Marjorie Taylor Greene fears Trump will use war as excuse to cancel 2028 election 78%

By Owen Scott0%

5/22/2026, 10:33:41 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 41.9% saturation with 208 hits. Analysis detected 1,176 faulty-reasoning hits from 496 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.3% and a BS Rank of 78% (4,915 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.50% of the article peer group.

Former Trump loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene says that she fears President Trump will try to use war to cancel the 2028 presidential election.  
Greene, who infamously broke with the president after calling for the release of the Epstein files, referenced a meeting in which Trump alluded to canceling elections. 
“I’m concerned,” Greene said on Alex Jones Live on Thursday. 
“And he said it jokingly.  
​“But at the same time, knowing President Trump, I looked at that, and I thought, I don’t know if he’s saying it, joking.”​ 
Jones, the show’s host and a noted conspiracy theorist, interjected: “I remember that clip. 
That’s what people do. 
That’s what psychos do.”​ 
Trump made the now-infamous remark while speaking to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office last August.  
Since then, Trump has launched his own war against Iran, which still has no end in sight as peace talks have struggled to make progress.  
“So you say, during the war, you can’t have elections,” Trump said at the time. 
“So let me just see,” the president continued.  
“Three and a half years from now, so you mean if we happen to be in a war with somebody, no more elections? 
Oh, that’s good.”​ 
Greene told Jones that she believes Trump’s behavior is that of a person “planting an idea over and over and over again.”​ 
“And again, he constantly says it so that he can normalize the idea and test the support and test people’s reactions,” she claimed. 
“But saying it over and over and over again normalizes the idea.  
“And I think it’s incredibly dangerous, and no one should ever accept it.​” 
Greene went on to say that a third Trump term would be “against the Constitution” and said that the election should not be cancelled even if the country is at war.  
Trump has repeatedly alluded to remaining in office after the conclusion of his second stint in the White House.  
The president has even sold “TRUMP 2028” hats and claimed he was “entitled” to an unconstitutional third term, because he believes that the Democrats “cheated like hell” during the 2020 presidential election.  
Suggestions that the 2020 election was rigged or stolen have been widely debunked.  
The president has also said that he will only accept the results of the 2026 midterm elections, if they are “honest.”​ 
If they aren’t, he told NBC News that he believes “something else has to happen.” 
Greene, who was previously an ardent supporter of Trump, broke with the president when she called for the release of the Epstein files. 
The then-congresswoman was subsequently dubbed “Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Brown” by Trump. 
Amid the fallout, Greene announced that she was resigning from Congress. 
Now a fierce critic of Trump, Greene has claimed that releasing the Epstein files was the “demise” of the Republican party but “worth every single bit.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.7%Owen Scott: 1.6%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias16.7%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%Owen Scott: 2.3%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic13.5%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.6%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Owen Scott: 2.4%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias4.6%This article: 27.4%Owen Scott: 5.5%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect27.4%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.7%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Owen Scott: 0.5%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias11.9%This article: 41.9%Owen Scott: 8.4%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias41.9%This article: 5.2%Owen Scott: 2.4%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias5.2%This article: 11.3%Owen Scott: 1.1%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error11.3%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 2.2%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.8%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.3%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.7%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Owen Scott: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect9.9%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Owen Scott: 2.9%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem2.8%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.8%Owen Scott: 4.4%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority2.8%This article: 14.1%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma14.1%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 2.6%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning2.6%This article: 6.0%Owen Scott: 2.3%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization6.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.3%Owen Scott: 5.9%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion9.3%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 17.1%Owen Scott: 3.2%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.1%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.7%Owen Scott: 0.5%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof7.7%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.6%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal2.6%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.3%Owen Scott: 1.8%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.3%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.8%Owen Scott: 2.5%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote4.8%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 2.8%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 14.7%Owen Scott: 3.1%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice14.7%This article: 2.6%Owen Scott: 1.6%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination2.6%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.9%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.3%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

496 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers62%attributed speech189writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 6 words • 0.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageAlex Jones • 4 words • 0.0% coverageAlex Jones • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 15 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 9 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 23 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 3 words • 0.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 23 words • 0.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 13 words • 100.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 26 words • 0.0% coverage
92%flagged-word coverage
203 attributed words66% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-38.6 ptsWriter: 38.6%Marjorie Taylor Greene: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+11.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Marjorie Taylor Greene: 11.8%11.8%Indoctrination+6.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Marjorie Taylor Greene: 6.4%6.4%

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.