Trump Invents His Own Iran War Polls Because the Real Ones Suck ⁠95%

By Sam Stein⁠90%

7/23/2026, 2:00:38 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Red Herring, Framing Effect, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 67.3% saturation with 68 hits. Analysis detected 309 faulty-reasoning hits from 101 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 92.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠95% (1,107 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 94.90% of the article peer group.

Sam Stein and Andrew Egger give their takes on Trump's new threats of war crimes to Iran, the new polling showing MAGA support for the war cratering, and the new U.S.-Saudi civilian nuclear agreement. 
Plus, they dig into the White House's ever-expanding gold decor of oversized frames, mystery bells, and speculation about Trump's late-night decorating habits. 
As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. 
Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members. 
Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 3.1%The Bulwark: 5.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 33.7%Sam Stein: 4.7%The Bulwark: 2.9%Availability Heuristic33.7%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 45.5%Sam Stein: 18.5%The Bulwark: 6.8%Framing Effect45.5%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.7%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.6%The Bulwark: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 67.3%Sam Stein: 29.4%The Bulwark: 11.2%Negativity Bias67.3%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.3%The Bulwark: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.6%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 3.4%The Bulwark: 3.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 3.1%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.3%The Bulwark: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.7%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.7%The Bulwark: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Sam Stein: 7.1%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem11.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.4%The Bulwark: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.1%The Bulwark: 3.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.8%The Bulwark: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 10.2%The Bulwark: 8.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 55.4%Sam Stein: 4.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Red Herring55.4%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 6.2%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.4%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.0%The Bulwark: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.7%The Bulwark: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 21.8%Sam Stein: 1.8%The Bulwark: 2.4%Anecdotal21.8%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.9%Sam Stein: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.4%The Bulwark: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 33.7%Sam Stein: 23.5%The Bulwark: 15.3%Biased Writer Voice33.7%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 3.4%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 16.5%The Bulwark: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 24.8%Sam Stein: 24.3%The Bulwark: 4.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…24.8%

101 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker15%attributed speech86writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageBulwark+ • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bulwark+

100%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words100% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +88.4 ptsWriter: 11.6%Bulwark+: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-39.5 ptsWriter: 39.5%Bulwark+: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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