RedState91%

Dems Aren't Going to Like This News About the Reflecting Pool 82%

By Nick Arama94%

6/24/2026, 10:51:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 35 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Right Leaning Bias, Negativity Bias, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 59.2% saturation with 252 hits. Analysis detected 1,446 faulty-reasoning hits from 426 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.5% and a BS Rank of 82% (4,035 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.60% of the article peer group.

Democrats have been losing their minds for days now over the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. 
The only reason they cared was that they thought they could attack President Donald Trump over the algae bloom in the pool, after he had said how beautiful it looked immediately after it was done. 
They were even freaking out over three dead ducks found in the area. 
Now we don't know why the ducks were dead. 
Folks on the Left immediately tried to blame the use of the hydrogen peroxide to treat the algae in the pool. 
But that didn't fly. 
“I know a few more dead ducks have been found, but hydrogen peroxide remains an extremely unlikely cause,” said Brad Bortner, the former national division chief of migratory bird management at FWS. 
“They [would] have to pour hundreds or thousands of gallons of industrial-strength hydrogen peroxide into the reflecting pool to reach a concentration that would kill a bird.” 
The Democrats didn't give a darn about when Barack Obama spent $34 million on it, had algae within a month, and didn't resolve the leaking problem. 
Trump had to fix it because it was still leaking 45,000 gallons a day. 
Now that's fixed. 
Oh, and the ducks? 
Here's what happened under the Obama administration: 80 dead ducks from a parasite. 
CNN reported on 80 ducks dying in one weekend and recurring algae problems during the Obama administration. 
Now one duck dies or algae appears, and it’s suddenly treated like a national emergency. 
The difference isn’t the ducks or the algae. 
The difference is who’s in the White House. 
Bottom line? 
Algae is a natural process, and it can occur in any pool. 
It's just something with which you have to deal. 
But guess what? 
After all that, Democrats are going to have a fit because it looks like the pool is looking "awesome" again, according to TMZ's Charlie Cotton. 
"The Reflecting Pool is looking magnificent this morning." 
"Credit where credit is due," he said. 
Something you'll never hear from the Democrats. 
The poor pro-algae leftists are likely to be very unhappy with that. 
Sounds like the algae they were talking to, encouraging it to bloom, weren't listening. 
Cotton did see a line in the pool he couldn't identify, although he speculated on whether it was a cut or sediment. 
Plus, the ducks were there and looking pretty happy. 
So what is the Left going to come up with next? 
Looks like things may be all set for America 250. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.9%Nick Arama: 10.0%RedState: 7.0%Confirmation Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Nick Arama: 2.1%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic2.1%This article: 9.4%Nick Arama: 1.6%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic9.4%This article: 3.8%Nick Arama: 1.9%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias3.8%This article: 6.3%Nick Arama: 1.5%RedState: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias6.3%This article: 8.5%Nick Arama: 7.3%RedState: 9.2%Framing Effect8.5%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Nick Arama: 0.1%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect6.1%This article: 4.5%Nick Arama: 1.1%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 2.6%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 35.0%Nick Arama: 21.4%RedState: 13.9%Negativity Bias35.0%This article: 8.2%Nick Arama: 1.3%RedState: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias8.2%This article: 3.3%Nick Arama: 3.2%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error3.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Nick Arama: 6.1%RedState: 4.7%In-Group Bias6.3%This article: 1.6%Nick Arama: 5.5%RedState: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.6%This article: 2.1%Nick Arama: 1.6%RedState: 2.0%Halo Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.5%RedState: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%Nick Arama: 1.7%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.6%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.1%RedState: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 21.4%Nick Arama: 11.9%RedState: 6.9%Ad Hominem21.4%This article: 3.3%Nick Arama: 3.1%RedState: 2.6%Straw Man3.3%This article: 11.5%Nick Arama: 3.6%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority11.5%This article: 10.1%Nick Arama: 2.3%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma10.1%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.2%RedState: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.8%Nick Arama: 13.6%RedState: 10.1%Hasty Generalization18.8%This article: 4.9%Nick Arama: 0.9%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring4.9%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.1%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.3%Nick Arama: 7.6%RedState: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion3.3%This article: 1.9%Nick Arama: 2.7%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question1.9%This article: 6.3%Nick Arama: 1.6%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.3%This article: 6.1%Nick Arama: 1.8%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque6.1%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.7%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 2.8%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature2.8%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.1%Nick Arama: 1.9%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal2.1%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.2%Nick Arama: 1.4%RedState: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.2%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.4%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.7%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.5%Nick Arama: 2.8%RedState: 2.4%Unattributed Quote7.5%This article: 21.6%Nick Arama: 2.1%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection21.6%This article: 59.2%Nick Arama: 34.4%RedState: 21.5%Biased Writer Voice59.2%This article: 1.6%Nick Arama: 7.1%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination1.6%This article: 4.9%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias4.9%This article: 40.4%Nick Arama: 24.4%RedState: 15.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias40.4%This article: 4.0%Nick Arama: 5.2%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.0%

426 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers21%attributed speech335writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageBrad Bortner • 32 words • 100.0% coverageBrad Bortner • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageCNN • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageCharlie Cotton • 8 words • 100.0% coverageCharlie Cotton • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Brad Bortner

100%flagged-word coverage
59 attributed words65% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+92.5 ptsWriter: 7.5%Brad Bortner: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-75.2 ptsWriter: 75.2%Brad Bortner: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+54.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Brad Bortner: 54.2%54.2%Politically Right Leaning -51.3 ptsWriter: 51.3%Brad Bortner: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Brad Bortner: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.1 ptsWriter: 2.1%Brad Bortner: 0.0%0.0%

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.