Trump is an Angry, Violent Man … And Canada is His Battered Wife ⁠52%

By Josh Marshall⁠74%

7/21/2026, 3:21:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Biased Writer Voice, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 26.9% saturation with 63 hits. Analysis detected 553 faulty-reasoning hits from 234 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠52% (10,501 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 52.00% of the article peer group.

Donald Trump has announced that he will impose in 30 days a new round of tariffs on Canada. 
Those tariffs are at best of dubious legality. 
They are justified under the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which has quite likely been superseded by subsequent post-war trade legislation. 
But questions of legality, while critical, tend to obscure the more elemental question of, why? 
There are at least arguments as to why the US might want to impose protectionist measures against China or other countries with far lower wages and workforce protections. 
There are other weaker but still arguable rationales for protectionism targeting Europe. 
One can even make arguments about Mexico since wages south of the border are still much lower than in the US. 
(To be clear, I mostly don’t agree with these arguments, though I also disagree with a doctrinaire free trade approach.) 
There’s really no economic or strategic argument for these tariffs on Canadian goods at all. 
Canada has comparable living standards and regulatory regimes to the US; key US industries like autos are woven across the US border. 
The anchor of US prosperity has always been the way it amounts to a massive free trade zone. 
And Canada only extends that to the north. 
And yet tariffs against Canada appear to be the White House’s near or entire focus. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.0%Josh Marshall: 4.8%Talking Points Memo: 5.0%Confirmation Bias12.0%This article: 9.0%Josh Marshall: 1.4%Talking Points Memo: 1.4%Anchoring Bias9.0%This article: 14.1%Josh Marshall: 2.3%Talking Points Memo: 2.7%Availability Heuristic14.1%This article: 9.4%Josh Marshall: 3.5%Talking Points Memo: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic9.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 3.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 14.1%Josh Marshall: 9.8%Talking Points Memo: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias14.1%This article: 15.4%Josh Marshall: 9.8%Talking Points Memo: 12.6%Framing Effect15.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 2.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Josh Marshall: 2.7%Talking Points Memo: 2.6%Pessimism Bias3.4%This article: 26.9%Josh Marshall: 9.2%Talking Points Memo: 12.7%Negativity Bias26.9%This article: 8.5%Josh Marshall: 1.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 2.1%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 1.8%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Josh Marshall: 1.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Primacy Effect5.6%This article: 8.5%Josh Marshall: 1.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias8.5%This article: 5.6%Josh Marshall: 2.7%Talking Points Memo: 3.3%Ad Hominem5.6%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.0%Josh Marshall: 1.4%Talking Points Memo: 4.0%Appeal to Authority9.0%This article: 6.4%Josh Marshall: 1.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.2%False Dilemma6.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 20.5%Josh Marshall: 10.9%Talking Points Memo: 5.6%Hasty Generalization20.5%This article: 6.4%Josh Marshall: 1.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Red Herring6.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 2.3%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.6%Josh Marshall: 1.8%Talking Points Memo: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion5.6%This article: 3.4%Josh Marshall: 0.6%Talking Points Memo: 1.7%Begging the Question3.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 2.1%Talking Points Memo: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 2.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 9.4%Josh Marshall: 1.5%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Composition/Division9.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 1.4%Talking Points Memo: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.1%Josh Marshall: 3.7%Talking Points Memo: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.1%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.5%Josh Marshall: 1.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Middle Ground8.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 2.1%Talking Points Memo: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.4%Josh Marshall: 1.0%Talking Points Memo: 2.3%Quote-first Misdirection6.4%This article: 17.5%Josh Marshall: 13.8%Talking Points Memo: 14.1%Biased Writer Voice17.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 5.1%Talking Points Memo: 6.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Josh Marshall: 0.9%Talking Points Memo: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

234 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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