Trump says the US will go into Iran and get its enriched uranium ⁠100%

4/18/2026, 12:10:51 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Overconfidence Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Burden of Proof as the most egregious example at 77.6% saturation with 114 hits. Analysis detected 857 faulty-reasoning hits from 147 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of ⁠100% (146 of 20,248 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 99.30% of the video peer group.

You'll be very happy. 
The USA will get all nuclear dust. 
You know what the nuclear dust is? 
That was that white powdery substance created by our B-2 bombers, those great B-2 bombers, late one evening. 
Seven months ago, no money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form. 
And somebody said, "How are we going to get the nuclear dust?" 
We're going to get it 
by going in with the ran with lots of excavators because the B-2s, remember when fake news CNN said, 
"Well, maybe obliteration 
is too strong a word." Obliteration, 
that's so deep. We need the biggest excavators you can imagine, but we're going to go in together with the ran, 
we're going to get it, and we're going to take it back home to the USA, very simple. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 42.2%Associated Press: 1.8%Confirmation Bias42.2%This article: 4.8%Associated Press: 0.7%Anchoring Bias4.8%This article: 52.4%Associated Press: 2.9%Availability Heuristic52.4%This article: 12.2%Associated Press: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic12.2%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 44.2%Associated Press: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias44.2%This article: 4.8%Associated Press: 4.9%Framing Effect4.8%This article: 12.2%Associated Press: 0.7%Loss Aversion12.2%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 18.4%Associated Press: 2.6%Optimism Bias18.4%This article: 9.5%Associated Press: 1.9%Pessimism Bias9.5%This article: 22.4%Associated Press: 7.0%Negativity Bias22.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 26.5%Associated Press: 0.9%In-Group Bias26.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 15.0%Associated Press: 1.8%Halo Effect15.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 14.3%Associated Press: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect14.3%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 17.7%Associated Press: 0.2%Primacy Effect17.7%This article: 4.8%Associated Press: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias4.8%This article: 12.9%Associated Press: 0.3%Ad Hominem12.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.9%Associated Press: 3.8%Appeal to Authority12.9%This article: 26.5%Associated Press: 0.8%False Dilemma26.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.8%Associated Press: 2.4%Hasty Generalization4.8%This article: 12.9%Associated Press: 0.0%Red Herring12.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 42.2%Associated Press: 4.0%Appeal to Emotion42.2%This article: 7.5%Associated Press: 0.4%Begging the Question7.5%This article: 12.2%Associated Press: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.2%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 77.6%Associated Press: 0.6%Burden of Proof77.6%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 38.8%Associated Press: 1.0%Anecdotal38.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.2%Associated Press: 1.7%Unattributed Quote10.2%This article: 4.1%Associated Press: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection4.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

147 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.1%attributed speech138writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageCNN • 3 words • 100.0% coverageCNN • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

CNN

100%flagged-word coverage
9 attributed words100% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Quote-first Misdirection+66.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%CNN: 66.7%66.7%Unattributed Quote+24.6 ptsWriter: 8.7%CNN: 33.3%33.3%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.