Comrade Tillis speaks 86%

By J.R. Dunn61%

7/19/2026, 9:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Indoctrination, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 65.7% saturation with 282 hits. Analysis detected 1,864 faulty-reasoning hits from 429 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 78.6% and a BS Rank of 86% (3,055 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.00% of the article peer group.

That's Thom Tillis, senator-for-life for North Carolina. 
Last week Tillis went public with a solemn promise to the American people regarding Donald Trump's election reform bill, the SAVE act. 
Thom Tillis, he no like. 
He was merciless. 
He condemned its absurdity. 
He condemned its insolence. 
He condemned its very existence as an insult to the Constitution and the rule of law, and vowed to devote his last months in the world's greatest deliberative body assuring that it never passed: 
"If I see a reconciliation bill come from the House with another failed attempt to confuse this election, I will use every device I have available to slow down the wheels of government until people cop a clue and do the math." 
So said Tillis, standing before the court of history while the Republicans looked confused and the Democrats smirked behind him, standing tall and awaiting all the rewards that were showered on Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. 
And there it would probably have ended except for a matter of dates. 
Tillis gave his speech on Wednesday, the 15th. 
And the very next evening, President Trump gave a national speech from the Oval Office, a speech which, as we all know, was too unimportant to be covered by legacy media. 
In that speech, the President connected all the dots between dead voters, illegal voters, and fake absentee ballots, and when he was finished with that, revealed the key element bringing it all together: China. 
It turns out that China has been hacking electoral databases, stealing information on American voters, and openly manipulating the vote. 
It's even possible that the Chinese played a role in the now undeniable fraudulent 2020 election. 
So, within a matter of a few hours, Thom Tillis was transformed from a modern Cicero putting himself on the line in defense of the Republic into a shill for the world's largest tyranny, racing around the well of the Senate waving the PRC banner and shouting Maoist slogans. 
I'd have liked to have been there when the realization hit him. 
Could it be that DJT actually arranged it to work out this way? 
I wouldn't put it past him. 
Where it goes now is anybody's guess. 
But if this is, as many suspect, not a single shot from the President, but the beginning of a rolling barrage of tweets, press releases, speeches, hearings, and investigations leading up to November, then I wouldn't care to be Thom Tillis. 
John Thune and Susan Collins kindly take note. 
God, I can't wait until we see the last of them. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.2%J.R. Dunn: 8.3%American Thinker: 10.6%Confirmation Bias14.2%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 1.1%American Thinker: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%J.R. Dunn: 2.7%American Thinker: 3.7%Availability Heuristic10.3%This article: 7.9%J.R. Dunn: 3.8%American Thinker: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic7.9%This article: 17.2%J.R. Dunn: 2.0%American Thinker: 1.3%Hindsight Bias17.2%This article: 10.0%J.R. Dunn: 3.4%American Thinker: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias10.0%This article: 0.7%J.R. Dunn: 1.7%American Thinker: 7.1%Framing Effect0.7%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.6%American Thinker: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.2%J.R. Dunn: 3.2%American Thinker: 2.6%Pessimism Bias17.2%This article: 42.9%J.R. Dunn: 12.5%American Thinker: 13.0%Negativity Bias42.9%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.0%American Thinker: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 3.9%American Thinker: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%J.R. Dunn: 3.0%American Thinker: 3.9%In-Group Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 5.5%American Thinker: 5.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 2.5%American Thinker: 2.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 2.9%American Thinker: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.1%American Thinker: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.6%J.R. Dunn: 0.7%American Thinker: 1.3%Recency Bias9.6%This article: 5.1%J.R. Dunn: 0.5%American Thinker: 0.7%Primacy Effect5.1%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 26.3%J.R. Dunn: 6.2%American Thinker: 5.6%Ad Hominem26.3%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 3.2%American Thinker: 4.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.7%J.R. Dunn: 3.0%American Thinker: 4.7%Appeal to Authority21.7%This article: 21.0%J.R. Dunn: 3.8%American Thinker: 4.7%False Dilemma21.0%This article: 21.0%J.R. Dunn: 2.9%American Thinker: 3.3%Slippery Slope21.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.7%J.R. Dunn: 10.1%American Thinker: 16.8%Hasty Generalization4.7%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.5%American Thinker: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 9.6%J.R. Dunn: 1.5%American Thinker: 0.5%Bandwagon9.6%This article: 30.8%J.R. Dunn: 8.6%American Thinker: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion30.8%This article: 11.0%J.R. Dunn: 1.6%American Thinker: 2.7%Begging the Question11.0%This article: 11.0%J.R. Dunn: 6.2%American Thinker: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.0%J.R. Dunn: 1.3%American Thinker: 1.7%Burden of Proof3.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.8%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.8%J.R. Dunn: 6.5%American Thinker: 3.6%Anecdotal2.8%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 3.4%American Thinker: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.6%American Thinker: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.5%J.R. Dunn: 15.7%American Thinker: 3.1%Unattributed Quote14.5%This article: 5.1%J.R. Dunn: 0.9%American Thinker: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection5.1%This article: 65.7%J.R. Dunn: 20.5%American Thinker: 22.9%Biased Writer Voice65.7%This article: 42.9%J.R. Dunn: 3.8%American Thinker: 5.9%Indoctrination42.9%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.7%American Thinker: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 5.6%American Thinker: 14.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J.R. Dunn: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

429 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.8%attributed speech387writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageThom Tillis • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Thom Tillis

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words100% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+94.8 ptsWriter: 5.2%Thom Tillis: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-72.9 ptsWriter: 72.9%Thom Tillis: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-47.5 ptsWriter: 47.5%Thom Tillis: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.7 ptsWriter: 5.7%Thom Tillis: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.