Adam Kinzinger's Post on Lindsey Graham's Passing Is As Despicable As You'd Expect 72%

By Amy Curtis93%

7/14/2026, 8:30:06 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Politically Right Leaning Bias, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Ad Hominem as the most egregious example at 38.5% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 365 faulty-reasoning hits from 208 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.6% and a BS Rank of 72% (4,442 of 15,517 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.40% of the article peer group.

When Senator Lindsey Graham died on Sunday morning, the remembrances from his colleagues on Capitol Hill and in D.C. media circles poured in. 
Many of them were very touching, remembering a Senator who was a kind, funny, hardworking man. 
But there are plenty of Leftist ghouls cheering the death, as those monsters always do. 
One of them is Adam Kinzinger, who used Graham's death to let his terminal case of Trump Derangement Syndrome come to the surface. 
First of all, way to spell his name wrong. 
Was Kinzinger, who  as you can see  supports Ukraine, aware that Graham had just returned from a trip to Ukraine when he died? 
Or that Graham supported Ukraine? 
Apparently, that doesn't matter to Kinzinger, who hates President Trump more than he likes even pretending to be a decent human being. 
Clearly, he does not. 
Kinzinger thinks opposing President Trump gives him the moral high ground. 
It does not. 
Yes, it is. 
Few people exercise that option, alas. 
You can also tell how decent a person is by how they react to someone's death. 
Yeah, what happened to 'Slava Ukraini,' Adam? 
He is incapable of that last point. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
6.3%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
6.3%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
21.6%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
7.2%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
7.2%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
38.5%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
7.2%
Red Herring
4.3%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
3.4%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
38.5%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
35.1%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

208 words analyzed.

Analysis

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