BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32.2% saturation with 258 hits. Analysis detected 1,970 faulty-reasoning hits from 801 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.9% and a BS Rank of 75% (5,398 of 21,133 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.50% of the article peer group.

All four members of the Kansas House delegation, Democrat Sharice Davids and Republicans Ron Estes, Tracey Mann and Derek Schmidt voted against withholding the funds. 
WASHINGTON (AP)  More than half the House Democrats voted Wednesday to strip $3.3 billion in U.S. aid from Israel, the most substantial signal yet that once rock-solid bipartisan support for the country is disintegrating in the aftermath of its war in Gaza that has killed thousands of Palestinians. 
The vote tally, 104-314, was not enough to attach the amendment to a broader national security spending bill, but stands as a stark accounting of the shifting attitudes that are dividing the Democratic Party and the nation over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war strategy, now approaching its third year. 
The House’s Democratic leadership split over the issue in what was largely seen as a test vote ahead of the U.S. midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. 
More than 100 Democrats voted for the amendment to strip the foreign military aid money, and almost as many voted against. 
Most Republicans voted to preserve the Israel aid. 
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who announced he opposed the measure that would zero out the aid, nevertheless said “that for the good of Israel and the Palestinian people, American policy in the Middle East must change.” 
Jeffries said in a letter to colleagues, ahead of a private caucus meeting this week where he spoke on the issue, that he believes “there are more decisive ways to achieve the urgent change necessary when it comes to the far-right Netanyahu government.” 
Democrats divided over US support for Israel 
The deepening divide over Israel threatens to upend the Democratic Party as it faces an energized left flank that is promoting self-proclaimed democratic socialists in a handful of marquee House races, particularly last month in New York. 
While more traditional Democrats have stood with U.S. support for Israel, a growing number have distanced themselves from Netanyahu’s strategy as the war has dragged on in a prolonged response to the Oct. 
7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. 
The Democratic Whip, Rep. 
Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, announced she would support the measure to withhold the funds. 
Republicans have seized on the divide to portray Democrats as being overtaken by their more radical far-left elements, even as House Speaker Mike Johnson faces divisions within his own ranks as President Donald Trump’s most ardent America First Republicans lean toward less foreign military spending. 
According to an AP-NORC poll this month, about one-third of U.S. adults  including roughly half of Democrats  believe Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians during the war in Gaza, an accusation that’s been leveled by some human rights organizations and vehemently denied by Israel and the U.S. government. 
Amendment pushed forward from Rep. 
Thomas Massie 
The amendment to strip Israel’s foreign aid was offered by Rep. 
Thomas Massie, the libertarian-leaning Kentucky Republican who lost his own bid for reelection after Trump backed his challenger. 
During the floor debate, Massie said the $3.3 billion could be better spent at home on U.S. roads, bridges and veterans’ needs, especially as national deficits are on the rise. 
He said the American weapons were used on “oftentimes innocent civilians.” 
“I think we should stop it  we should put them on a diet,” Massie said. 
But Democratic Rep. 
Steny Hoyer of Maryland, himself a former party leader, championed longtime support of Israel and warned against withdrawing U.S. aid. 
“I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would dangerously undermine American national security,” Hoyer said. 
He said it would limit the United States’ ability to confront terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, which he said “expressly target American citizens and military personnel.” 
Lawmakers under pressure as midterms near 
The lawmakers were feeling pressure from all sides as they prepare for midterm elections this fall. 
The powerful American-Israel group AIPAC encouraged its supporters to contact members of Congress to register their opposition. 
“We must ensure his dangerous amendment is defeated,” AIPAC said in a statement ahead of the vote. 
At the same time, the progressive advocacy organization J Street gave lawmakers more leeway to express their views, as Jeffries did, even as the group opposed the amendment as poorly drafted and overly broad. 
President Jeremy Ben-Ami said in a statement that J Street recognizes “that, for many Democrats, this is one of the few opportunities to cast a recorded vote expressing opposition to the way American military assistance and American-supplied weapons have been used by the Israeli government in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and elsewhere.” 
He said that what unites the majority of Democrats “is far more significant” than this vote as they work to support “the security and rights of both Israelis and Palestinians.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.0%Little Apple Post: 0.5%Confirmation Bias1.0%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Little Apple Post: 5.0%Availability Heuristic6.2%This article: 2.6%Little Apple Post: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic2.6%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Little Apple Post: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias2.1%This article: 22.6%Little Apple Post: 19.8%Framing Effect22.6%This article: 3.7%Little Apple Post: 1.9%Loss Aversion3.7%This article: 2.5%Little Apple Post: 1.2%Status Quo Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%Little Apple Post: 5.4%Pessimism Bias10.7%This article: 32.2%Little Apple Post: 19.2%Negativity Bias32.2%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Little Apple Post: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error2.2%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Little Apple Post: 4.9%In-Group Bias9.9%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Little Apple Post: 1.9%Halo Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.9%Little Apple Post: 5.4%Recency Bias10.9%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 5.4%Little Apple Post: 2.7%Blind-Spot Bias5.4%This article: 7.7%Little Apple Post: 3.9%Ad Hominem7.7%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 2.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.5%Little Apple Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority10.5%This article: 5.6%Little Apple Post: 2.8%False Dilemma5.6%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.6%Little Apple Post: 2.8%Hasty Generalization5.6%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 18.1%Little Apple Post: 16.7%Appeal to Emotion18.1%This article: 12.1%Little Apple Post: 6.1%Begging the Question12.1%This article: 10.2%Little Apple Post: 5.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.2%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 3.7%Little Apple Post: 1.9%Appeal to Nature3.7%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 30.7%Little Apple Post: 15.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)30.7%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.7%Little Apple Post: 1.9%Middle Ground3.7%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.5%Little Apple Post: 5.7%Biased Writer Voice11.5%This article: 8.4%Little Apple Post: 4.2%Indoctrination8.4%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 2.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Little Apple Post: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Little Apple Post: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.1%

801 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers44%attributed speech451writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageHakeem Jeffries • 37 words • 100.0% coverageHakeem Jeffries • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageKatherine Clark • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Massie • 18 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Massie • 30 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Massie • 11 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Massie • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageSteny Hoyer • 20 words • 0.0% coverageSteny Hoyer • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSteny Hoyer • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAIPAC • 17 words • 100.0% coverageAIPAC • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageJeremy Ben-Ami • 53 words • 0.0% coverageJeremy Ben-Ami • 30 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Hakeem Jeffries

100%flagged-word coverage
80 attributed words23% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Biased Writer Voice+42.9 ptsWriter: 10.9%Hakeem Jeffries: 53.8%53.8%Indoctrination+46.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Hakeem Jeffries: 46.3%46.3%

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.