Democrats official X account turns vulgar to bash Stephen Miller ⁠68%

By Rachel Dobkin⁠54%

5/27/2026, 11:20:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Anecdotal, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 48% saturation with 180 hits. Analysis detected 893 faulty-reasoning hits from 375 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61% and a BS Rank of ⁠68% (7,182 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.20% of the article peer group.

The Democratic Party’s official X account did not pull any punches in its response to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller criticizing Senate candidate James Talarico. 
A photo of Talarico, the Democrats’ pick in a consequential U.S. 
Senate race in Texas against Ken Paxton, sparked the online spat. 
“Fired up. 
Ready to go. 
It’s time to take back Texas,” the Democratic Party wrote on X alongside the photo Tuesday night after Texas Attorney General Paxton, President Donald Trump’s pick, defeated Senator John Cornyn in a Republican runoff. 
“The Democrats made history in Texas by nominating their first transgender senate candidate,” Miller baselessly claimed in an X post replying to the Democrats. 
There is no credible evidence that Talarico, known for his Christian faith, is transgender. 
But he has been a supporter of transgender rights, making controversial comments such as saying, “God is non-binary.” 
The Democrats hit back at Miller with their own personal attack, writing, “Shut up you ugly f***.” 
The Independent has reached out to the White House and Talarico’s campaign for comment. 
The use of profanity is in line with a reported uptick in members of the Democratic Party using the F-word on social media. 
In January, there were 23 instances of 12 Democratic lawmakers using the F-bomb on X, according to a six-year analysis by The New York Times published in April. 
While the Democratic Party throws expletives at the Trump administration and California Governor Gavin Newsom trolls the president online, Talarico has taken a different, less aggressive approach to American politics. 
Talarico has run on a platform of unity in a divided country, claiming that the billionaires are tearing the working class apart. 
“The people at the top work so hard to keep us angry and divided because our unity is a threat to their wealth and power,” Talario wrote on his campaign website. 
“They divide us by party, by race, by gender, by religion so we don’t notice they’re defunding our schools, gutting our healthcare, and cutting taxes for themselves and their rich friends,” he said. 
Talarico, who beat Representative Jasmine Crockett with an outright majority in the Democrats’ March primary, will face off against Paxton in November. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.3%Rachel Dobkin: 1.8%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Rachel Dobkin: 2.5%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic6.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 2.9%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 48.0%Rachel Dobkin: 8.5%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect48.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 2.7%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.0%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 34.1%Rachel Dobkin: 9.4%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias34.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 2.9%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Rachel Dobkin: 1.6%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error3.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Rachel Dobkin: 1.9%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Rachel Dobkin: 1.7%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect4.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.3%Rachel Dobkin: 1.3%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias13.3%This article: 2.9%Rachel Dobkin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 12.5%Rachel Dobkin: 1.9%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem12.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.5%Rachel Dobkin: 2.9%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority7.5%This article: 8.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.1%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma8.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.1%Rachel Dobkin: 3.1%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization6.1%This article: 8.8%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring8.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 5.9%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 12.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.8%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question12.0%This article: 2.9%Rachel Dobkin: 2.1%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.4%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof6.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.9%Rachel Dobkin: 1.3%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal13.9%This article: 4.8%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman4.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.8%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.3%Rachel Dobkin: 3.3%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote4.3%This article: 0.5%Rachel Dobkin: 1.6%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.5%This article: 16.5%Rachel Dobkin: 7.9%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice16.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.8%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 8.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.6%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

375 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers42%attributed speech217writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDemocratic Party • 2 words • 100.0% coverageDemocratic Party • 3 words • 100.0% coverageDemocratic Party • 34 words • 0.0% coverageStephen Miller • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDemocratic Party • 17 words • 0.0% coverageThe Independent • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJames Talarico • 31 words • 0.0% coverageJames Talarico • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Stephen Miller

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words15% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+82.5 ptsWriter: 17.5%Stephen Miller: 100.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B-13.8 ptsWriter: 13.8%Stephen Miller: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Stephen Miller: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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