Raw Story⁠97%

'Oh': Onlookers shocked after 'communist' Trump makes disturbing admission ⁠62%

By Robert Davis⁠88%

8/2/2026, 4:19:31 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Anchoring Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 47.8% saturation with 96 hits. Analysis detected 424 faulty-reasoning hits from 201 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠62% (11,860 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.20% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump shocked onlookers on Sunday while speaking with reporters on Air Force One. 
On the flight home from New Jersey, where Trump, 80, won the Bedminster Senior Club Championship, he talked about recent deals his administration made, including receiving revenue from Venezuelan oil sales and from investments in companies like Intel. 
During the spiel, Trump made an inadvertent admission that caught several analysts off-guard. 
"I make good deals," Trump said. 
"With Intel, I made $75 billion. 
For the country, I didn't make it for me. 
I made it for the country. 
I backed Intel. 
It's the hottest stock right now on the stock exchange. 
So, we made about $75 billion to $80 billion." 
Trump's comments sparked a firestorm online. 
"Oh," Rep. 
Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) posted on X. 
"Thank you, Comrade President!" 
S.V. 
Dáte, White House correspondent at HuffPost, posted on X. 
"Communist," Norman Ornstein, a political scientist and contributing editor at The Atlantic, posted on X. 
"No explanation for if/how the U.S. govt will unwind these positions (i.e., "make $75 billion"). 
Selling could be a major signal problem for the companies," Dan Primack, business editor at Axios, posted on X. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 7.6%Rawstory: 7.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 18.9%Robert Davis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias18.9%This article: 3.0%Robert Davis: 3.0%Rawstory: 4.1%Availability Heuristic3.0%This article: 7.5%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic7.5%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 2.4%Rawstory: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Robert Davis: 13.3%Rawstory: 12.4%Framing Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.0%Robert Davis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.8%Optimism Bias5.0%This article: 7.5%Robert Davis: 1.5%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias7.5%This article: 47.8%Robert Davis: 17.7%Rawstory: 20.4%Negativity Bias47.8%This article: 7.5%Robert Davis: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias7.5%This article: 1.5%Robert Davis: 2.6%Rawstory: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error1.5%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Robert Davis: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.4%In-Group Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 2.0%Rawstory: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.5%Robert Davis: 1.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Recency Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Robert Davis: 5.4%Rawstory: 5.7%Ad Hominem9.5%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 4.4%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 2.5%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.2%Rawstory: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.4%Robert Davis: 11.2%Rawstory: 10.7%Hasty Generalization14.4%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.0%Robert Davis: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon3.0%This article: 20.4%Robert Davis: 7.3%Rawstory: 8.8%Appeal to Emotion20.4%This article: 7.5%Robert Davis: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.5%Begging the Question7.5%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 3.2%Rawstory: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.5%Robert Davis: 1.4%Rawstory: 1.6%Burden of Proof7.5%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 3.9%Rawstory: 3.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.4%Robert Davis: 4.2%Rawstory: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.4%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.4%Robert Davis: 4.2%Rawstory: 4.9%Unattributed Quote10.4%This article: 4.5%Robert Davis: 6.0%Rawstory: 3.8%Quote-first Misdirection4.5%This article: 10.9%Robert Davis: 10.2%Rawstory: 14.1%Biased Writer Voice10.9%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.4%Rawstory: 3.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 4.1%Rawstory: 7.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

201 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers51%attributed speech99writer words
Selected voice

Norman Ornstein

100%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words15% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-22.2 ptsWriter: 22.2%Norman Ornstein: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-15.2 ptsWriter: 15.2%Norman Ornstein: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-9.1 ptsWriter: 9.1%Norman Ornstein: 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.