafah has elicited a wide range of reactions from American voters. This contradicting stance from Biden reflects and potentially deepens divisions and evolving attitudes among voters. MIG Reports analysis of these reactions, including any notable changes in sentiment over time, reveals three positions: America First, pro-Israel, and pro-Palestine.

Both American voters and lawmakers express frustration over what they perceive as Biden's inconsistent policy. Critics argue that, despite Biden’s statements, the reality on the ground does not justify a stringent enforcement of the condition that aid should not be used to target Rafah. The perception of hypocrisy is heightened by ongoing reports of civilian casualties and destruction in Gaza.

Some view Biden’s inconsistencies as an attempt to straddle a growing split in the Democratic Party over Israel versus Palestine support. Others view it simply as weak or unprincipled foreign policy.

Support for the Weapons Deal

Many voters who support the weapons deal argue it is crucial for Israel’s national security and its fight against Hamas. They emphasize Israel’s right to defend itself, especially considering recent conflicts and terrorist attacks by Hamas. Supporters emphasize the strategic necessity of the deal, framing it as a defensive measure against terrorism.

Some underscore the historical alliance between the United States and Israel, viewing the deal as a continuation of longstanding diplomatic and military support. This group often references Israel's role as a key ally in the Middle East and a bulwark against regional instability.

Critics of Supporting Israel

Many progressive and pro-Palestine voters express concerns about the humanitarian impact of the weapons deal. They cite the ongoing conflict in Gaza, arguing more weapons to Israel exacerbates the suffering of Palestinian civilians, including children. This group points out the psychological toll and destruction witnessed in Gaza, questioning the morality of further militarizing the region.

There is also a vocal contingent that questions the ethics and accountability of U.S. foreign policy. They argue U.S. support for Israel perpetuates a cycle of violence and undermines efforts for a peaceful resolution. This group often cites incidents of civilian casualties and accuses Israel of committing war crimes or genocide.

Political and Ideological Divides

Right versus left

The political right generally supports the weapons deal, aligning it with a broader pro-Israel, anti-terrorism stance. The left, however, is more divided, with progressive factions being particularly critical of Israeli policies and advocating for Palestinian rights.

Religious influences

Evangelical Christians in the United States, a key demographic within the Republican base, often support strong U.S.-Israel ties based on religious and prophetic beliefs. Conversely, secular and some younger Jewish Americans are more likely to critique Israeli policies, reflecting a generational shift. 

Demographic Changes Over Time

Young voters, particularly millennials and Gen Z, have shown increasing support for Palestinian rights over time. This demographic tends to view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a human rights lens and is more critical of U.S. military aid to Israel. Social media platforms and high-profile protests have amplified this perspective, making it more visible and influential.

Minority Communities

Jewish Americans

Jewish American opinion is increasingly polarized. While many older Jewish Americans remain staunchly pro-Israel, younger Jews are more likely to critique Israeli policies. Organizations like J Street have gained prominence, advocating for a two-state solution and more balanced U.S. policy.

African Americans

There is growing solidarity between African American activists and Palestinian advocates, rooted in shared experiences of systemic oppression and racial injustice. This has translated into increased skepticism towards U.S. support for Israel within these communities.

Latino and Asian Americans

While less monolithic in their views, there is a noticeable trend towards questioning U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East among these groups, particularly among younger individuals who are more likely to engage with global social justice movements.

Shifts in Mainstream Media and Public Discourse

Mainstream media coverage and public discourse around the Israel-Hamas conflict have evolved, with more platforms providing progressive viewpoints and highlighting Palestinian suffering. A traditionally pro-Israel American populous seems to be shifting. Mainstream and social media seem to be large contributors to changing public perceptions, particularly among younger people.