‘There’s Nothing We Could Do to Rein in Trump,’ GOP Senator Says ⁠69%

By Ryan Bort⁠98%

8/4/2026, 1:04:23 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Horn Effect, Ad Hominem, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 31.7% saturation with 123 hits. Analysis detected 684 faulty-reasoning hits from 388 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠69% (8,561 of 26,881 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.20% of the article peer group.

Republicans have fully abdicated their congressional duty in service of the president's ego 
John Cornyn, like most of the Republican Party, has spent a lot of time and energy embarrassing himself at the feet of Donald Trump. 
He posted a picture of himself reading The Art of the Deal. 
He tried to get a highway in Texas renamed after the president. 
The list goes on. 
But then Trump endorsed Cornyn’s primary opponent, Ken Paxton, in the Republican primary for Senate in Texas earlier this summer, effectively ending Cornyn’s career in Congress. 
He’s been fumbling around for his spine ever since. 
Most recently, Cornyn made a show of opposing the confirmation of Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal attorney, as attorney general. 
Cornyn, along with fellow lame duck senator Thom Tillis, wanted assurances that Blanche, who is currently leading the Justice Department on an acting basis, wouldn’t help Trump establish a slush fund to give taxpayer money to whomever the administration deemed has been victims of government “weaponization” — including Jan. 6 rioters. 
Cornyn and Tillis have since come around, claiming Blanche has committed not to establish the fund to their satisfaction. 
Trump has made clear that he still wants it, though, and reporters asked Cornyn on Tuesday whether he’s concerned. 
“Well, there’s nothing we could do to rein in the president when he said he likes the fund and wishes it still exists, but the fact of the matter is that it’s dead and that’s all we could do under these circumstances,” he said. 
There is, in fact, plenty Senate Republicans could and can do to rein in Trump. 
It’s very much the point of their jobs, and it continues to be a tragedy that they have abdicated their responsibility to check the president’s power because they're terrified of making him mad. 
Democrats in both the House and Senate introduced legislation to stop Trump’s anti-weaponization fund, but nothing ever came of the effort because Republicans would never vote for such a thing. 
Republicans could have introduced their own legislation to stop the fund, too, but alas, they simply could not. 
Why? 
Ask John Cornyn, who is still fumbling around for his spine, which unfortunately for the humiliated senator is still firmly in the possession of Donald Trump. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 1.7%Rolling Stone: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 2.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.7%Ryan Bort: 4.6%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Hindsight Bias6.7%This article: 3.9%Ryan Bort: 1.2%Rolling Stone: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 6.1%Rolling Stone: 3.9%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 1.5%Rolling Stone: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 1.7%Rolling Stone: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 5.1%Rolling Stone: 0.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.3%Ryan Bort: 11.5%Rolling Stone: 5.6%Negativity Bias17.3%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 1.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Ryan Bort: 10.3%Rolling Stone: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error8.5%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Ryan Bort: 1.9%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 27.1%Ryan Bort: 9.1%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Horn Effect27.1%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 3.7%Rolling Stone: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 23.7%Ryan Bort: 11.3%Rolling Stone: 1.0%Ad Hominem23.7%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 5.5%Rolling Stone: 2.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 11.3%Ryan Bort: 11.6%Rolling Stone: 1.1%False Dilemma11.3%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.3%Ryan Bort: 10.4%Rolling Stone: 3.9%Hasty Generalization17.3%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.7%Rolling Stone: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 3.9%Ryan Bort: 2.9%Rolling Stone: 0.6%Begging the Question3.9%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 2.5%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 2.1%Rolling Stone: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 1.7%Rolling Stone: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 1.7%Rolling Stone: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.1%Ryan Bort: 7.4%Rolling Stone: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection3.1%This article: 31.7%Ryan Bort: 27.9%Rolling Stone: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice31.7%This article: 12.4%Ryan Bort: 6.4%Rolling Stone: 0.9%Indoctrination12.4%This article: 3.4%Ryan Bort: 17.7%Rolling Stone: 1.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 2.5%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ryan Bort: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 2.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

388 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker11%attributed speech344writer words
Selected voice

John Cornyn

100%flagged-word coverage
44 attributed words100% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-35.8 ptsWriter: 35.8%John Cornyn: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-14.0 ptsWriter: 14.0%John Cornyn: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%John Cornyn: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%John Cornyn: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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