← Back to the statement
Statement grade
The average of Signal, Relevance, Reasoning and Clarity is 78. The grade is held to 60, 30 above Signal. 60 / 100, held down by Signal
Signal
30 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Relevance
100 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Reasoning
83 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
Respect
–
Not scored Viewing ↓
Clarity
100 / 100
View details Viewing ↓
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Procedure 3% Positioning 66% Claims 28% The ask 2%
Structure · 6 steps
Claims · 3
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 7 words I rise in opposition to this rule. Procedure Positioning · 90 words I agree, it is past time that we ban congressional insider trading. No one should benefit from public service, but wouldn’t the easiest way to do that be to just completely ban stock trading entirely, not take the baby steps attached to this bill included in the rule? Still, I was open to voting for the bill, to accept that incremental but wholly insufficient progress. What I am not open to, Mr. Speaker, is accepting modest progress on stock ethics, insufficient progress in exchange for significantly compromising American voting rights, Positioning Claims · 58 words and that is also exactly what this bill would do. It would add unnecessary and unrelated provisions that make it harder for Americans to vote.1 Republicans can’t even be bothered to provide the IDs they would have Americans be required to have in order to vote. In fact, that was in the bill, 2 and they took it out.3 Logical leap Positioning · 45 words That is not reform, Mr. Speaker. That is a bait-and-switch. It is one more ruse by this Republican majority to distract the public from their inability or their unwillingness, or both, to rein in costs and address corruption. The American people deserve so much better. Positioning The ask · 5 words I urge a ``no’’ vote.
At a glance
Lost points for Positioning ×10 Procedure Logical leap Little substance Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.
What the tags mean →
Signal · 30
11 of 12 deductions are Signal
Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.
Procedure Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business. What the tags mean → “I rise in opposition to this rule.” Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “I agree, it is past time that we ban congressional insider trading.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “No one should benefit from public service,” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “but wouldn’t the easiest way to do that be to just completely ban stock trading entirely, not take the baby steps attached to this bill included in the rule?” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “Still, I was open to voting for the bill, to accept that incremental but wholly insufficient progress.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “What I am not open to, Mr. Speaker, is accepting modest progress on stock ethics, insufficient progress in exchange for significantly compromising American voting rights,” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “That is not reform, Mr. Speaker.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “That is a bait-and-switch.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “It is one more ruse by this Republican majority to distract the public from their inability or their unwillingness,” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “or both, to rein in costs and address corruption.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Positioning Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it. What the tags mean → “The American people deserve so much better.” Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Relevance · 100
0 of 12 deductions are Relevance
Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue. Measured against the bill under debate.
Nothing lost points.
Reasoning · 83
1 of 12 deductions are Reasoning
Reasoning checks for sound logic and solid support for any conclusion. A low score means the speaker made unsupported leaps or used weak arguments.
Logical leap A conclusion that does not follow from the reasons given for it. What the tags mean → “and they took it out.” Removal of the ID provision (c11-c12) is stated, but inferring a deliberate bait-and-switch from removal alone leaps to deceptive intent.
Conclusions found · 3
Conclusion “I rise in opposition to this rule.”
Because “but wouldn’t the easiest way to do that be to just completely ban stock trading entirely, not take the baby steps attached to this bill included in the rule?”
“What I am not open to, Mr. Speaker, is accepting modest progress on stock ethics, insufficient progress in exchange for significantly compromising American voting rights,”
“It would add unnecessary and unrelated provisions that make it harder for Americans to vote.”
Conclusion “That is a bait-and-switch.”
Because “In fact, that was in the bill,”
“and they took it out.”
Conclusion “I urge a ``no’’ vote.”
Because “but wouldn’t the easiest way to do that be to just completely ban stock trading entirely, not take the baby steps attached to this bill included in the rule?”
“What I am not open to, Mr. Speaker, is accepting modest progress on stock ethics, insufficient progress in exchange for significantly compromising American voting rights,”
“It would add unnecessary and unrelated provisions that make it harder for Americans to vote.”
Respect · no score
Not checked: graded before this measurement existed. Excluded from the average.
Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.
Clarity · 100
0 of 12 deductions are Clarity
Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.
Nothing lost points.
Claims · 3
This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.
1 “make it harder for Americans to vote” The rule for H.R. 7008 would add provisions making it harder for Americans to vote. search 2 “that was in the bill” A provision relating to voter identification requirements was included in the bill. search 3 “and they took it out” That voter ID provision was removed from the bill before consideration. search
