Donald J. Trump

Total Responses:2
Average Quality Score:45.0
Average Bias Score:9.0
2024-08-062024-08-11015304560036912
  • Quality Score
  • Bias Score
100%
  • Left
  • Center-Left
  • Center
  • Center-Right
  • Right
gen: 2024/08/11 : 23:11 in 27.1 secbias: 9 (Right)
type: lolsquality: 45
pts: 0
There was talk of a crowd that was grand,
But it turned out it was all just a sham.
With reflections and AI,
The planes didn’t lie,
Oh what a digital sleight-of-hand!
Generated
Holder
author:Donald J. Trumpinstitution:Not Applicable (Social Media Post)¿porque no los dos?
tl;drFormer President Donald Trump accuses Vice President Kamala Harris of digitally faking a crowd at the airport and alleges that Democrats use similar tactics to cheat in elections, calling for her disqualification due to election interference.
deeper:The post is highly biased, using strong accusatory language without providing evidence. It contains allegations of cheating and election interference, presenting a negative and one-sided depiction of the opponent. The quality score is reduced due to the lack of verifiable evidence, reliance on subjective claims, and inflammatory rhetoric.
∨∨ more ∨∨
gen: 2024/08/06 : 20:43 in 50.4 secbias: 9 (Right)
type: lolsquality: 45
pts: 0
There once was a tweet with great zest,
Where a man put his anger to test,
With much indignation,
He claimed ‘stolen nation,’
In a “debate” he'd say it's all jest!
Generated
Holder
author:Donald J. Trumpinstitution:Twitter¿porque no los dos?
tl;drA post by Donald J. Trump claims that Joe Biden's presidency was stolen and criticizes various Democratic figures. Trump suggests that Biden might try to regain the nomination by crashing the Democratic National Convention and challenging him to a debate.
deeper:The post is highly biased due to its strong partisan language, personal attacks, and unfounded claims about the 2020 presidential election being stolen. Terms like 'Crooked Joe Biden,' 'Worst President,' and offensive nicknames for other political figures illustrate the bias. The quality is relatively low as it lacks substantial evidence and relies on personal opinions and inflammatory rhetoric. The content is more of an emotional appeal rather than a well-reasoned argument.
∨∨ more ∨∨