I Talked to Trump Supporters About Cuts to the Train… on the Train ⁠66%

By Chris Vazquez⁠0%

7/2/2026, 4:12:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 37.2% saturation with 103 hits. Analysis detected 920 faulty-reasoning hits from 277 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠66% (7,605 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.30% of the article peer group.

If you want to understand U.S. politics, take the train. 
The Trump administration’s federal budget request for the next fiscal year includes steep cuts to passenger rail. 
According to an analysis by the High Speed Rail Alliance, a pro-rail advocacy group, the budget proposal would slash Federal Railroad Administration funding by 81 percent. 
This includes a 69 percent funding cut to Amtrak. 
But rural Republicans have historically relied on passenger rail. 
They also elected the same administration now cutting this service that they rely on. 
At this point, this paradox is nothing new: From cutting healthcare subsidies to immigration dragnets to costly and devastating wars, President Donald Trump’s assault on human rights and domestic programs has ensnared the very people whose support he has relied on. 
So, how is this playing out with voters in real time, particularly ahead of the midterm elections? 
I took the train to find out. 
From Newark to D.C. to Pittsburgh, I met people across political lines. 
People who love Trump, and people who want to invoke the 25th Amendment. 
People who hope cuts to trains and other services will change conservative hearts and minds, and people who can imagine passenger rail funding going to things they view as more important. 
Across these differences, one common theme emerged: Daily life in the U.S. right now costs way too much. 
To me, it underlined the way power has worked before Trump and will work after. 
If people who have been deprived of wealth and influence unite against the power players leveraging those things against us, then what could we achieve? 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 26.7%Chris Vazquez: 13.1%Mother Jones: 4.0%Confirmation Bias26.7%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%Chris Vazquez: 5.1%Mother Jones: 3.3%Availability Heuristic13.7%This article: 7.6%Chris Vazquez: 2.7%Mother Jones: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic7.6%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Chris Vazquez: 7.6%Mother Jones: 7.2%Framing Effect13.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.0%Chris Vazquez: 2.3%Mother Jones: 1.6%Optimism Bias9.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.8%Chris Vazquez: 11.1%Mother Jones: 9.6%Negativity Bias14.8%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Chris Vazquez: 2.5%Mother Jones: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error5.1%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 14.4%Chris Vazquez: 5.9%Mother Jones: 1.0%In-Group Bias14.4%This article: 15.9%Chris Vazquez: 4.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias15.9%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 3.7%Mother Jones: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.8%Chris Vazquez: 3.7%Mother Jones: 1.1%Recency Bias14.8%This article: 4.7%Chris Vazquez: 1.2%Mother Jones: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.4%Chris Vazquez: 4.7%Mother Jones: 3.6%Appeal to Authority9.4%This article: 8.3%Chris Vazquez: 3.2%Mother Jones: 1.4%False Dilemma8.3%This article: 14.8%Chris Vazquez: 3.7%Mother Jones: 1.7%Slippery Slope14.8%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.9%Chris Vazquez: 19.9%Mother Jones: 4.7%Hasty Generalization19.9%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 23.8%Chris Vazquez: 14.2%Mother Jones: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion23.8%This article: 9.0%Chris Vazquez: 2.3%Mother Jones: 1.1%Begging the Question9.0%This article: 5.1%Chris Vazquez: 1.3%Mother Jones: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.1%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.4%Chris Vazquez: 6.6%Mother Jones: 2.3%Anecdotal13.4%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.8%Chris Vazquez: 3.7%Mother Jones: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.8%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 37.2%Chris Vazquez: 21.9%Mother Jones: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice37.2%This article: 12.6%Chris Vazquez: 10.8%Mother Jones: 1.8%Indoctrination12.6%This article: 14.8%Chris Vazquez: 18.4%Mother Jones: 4.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias14.8%This article: 0.0%Chris Vazquez: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Chris Vazquez: 2.3%Mother Jones: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.4%

277 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.4%attributed speech251writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageHigh Speed Rail Alliance • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
26 attributed words100% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%High Speed Rail Alliance: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-41.0 ptsWriter: 41.0%High Speed Rail Alliance: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-16.3 ptsWriter: 16.3%High Speed Rail Alliance: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-13.9 ptsWriter: 13.9%High Speed Rail Alliance: 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.