Breitbart⁠82%

Cotton: China Views Democratic Socialists of America as 'Ideological Fellow Travelers' ⁠91%

By Jeff Poor⁠99% #author⁠71%

7/11/2026, 3:59:52 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Overconfidence Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 46.9% saturation with 113 hits. Analysis detected 925 faulty-reasoning hits from 241 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠91% (1,924 of 20,546 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.60% of the article peer group.

Friday, during an appearance on FNC’s “The Ingraham Angle,” Sen. 
Tom Cotton (R-AR) argued that the rise of so-called Democratic Socialists would have implications on the global stage. 
According to the Arkansas Republican, the communist Chinese saw these American candidates as “ideological fellow travelers.” 
“Senator, I’m sure you suspected that this was in the offing,” host Laura Ingraham said. 
“It doesn’t shock me at all that communist China believes it will have a friend in these new socialists.” 
Cotton replied, “No, Laura, it doesn’t shock me either. 
And we shouldn’t be surprised that socialists in America and socialists in China get along so well. 
They’re both socialists, after all. 
This woman, for instance, belonged to a political caucus whose manifesto opens with a quote from Karl Marx. 
One of her comrades in New York City founded an organization that said it was dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization.” 
“And you heard in that quote right there, what she’s really pushing for in the future is a kind of global government, which, of course, has been the ultimate goal of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist thought from the very beginning, to have worldwide communist government that eliminates self-governing democracies like the United States and our friends and allies,” he added. 
“So, we shouldn’t be surprised at all that China views these socialists in America as ideological fellow travelers.” 
Follow Jeff Poor on X @jeff_poor 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 46.9%Jeff Poor: 15.1%Breitbart: 4.4%Confirmation Bias46.9%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 1.8%Breitbart: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Jeff Poor: 8.4%Breitbart: 4.0%Availability Heuristic7.5%This article: 2.1%Jeff Poor: 1.7%Breitbart: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic2.1%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 31.1%Jeff Poor: 10.8%Breitbart: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias31.1%This article: 22.0%Jeff Poor: 17.4%Breitbart: 11.8%Framing Effect22.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 38.6%Jeff Poor: 7.0%Breitbart: 1.7%Pessimism Bias38.6%This article: 17.0%Jeff Poor: 15.4%Breitbart: 9.6%Negativity Bias17.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 2.7%Breitbart: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 1.3%Breitbart: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 1.1%Breitbart: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 2.8%Breitbart: 4.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Jeff Poor: 5.7%Breitbart: 2.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 2.7%Breitbart: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Jeff Poor: 0.4%Breitbart: 0.6%Primacy Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 23.7%Jeff Poor: 6.5%Breitbart: 2.9%Ad Hominem23.7%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 5.5%Breitbart: 1.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 4.2%Breitbart: 4.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 7.5%Jeff Poor: 2.1%Breitbart: 2.5%False Dilemma7.5%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 6.9%Breitbart: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 9.5%Jeff Poor: 1.8%Breitbart: 0.3%Circular Reasoning9.5%This article: 38.2%Jeff Poor: 22.8%Breitbart: 8.0%Hasty Generalization38.2%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.9%Breitbart: 1.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 16.6%Breitbart: 9.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 23.7%Jeff Poor: 6.8%Breitbart: 1.8%Begging the Question23.7%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 6.3%Breitbart: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.7%Breitbart: 0.4%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 1.1%Breitbart: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 7.1%Jeff Poor: 1.5%Breitbart: 0.2%Composition/Division7.1%This article: 16.6%Jeff Poor: 4.0%Breitbart: 2.6%Anecdotal16.6%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 5.8%Breitbart: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.1%Breitbart: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 1.7%Breitbart: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 23.7%Jeff Poor: 3.5%Breitbart: 2.8%Unattributed Quote23.7%This article: 6.2%Jeff Poor: 1.7%Breitbart: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection6.2%This article: 28.2%Jeff Poor: 5.2%Breitbart: 7.9%Biased Writer Voice28.2%This article: 23.7%Jeff Poor: 6.4%Breitbart: 2.1%Indoctrination23.7%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 21.1%Breitbart: 7.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Jeff Poor: 0.7%Breitbart: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.5%

241 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers89%attributed speech27writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageTom Cotton • 18 words • 0.0% coverageTom Cotton • 16 words • 100.0% coverageLaura Ingraham • 15 words • 100.0% coverageLaura Ingraham • 19 words • 100.0% coverageTom Cotton • 9 words • 0.0% coverageTom Cotton • 17 words • 0.0% coverageTom Cotton • 5 words • 0.0% coverageTom Cotton • 18 words • 0.0% coverageTom Cotton • 22 words • 100.0% coverageTom Cotton • 57 words • 100.0% coverageTom Cotton • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tom Cotton

95%flagged-word coverage
180 attributed words84% of attributed speech63% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.1 ptsWriter: 40.7%Tom Cotton: 31.7%31.7%Indoctrination+31.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tom Cotton: 31.7%31.7%Attempt to Sell a Product -22.2 ptsWriter: 22.2%Tom Cotton: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+21.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tom Cotton: 21.1%21.1%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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