Daily Kos85%

Trump’s cult can’t quit him 84%

By kos74%

7/7/2026, 12:01:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Negativity Bias, and Indoctrination, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 45.5% saturation with 172 hits. Analysis detected 1,356 faulty-reasoning hits from 378 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75.5% and a BS Rank of 84% (3,511 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.40% of the article peer group.

Donald Trump is using the office of the presidency to enrich himself. 
Who the heck knows why he needs more money, given that he already has a bunch of it. 
It’s pathological. 
But what makes Trump’s corruption particularly stunning is that much of the money he has made has come directly from his own followers. 
Trump’s cryptocurrency schemes have made him billions while producing the inevitable inverse effect: taking billions from his strongest supporters—to the tune of $2.3 billion, according to a Reuters analysis. 
You’d think that would enrage them. 
You’d think wrong. 
“All but three of the 27 individual investors interviewed for this article said they knew of Donald Trump’s history of bankruptcies, unpaid contractors and failed ventures,” Reuters reported in June. 
“Still, most said they believed that his position at the apex of American political power and what they perceived as his business acumen ensured lucrative returns on their investments.” 
So three were irredeemable morons, and the other 24 are, uh, also that. 
They deserved to lose their money. 
Then, buried in the terms and conditions, comes another warning: “Please be aware that the price of Trump Memes may be extremely volatile and you may experience substantial losses in connection with a sale or other disposition of Trump Memes.” 
Mission accomplished. 
Another investor interviewed by Reuters believes he could still make money—if only he were allowed to sell. 
But World Liberty has at least partially locked up token sales until 2030. 
He refused to let Reuters use his name because, he said, “I’m afraid of being targeted by the president of the United States,” adding that “the MAGA crowd has shown, over and over, how relentless they are when it comes to defending their Dear Leader.” 
Sadly, Reuters doesn’t tell us more about the three investors who didn’t know about Trump’s long history of business failures. 
But really, all 27 should have known better. 
Then again, it’s no different from voting. 
No matter how much evidence people are given of Trump’s corruption, incompetence, or failed ventures, millions convince themselves that this time will be different. 
It never is. 
The remarkable thing isn’t that Trump keeps finding new ways to profit from his supporters. 
It’s that they keep volunteering to be fleeced. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.7%kos: 6.5%Daily Kos: 5.7%Confirmation Bias21.7%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%kos: 2.6%Daily Kos: 3.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.4%kos: 1.0%Daily Kos: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic3.4%This article: 2.1%kos: 1.5%Daily Kos: 0.9%Hindsight Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%kos: 2.6%Daily Kos: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%kos: 5.7%Daily Kos: 9.0%Framing Effect4.0%This article: 10.6%kos: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.6%Loss Aversion10.6%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%kos: 1.1%Daily Kos: 1.4%Optimism Bias4.5%This article: 4.8%kos: 1.6%Daily Kos: 2.0%Pessimism Bias4.8%This article: 31.2%kos: 11.2%Daily Kos: 15.4%Negativity Bias31.2%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.9%Daily Kos: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%kos: 3.1%Daily Kos: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error2.1%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%kos: 2.4%Daily Kos: 2.2%In-Group Bias11.9%This article: 11.9%kos: 2.1%Daily Kos: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%kos: 2.6%Daily Kos: 1.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%kos: 0.8%Daily Kos: 1.4%Recency Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%kos: 2.5%Daily Kos: 5.9%Ad Hominem3.4%This article: 0.0%kos: 1.2%Daily Kos: 1.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%kos: 3.1%Daily Kos: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 1.9%kos: 3.7%Daily Kos: 2.4%False Dilemma1.9%This article: 7.7%kos: 0.9%Daily Kos: 1.3%Slippery Slope7.7%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.8%kos: 12.6%Daily Kos: 9.7%Hasty Generalization14.8%This article: 5.3%kos: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.5%Red Herring5.3%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 19.6%kos: 5.3%Daily Kos: 7.3%Appeal to Emotion19.6%This article: 3.2%kos: 1.6%Daily Kos: 1.9%Begging the Question3.2%This article: 6.1%kos: 2.3%Daily Kos: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.1%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.6%kos: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.8%Burden of Proof1.6%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.3%kos: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.4%Composition/Division6.3%This article: 15.1%kos: 2.1%Daily Kos: 2.1%Anecdotal15.1%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.5%kos: 2.1%Daily Kos: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.5%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 4.8%kos: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.2%Personal Incredulity4.8%This article: 3.4%kos: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.2%Special Pleading3.4%This article: 0.0%kos: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 32.0%kos: 5.0%Daily Kos: 2.7%Unattributed Quote32.0%This article: 18.3%kos: 2.5%Daily Kos: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection18.3%This article: 45.5%kos: 21.4%Daily Kos: 23.1%Biased Writer Voice45.5%This article: 26.7%kos: 3.1%Daily Kos: 2.1%Indoctrination26.7%This article: 0.0%kos: 5.6%Daily Kos: 10.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.0%kos: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias14.0%This article: 14.0%kos: 1.7%Daily Kos: 2.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…14.0%

378 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker16%attributed speech319writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageReuters • 30 words • 100.0% coverageReuters • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Reuters

100%flagged-word coverage
59 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+80.6 ptsWriter: 19.4%Reuters: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-53.9 ptsWriter: 53.9%Reuters: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-31.7 ptsWriter: 31.7%Reuters: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-21.6 ptsWriter: 21.6%Reuters: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -16.6 ptsWriter: 16.6%Reuters: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -16.6 ptsWriter: 16.6%Reuters: 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.