Daily Kos84%

Afraid of getting booed, Trump bails on World Cup 89%

By Lisa Needham97%

7/2/2026, 11:01:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Ad Hominem, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 59.6% saturation with 349 hits. Analysis detected 2,516 faulty-reasoning hits from 586 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.4% and a BS Rank of 89% (2,565 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.30% of the article peer group.

Well, we don’t have to play the will-he-or-won’t-he game about President Donald Trump’s attendance at the World Cup round of 16 in Seattle, where the United States will face off against Belgium. 
It turns out that both Trump and Vice President JD Vance are too chickenshit to travel to the terrifying no-go zone of Seattle to watch the game. 
It’s kind of weird that the White House isn’t interested in having a presence at the game, especially given what an opportunity it is for the administration to display its patented brand of creepy jingoism. 
It’s also weird for the recipient of the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize and head of the host country to skip the games, especially when Trump bragged that he would be attending several of them. 
But sure, blow off the United States getting to the round of 16. 
It’s not like it’s a big deal or anything. 
Maybe Trump and Vance are giving it a pass because Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. 
Kennedy Jr. got booed mightily on June 19, when he attended the matchup between the United States and Australia. 
In part, apparently, this is because he is reviled in Australia for his COVID-19 anti-lockdown and anti-vaxx efforts—because Australia is not a country in thrall to weirdo eugenicist freaks like Kennedy. 
Or maybe Trump is giving it a pass because his appearance at Game 3 of the NBA finals was almost the kiss of death for the New York Knicks, breaking their 13-game playoff winning streak. 
Man, that’s some big loser energy, huh? 
Related | Markwayne Mullin reminds everyone he’s a whiny bully 
Seattle residents are probably extremely hyped to have this match in their backyard, what with nearly 150,000 people coming to Pioneer Square for the U.S.-Australia match, and they’re probably even more hyped not to have Trump poison the experience. 
Also, the upcoming match against Belgium is the last one to be played in Seattle, so it’s no doubt going to be big. 
The administration has tried mightily to wreck the World Cup, but Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin’s hateful and dangerous rhetoric about the Iranian national team didn’t ruin it. 
Nor did his claim that World Cup crowds would lead to criminal activity and that Immigration and Customs Enforcement would be “out there every day fighting against the counterfeit tickets, human trafficking, drug smuggling.” 
The administration also failed to frame the U.S. team as some sort of white supremacist extravaganza, posting gross stuff like “DEFEND THE HOMELAND” and “OUR SOIL” over a picture of non-white players. 
And then there was the administration’s effort to punish other countries by refusing to allow referees and fans into the country. 
But none of it worked. 
Unlike Trump and Vance, Americans are thrilled to see the World Cup—attending in record numbers, watching broadcasts in record numbers, and celebrating the multi-racial, multi-country joy that is the World Cup. 
But we can’t imagine what horrors would await the U.S. team if it goes all the way. 
Would players have to shotgun beers with FBI Director Kash Patel? 
Would they have to attend next year’s State of the Union address? 
Would Trump crony and all-around corrupt suckup Gianni Infantino, the head of FIFA, declare that the team will go to the White House while the team very much does not do that? 
No matter what, Monday’s U.S-Belgium game is going to be so, so much better without Trump or Vance there to wreck the vibe. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.6%Lisa Needham: 11.3%Daily Kos: 5.7%Confirmation Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.6%Daily Kos: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.9%Lisa Needham: 2.8%Daily Kos: 3.3%Availability Heuristic15.9%This article: 6.0%Lisa Needham: 1.0%Daily Kos: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic6.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.8%Daily Kos: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 2.0%Daily Kos: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Lisa Needham: 11.1%Daily Kos: 8.9%Framing Effect13.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.5%Lisa Needham: 0.6%Daily Kos: 1.4%Optimism Bias14.5%This article: 8.4%Lisa Needham: 2.8%Daily Kos: 2.0%Pessimism Bias8.4%This article: 59.4%Lisa Needham: 32.7%Daily Kos: 15.4%Negativity Bias59.4%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.6%Daily Kos: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Lisa Needham: 4.8%Daily Kos: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error3.6%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Lisa Needham: 2.8%Daily Kos: 2.1%In-Group Bias5.3%This article: 10.8%Lisa Needham: 1.7%Daily Kos: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias10.8%This article: 5.3%Lisa Needham: 0.5%Daily Kos: 1.8%Halo Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 2.0%Daily Kos: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Lisa Needham: 0.9%Daily Kos: 1.5%Recency Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 32.4%Lisa Needham: 17.6%Daily Kos: 5.8%Ad Hominem32.4%This article: 5.5%Lisa Needham: 4.7%Daily Kos: 1.4%Straw Man5.5%This article: 5.8%Lisa Needham: 3.6%Daily Kos: 3.2%Appeal to Authority5.8%This article: 5.5%Lisa Needham: 3.3%Daily Kos: 2.3%False Dilemma5.5%This article: 2.9%Lisa Needham: 3.6%Daily Kos: 1.3%Slippery Slope2.9%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.4%Lisa Needham: 15.7%Daily Kos: 9.8%Hasty Generalization15.4%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 1.1%Daily Kos: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.3%Lisa Needham: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.6%Bandwagon5.3%This article: 26.3%Lisa Needham: 12.0%Daily Kos: 7.3%Appeal to Emotion26.3%This article: 11.9%Lisa Needham: 5.7%Daily Kos: 1.9%Begging the Question11.9%This article: 16.9%Lisa Needham: 5.9%Daily Kos: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.9%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.8%Daily Kos: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 1.2%Daily Kos: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.3%Lisa Needham: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.3%Composition/Division5.3%This article: 11.1%Lisa Needham: 1.8%Daily Kos: 2.0%Anecdotal11.1%This article: 5.3%Lisa Needham: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.2%No True Scotsman5.3%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 2.3%Daily Kos: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.7%Daily Kos: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 1.2%Daily Kos: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 39.1%Lisa Needham: 5.3%Daily Kos: 2.8%Unattributed Quote39.1%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 3.1%Daily Kos: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 59.6%Lisa Needham: 59.4%Daily Kos: 23.1%Biased Writer Voice59.6%This article: 4.6%Lisa Needham: 3.7%Daily Kos: 2.1%Indoctrination4.6%This article: 22.9%Lisa Needham: 18.0%Daily Kos: 10.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias22.9%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 1.0%Daily Kos: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Lisa Needham: 0.2%Daily Kos: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.9%

586 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.8%attributed speech552writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Markwayne Mullin

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+64.7 ptsWriter: 35.3%Markwayne Mullin: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-63.2 ptsWriter: 63.2%Markwayne Mullin: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-24.3 ptsWriter: 24.3%Markwayne Mullin: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%Markwayne Mullin: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Markwayne Mullin: 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.