Raw Story⁠93%

MAGA lawmaker vows to kneecap Trump's agenda after feud with long-time aide: report ⁠89%

By Matthew Chapman⁠85%

7/16/2026, 1:02:02 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Framing Effect, and Ad Hominem, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 71.3% saturation with 206 hits. Analysis detected 993 faulty-reasoning hits from 289 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 82.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠89% (2,387 of 21,191 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.70% of the article peer group.

A new monkey wrench was thrown in House GOP leadership's plan to pass new floor rules that will allow the chamber to resume conducting business — this time, from far-right pro-Trump Rep. 
Randy Fine (R-FL). 
According to NOTUS, Fine, who first came to Congress in a special election last year, "has been telling colleagues he wants Trump to get rid of" longtime outside adviser Alex Bruesewitz . 
"But recently Fine has ramped up this effort." 
Fine now plans to vote down any House rules package until Trump agrees to remove Bruesewitz, a 29-year-old right-wing social media influencer. 
It's a blow to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), who, with a greatly reduced majority, can only lose a couple of votes. 
Fine's beef with Bruesewitz dates back to the latter appearing on ultranationalist former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson's show, in which he agreed with Carlson calling Fine a "creepy fat guy ... who endorsed genocide" and added, “We have two extremes running that race, both I don’t agree with. 
So, we have Dan Bilzerian, maybe one of the people who’s helped bring degeneracy to young men in America more than anybody, and Randy Fine. 
Maybe we need some better choices.” 
The congressman, who has come under fire for his calls to use nuclear weapons against Gaza, hit back with a furious rant on X. 
“There is a mind virus that is trying to infect the Republican party,” he said at the time. 
“Tucker, Alex Bruesewitz, and Candace Owens fundamentally hate the American origin story. 
They seek to pit Jews and Christians against each other and fetishize Islam to distract from its stated goal to destroy the West.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.1%Matthew Chapman: 7.5%Rawstory: 7.8%Confirmation Bias11.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 3.6%Rawstory: 4.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.8%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 31.5%Matthew Chapman: 16.5%Rawstory: 13.6%Framing Effect31.5%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Matthew Chapman: 2.5%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias2.1%This article: 71.3%Matthew Chapman: 22.3%Rawstory: 21.9%Negativity Bias71.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 3.1%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.6%In-Group Bias4.2%This article: 8.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias2.8%This article: 17.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect17.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 29.8%Matthew Chapman: 6.6%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem29.8%This article: 8.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man8.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.5%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 7.6%Matthew Chapman: 4.1%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma7.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.3%Matthew Chapman: 9.9%Rawstory: 12.0%Hasty Generalization16.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 39.4%Matthew Chapman: 7.7%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion39.4%This article: 4.2%Matthew Chapman: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.5%Begging the Question4.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 3.5%Rawstory: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 8.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.6%Burden of Proof8.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.2%Rawstory: 4.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.4%Matthew Chapman: 2.8%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.1%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground2.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.1%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 5.5%Unattributed Quote11.1%This article: 17.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.4%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection17.0%This article: 17.0%Matthew Chapman: 16.0%Rawstory: 15.4%Biased Writer Voice17.0%This article: 14.2%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 3.1%Indoctrination14.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 6.2%Rawstory: 7.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Matthew Chapman: 2.6%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias11.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

289 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers28%attributed speech208writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageNOTUS • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageTucker Carlson • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tucker Carlson

100%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words60% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tucker Carlson: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tucker Carlson: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-19.7 ptsWriter: 19.7%Tucker Carlson: 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.