RedState91%

Ruben Gallego Weighs in on Platner Allegations - That Was a Bad Idea 82%

By Nick Arama94%

7/7/2026, 7:30:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 62.9% saturation with 304 hits. Analysis detected 1,680 faulty-reasoning hits from 483 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.1% and a BS Rank of 82% (4,101 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.30% of the article peer group.

Democrats are now running from Graham Platner, their nominee for Senate in Maine, like rats from a sinking ship. The funny thing was, all this was completely predictable  there had been continuing reports that there was more out there that would drop on him. 
Yet Democrats still embraced him. 
So it wasn't surprising that on Monday, a rape allegation was finally leveled against Platner.  
But there was already so much out there that should have caused them to run from him. 
Yet they didn't because they thought he could beat Sen. 
Susan Collins (R-ME). 
Funny how the scramble away from him also happens to coincide with his polls plummeting and Collins taking the lead.   
Anyone who voted for or who supported this character after this stuff came out should be ashamed of themselves, particularly folks like Rep. 
Ro Khanna (CA-17), who went all-in supporting him, even with all the things lodged against him.  
One of the other people weighing in on Monday pulling his endorsement of Platner was Sen. 
Ruben Gallego (D-AZ).  
Now, given that his former best buddy, former California representative Eric Swalwell, was accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct and/or rape, you knew Gallego was likely to get some backlash with that tweet, and he did.  
Here's Lyndsey Fifield, who came forward in June with allegations of abuse against Platner. 
Platner also denies those allegations. 
Why didn't Gallego find those allegations "sufficiently troubling or serious," then, Fifield asked Gallego. 
Great question, and not just for him. 
Alleged abuse of a Republican woman wasn't enough, but now the alleged rape of a Democrat woman is? 
  
Gallego wasn't done stepping in it yet. 
He decided, unwisely, to respond to a tweet from Sen. 
Mike Lee (R-UT), who noted that he, Lee, hadn't endorsed Platner.  
But then Gallego replied, claiming Lee had endorsed Trump "who was found to have committed rape," and that he "might want to sit this one out."  
Except, as we know, this isn't true. 
President Donald Trump was not "found to have committed rape." 
ABC got sued and had to pay some big bucks when George Stephanopoulos said something similar about the president. 
Does Gallego not know that? 
Talking about seats, Gallego needs to take all the seats already with this nonsense.  
But this whole episode with the defense of Platner just exposes again how little principle the Democrats have. 
Hopefully, the voters don't forget how disgracefully the Democrats have behaved here and punish them severely at the ballot box in November.  
Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at RedState, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical Left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve. 
Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. 
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.8%Nick Arama: 10.0%RedState: 7.0%Confirmation Bias17.8%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.3%Nick Arama: 2.1%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic15.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.6%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 12.2%Nick Arama: 1.9%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias12.2%This article: 3.5%Nick Arama: 1.5%RedState: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 7.3%RedState: 9.2%Framing Effect0.0%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: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.1%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.1%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%Nick Arama: 2.6%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias15.7%This article: 62.9%Nick Arama: 21.4%RedState: 13.9%Negativity Bias62.9%This article: 2.1%Nick Arama: 1.3%RedState: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias2.1%This article: 13.5%Nick Arama: 3.2%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error13.5%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 6.1%RedState: 4.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Nick Arama: 5.5%RedState: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.6%RedState: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%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: 4.3%Nick Arama: 1.7%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias4.3%This article: 1.4%Nick Arama: 0.6%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.4%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.1%RedState: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 14.9%Nick Arama: 11.9%RedState: 6.9%Ad Hominem14.9%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 3.1%RedState: 2.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.2%Nick Arama: 3.6%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority6.2%This article: 3.7%Nick Arama: 2.3%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma3.7%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: 7.2%Nick Arama: 13.6%RedState: 10.1%Hasty Generalization7.2%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.9%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.6%Nick Arama: 1.1%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon4.6%This article: 33.7%Nick Arama: 7.6%RedState: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion33.7%This article: 1.4%Nick Arama: 2.7%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question1.4%This article: 27.5%Nick Arama: 1.6%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)27.5%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.8%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.0%Nick Arama: 0.7%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof5.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.9%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.4%Nick Arama: 1.4%RedState: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.4%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: 6.2%Nick Arama: 2.8%RedState: 2.4%Unattributed Quote6.2%This article: 6.6%Nick Arama: 2.1%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection6.6%This article: 52.6%Nick Arama: 34.4%RedState: 21.5%Biased Writer Voice52.6%This article: 13.0%Nick Arama: 7.1%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination13.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 24.4%RedState: 15.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Nick Arama: 5.2%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.4%

483 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers14%attributed speech414writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageLyndsey Fifield • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 27 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 14 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

RedState

100%flagged-word coverage
55 attributed words80% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%RedState: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+69.2 ptsWriter: 5.3%RedState: 74.5%74.5%Biased Writer Voice-61.4 ptsWriter: 61.4%RedState: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%RedState: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%RedState: 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.