Raw Story93%

'Lost my temper': Republican spills on his blowup with Trump 56%

By Matt Laslo0%

6/24/2026, 7:37:04 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Fundamental Attribution Error, and Optimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32.4% saturation with 122 hits. Analysis detected 555 faulty-reasoning hits from 377 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.3% and a BS Rank of 56% (9,745 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.50% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON  White House aides tend to shield President Donald Trump from opinions that diverge from his own worldview, but this afternoon, he got chewed out by one of his fellow Republicans at the U.S. 
Capitol. 
After four Senate Republicans bucked the president last night and voted to limit his ability to wage war against Iran without congressional approval, the president aired his frustration with members of his own party at today’s Senate Republican Party lunch at the Capitol. 
But Sen. 
Bill Cassidy (R-LA)  one of the Republicans who sent Trump a harsh rebuke last night  was having none of it, especially after Trump reportedly told him to sit down. 
“I stood and said, ‘You have not told the American people what's going on. 
It's lasted four months. 
Our original objectives have not been achieved, and I want to know what's going on,'” Cassidy told congressional reporters after the heated exchange. 
Cassidy said he’d heard it all before from Trump. 
“The president just kind of talked and talked and talked and talked and talked,” Cassidy bemoaned. 
“I lost my temper,” Cassidy admitted, before quipping, “It’s the Irish in me.” 
But it seems to be more than the Irish in the retiring senator who recently lost a primary challenge to Rep. 
Julia Letlow (R-LA), a more MAGA-aligned lawmaker who had the backing of President Trump. 
According to Sen. 
John Kennedy (R-LA), Trump was “mad as a murder hornet about the war power vote.” 
But when facing the congressional press corps after the closed-door meeting, the president put on a happy face for the cameras. 
“I think we had a really great meeting, and we’re very proud of the party,” Trump told the congressional press corps after the meeting. 
“And we like the leader, we like everybody  really in the room, I don’t like a few people, but that’s okay, I think you know who they are. 
I’ll give you that information someday.” 
Few to no Republican Senators were buying what the president was selling this time. 
“It was not a good discussion,” Sen. 
Roger Marshall (R-KS) told reporters after the meeting. 
“But you know, sometimes two guys just have to get it off their chest.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 4.3%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 4.6%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 1.6%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Matt Laslo: 0.6%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias1.6%This article: 2.7%Matt Laslo: 13.4%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.1%Matt Laslo: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias10.1%This article: 9.8%Matt Laslo: 2.8%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias9.8%This article: 32.4%Matt Laslo: 25.7%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias32.4%This article: 3.4%Matt Laslo: 0.7%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias3.4%This article: 14.9%Matt Laslo: 1.9%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error14.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 19.6%Matt Laslo: 3.4%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias19.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.2%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.4%Matt Laslo: 0.7%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.6%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.8%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.8%Matt Laslo: 11.0%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization9.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.7%Matt Laslo: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon3.7%This article: 4.0%Matt Laslo: 3.3%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion4.0%This article: 1.6%Matt Laslo: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question1.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.4%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 3.4%Matt Laslo: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature3.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.6%Matt Laslo: 10.1%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal6.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.6%Matt Laslo: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 3.4%Matt Laslo: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy3.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 10.0%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 4.0%Matt Laslo: 1.9%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection4.0%This article: 8.2%Matt Laslo: 32.9%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice8.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.8%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 6.1%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Laslo: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

377 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers48%attributed speech195writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 14 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 4 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 23 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 9 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 16 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Kennedy • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 29 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Marshall • 7 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Marshall • 8 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Marshall • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

John Kennedy

100%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words8.2% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%John Kennedy: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-15.9 ptsWriter: 15.9%John Kennedy: 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.