Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Pollaganda Whopper


Mark Alexander · Sep. 11, 2019

“But the fact being once established, that the press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood, I leave to others to restore it to its strength, by recalling it within the pale of truth.” —Thomas Jefferson (1805)



Imagine, if you will, what the American political landscape would look like if our national mainstream-media outlets were actually neutral in their reporting — conducting themselves as journalists rather than ranting political puppets. It would look much more like what our Founders intended — a nation where protecting Liberty and the Rule of Law enshrined in our Republic’s founding documents was chief among the concerns of our people.

Unfortunately, we have ventured far from that landscape today, largely because of the influence of an unethical and prejudiced mass media.

In a single headline and its opening paragraph this week, The Washington Post provided the most blatant example of that subversive corruption I have seen this year — a case study of what we have defined as the “Pollaganda Effect.”

If you recently joined the ranks of our American Patriot readers, or even if you’re a seasoned veteran, allow me to share with you a couple definitions.

“Pollaganda” is a word we created to describe the most egregious Demo/MSM propaganda machine abuse of the First Amendment. It is defined as follows:

Pollaganda — n. 1. mainstream media (MSM) polling used to manipulate public opinion and advance a particular bias. 2. Outcome-based polling; instruments designed to generate a preferential outcome, which can be used to manipulate public opinion by advancing the perception that a particular issue, individual, or group has a majority of public favor or disfavor. 3. A “dezinformatsiya” (disinformation) campaign of political polling used for propaganda; polling masquerading as “objective journalism” designed to advance a liberal bias.

In its active form: 

Pollagandize — v. 1. To engage in pollaganda. 2. To utilize instruments of pollaganda, or selective poll reporting (reporting polls that comport with a particular ideological viewpoint), to advance a bias.

The Leftmedia strategy is to achieve what we call “The Pollaganda Effect,” defined as follows: 

A self-perpetuating cyclical effect — the intentional and systematic propagation of mainstream-media polls to manipulate public opinion by first saturating viewers with “reporting” that reflects a particular bias; second, conducting public-opinion polls in concert with like-minded organizations or campaigns, which will reflect that bias; third, further proselytizing to a readership by treating these poll results as “news”; and fourth, using pollaganda to induce “bandwagon psychology” (the human tendency of those who do not have a strong ideological foundation to aspire to the side perceived to be in the majority), thus further driving public opinion toward the original media bias, ad infinitum.

The Pollaganda Effect depends on outcome-based opinion samples (polling instruments designed to generate a preferential outcome), which in large measure reflects prior-opinion indoctrination or cultivation by the same media conducting the poll. The incestuous results are then used to manipulate public opinion further by advancing the perception that a particular candidate or political position enjoys majority support. The MSM fallaciously presents such polling as if it were completely objective.

Which brings me back to this brazen and inexcusable Washington Post example of the Pollaganda Effect.

Leading the news Tuesday was this top-of-the-fold WaPo headline proclaiming: “Six in 10 Americans expect a recession and higher prices as Trump’s approval rating slips, poll finds.”

The opening paragraph declared: “President Trump’s approval rating in the Washington Post-ABC News poll stands at 38 percent, down from 44 percent in June. The survey highlights how one of Trump’s central arguments for reelection — the strong U.S. economy — is beginning to show signs of potential turmoil.”

So, despite a strong economy, WaPo and other Leftmedia propagandists have been pushing the “imminent recession” narrative for six weeks in order to shape public opinion on the economy and then poll on the opinion they’ve twisted into the desired outcome.

As I wrote last year, Democrat Party leaders are pinning their 2020 political prospects on a pre-election economic downturn, hoping for a recession, and doing everything they can to create one by undermining consumer and business confidence in our economy. That was the successful model they used when seeding the 2008 financial crisis, which paved the path for Barack Obama’s ascendancy and his ruinous eight-year presidency.

Notably, the same day this WaPo pollaganda piece ran, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its monthly “Employment Situation Report” indicating that the U.S. unemployment rate remains at a near-historic low of 3.7%, while unemployment rates for black and Hispanic Americans remain at historic lows.

That notwithstanding, WaPo then noted: “The Post-ABC poll finds that Trump’s economic approval rating has also declined from 51 percent in early July to 46 percent in the new survey, with 47 percent disapproving. His relatively positive standing on the economy continues to buoy his reputation amid public criticism on other issues.”

And there you have it. A textbook example of Pollaganda.

The political collusion between Democrats and their media opinion shapers results in the most insidious form of “fake news,” which Donald Trump has correctly and continuously identified as “the enemy of the American people.” We’ll go further, calling it a pernicious violation of First Amendment principles regarding freedom of the press and, thus, a perilous threat to American Liberty.

According to Trump: “The Fake News Media, the true Enemy of the People, must stop the open and obvious hostility and report the news accurately and fairly. That will do much to put out the flames of Anger and Outrage and we will then be able to bring all sides together in Peace and Harmony. Fake News Must End!”

Regarding Trump’s MSM callout, distinguished journalist Brit Hume observed, “There has been more bad and biased reporting such as I have never seen in the 50 years I have been in this business.” (For the record, The Washington Post has never in its history endorsed a Republican for president.)

In January, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unwittingly identified another version of Demo/MSM collusion to propagate disinformation and perpetuate a BIG lie — the “wrap-up smear.” According to Pelosi: “You make up something. Then you have the press write about it. And then you say, ‘Everybody is writing about this charge.’ It’s a tool of an [authoritarian regime] to just have you always be talking about what you want them to be talking about.”

The Demo/MSM collusion is an abject betrayal of the First Amendment, whose assurance of freedom of speech and of the press our Founders intended to be among the most significant checks on centralized government power. The press was charged with a heavy burden — that of providing impartial reports about the issues of the day and those running for political office. Fair and unbiased reporting was therefore essential to an informed citizenry.

Among the First Amendment’s strongest advocates, Thomas Jefferson penned, “Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.” Likewise, James Madison wrote, “The right of freely examining public characters and measures … has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right.”

Unfortunately, when the press discovered it could exercise enormous power over public opinion, those who controlled it began to use their pages to that end. Neither Madison nor Jefferson could have imagined the power of today’s mass media and the dumbed-down bias used to shape mass opinion. Over the past 40 years, the Leftmedia has become the primary empowering agent of those who support the central government’s exponential (and extra-constitutional) growth. In this way, the Leftmedia has become little more than the public-relations arm of the statists.

Long ago, Founder John Adams warned, “We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections.”

To Adams’s point, another equally insidious threat to our “free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections” has emerged in recent years, in the form of Big Tech bias, both by social-media giants and the “search-engine manipulation effect.”

Caught in the crossfire of all the subversive Demo/MSM machinations endeavoring to create a politically induced recession between now and the 2020 election are the job and income prospects for tens of millions of American workers. Unfortunately, this rotten cabal considers grassroots Americans to be nothing more than collateral damage necessary for the Left’s resurgence. 



Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

Enforcement of..


Supreme Court Allows Enforcement

of New Trump Asylum Restrictions


 By Mairead McArdle September 11, 2019 6:56 PM

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., November 13, 2018 (Al Drago/Reuters)


 The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of new Trump administration rules that bar migrants from seeking asylum in the U.S. if they have traveled through a third country and failed to seek asylum there.


The high court lifted a lower court’s stay of the restrictions, saying that the policy will be allowed to go into effect even as legal challenges against it progress.

The Trump administration first announced the new rules July 15 and was met with swift legal challenges from immigrant advocacy groups.


Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposed the majority’s decision.

“Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from

persecution,” Sotomayor stated. “Although this Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees — and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher — the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law.”


The policy is intended to address“an unprecedented surge in the number of aliens who enter the country unlawfully across the southern border and, if apprehended, claim asylum and remain in the country while their claims are adjudicated,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in a Supreme Court brief.


The southern border has been overwhelmed this year with asylum applicants, many fleeing violence in Central America. More than 436,000 pending cases involve an application for asylum, according to the Justice Department, highlighting the depth of the backlog.


However, acting DHS secretary Kevin McAleenan said last month that border crossings have declined as the warmer months, when more migrants attempt the journey north, come to a close. Apprehensions have dropped 43 percent since May, when arrests between ports of entry at the southern border increased for the fourth straight month to 132,887.

NYT Admits


New York Times Admits Giant Banner 
Honoring Mao May Have Been Inappropriate
September 10th, 2019

NEW YORK, NY—In honor of the anniversary of Chairman Mao Zedong's death, The New York Times unfurled a giant, 50-foot-wide banner honoring the "brave revolutionary" outside its New York offices Monday.



After public outcry, they admitted this might have been "slightly inappropriate."

"While we stand by our decision to honor one of history's great men, we admit the banner lacked important historical context," said one Times editor. "While his ideas were morally right, they factually killed a bunch of people, and that's not something we wanted to promote. Unless you're killing yourself to combat climate change."

Paper executives considered adding some historical context to the banner, like writing "Morally right but factually a mass murderer" to the bottom but eventually decided to just take it down so as not to obscure the facts above and beyond the paper's usual fact obscuring threshold.

The banner has been replaced with a large mural of Joseph Stalin.

Smack Down


Condoleezza Rice Smacks Down NBC’s Savannah Guthrie After She Suggests Russians Elected Trump

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shut down NBC’s Savannah Guthrie after Guthrie asked her whether Russia “elected Donald Trump.”


Rice was a guest on Wednesday’s “Today Show,” and Guthrie began to question the former secretary of state about all things Russia. At one point, Guthrie asked if Russia “actually elected Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton?” Rice immediately called outthe theory, saying there isn’t “any evidence” to support the allegations.

“Do you think it’s possible that Russia’s election interference actually worked?” Guthrie asked. “It actually elected Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton?” 

“I don’t think there’s any evidence of that,” Rice replied. “And, you know, I really don’t think that’s a good conversation to have. I think that really does devalue the people in Wisconsin and Michigan and others who decided to vote for President Trump.”

“Whether you like this president or not, whether you believe that he should have been president or not, let’s give the credit to the Americans who went out and voted for somebody who they thought would bring change.”

Rice added that credit should be given to the Americans who voted, noting that there is a more important question to be asked.

“Are we going to be responsive to some of the messages that were out there….People who felt that they were disadvantaged by globalization, the unemployed coal miner in West Virginia, the opioid-addicted person in Pennsylvania, are we going to be responsive to those people?” she asked. “That’s really the question we should be asking.”

The former secretary of state also noted that there is “no use” thinking about the past and what could have been done regarding Russia interfering with the election. She told Guthrie that people should instead work to prevent it from happening again.




California Schools



California Schools Require All Students To 
Worship Rainbow Flag When Lady Gaga Song Plays
September 10th, 2019

SACRAMENTO, CA—Governor Gavin Newsom was reportedly sitting around in his office with nothing to do Tuesday, which is a problem for a guy whose job it is to meddle in people's lives.

But then Newsom got an idea: "Why don't we fashion a rainbow flag for our public school students and have them bow down to it whenever some music plays?" So he called up the state legislature and by the late afternoon, the bill was signed into law: all students are now required to bow before a large rainbow flag whenever a special, all-LGBT trumpet band plays at their public schools.

The trumpets will play Lady Gaga's "Born This Way." "Students of every gender, this is what you are commanded to do: As soon as you hear the sound of the Prophetess Gaga singing, you must fall down and worship the sky cloth of many colors," Newsom proclaimed. "Whoever does not fall down and worship will immediately be thrown into a flaming furnace."

"And not the fabulous kind of flaming!" he added quickly. "More like the hot and burny kind."

The furnaces will double as a place to dispose of offending plastic straws.
One group of students who refused to worship were thrown into the furnace but did not burn, and a figure who looked like Donald Trump was standing with them in the fire.

Strung Out Leftist


Strung-out leftists cheering for a recession

John R. Smith - September 9, 2019

(Photo by Kevin Winter/NBCUniversal/Getty Images)

Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author. 

Some leftists have become so strung out and hateful that they have lapsed into a state of insanity about Donald Trump — they’re so debilitated they can’t think straight anymore.

Case in point: now we see the left, the liberal media and some Democrats cheering for a recession in America so that Trump’s re-election chances are decreased. Democratic presidential hopeful John Delaney claimed recently that “some Democrats are cheering for a recession because they want to stick it to Trump.”

Newt Gingrich writes, “The left-wing media is hoping for a recession (because) they know Democrats’ economic policies can’t win against (Trump).”

So, the left has sunk to the lower low that a recession is worth it to get rid of President Trump. The sick left figures it’s OK for millions of Americans to lose their jobs, and maybe their homes, to increase the prospect that some leftist, perhaps a socialist, can capture the presidency. Apparently, corrupted leftists do not care that the people hurt by a recession are the same people who the media and the Dems claim they champion.

Yes, quite lovely, don’t you think?

Imagine … advocating poverty for low-income workers. The correct word for such power-mongers is disgusting.

Most of the media hate Trump. They accuse him of downplaying fears that the economy is probably entering a recession. One Monday morning in late August, four network TV shows were excited for a recession because they saw it as the means to hurt Trump’s re-election bid. One talking head said, “President Trump is attempting to downplay growing concerns that the U.S. economy could be headed for a recession.” Another stated Trump is “brushing off fears of a recession down the road”.

These media broadsides quickly descended to the low road traveled by Bill Maher, MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle and others, rooting for recession. Easy for Maher to say, he’s a multimillionaire who can sip French wine in his mansion and won’t be harmed by a recession. And any day the stock market nosedives, too many news rooms break into giddy little happy-dances as they hope for a calamity.

Some on the left love to watch other Americans suffer because it enhances their ability to harvest recruits and votes; suffering creates discontented people, ripe for revolution and Antifa-style street action. What we have here is a bloodthirst for power, with these certifiable villains pining to allow the suffering of American workers just so they can reclaim the White House. These are folks who would hurt the American people, just to “win.”

The danger here is that the media miscreants and the economic-doomsday pundits will plot to cause a recession, to keep up the drumbeat by trotting out their negative case, undermining the country’s optimism and confidence, and “talk America into a recession”, as economist Stephen Moore put it. If the Trump haters can convince consumers that a recession is coming down the road at us, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

All this makes as much sense as cheering a pilot while he crashes the airplane, because they detest the pilot.



Supreme hypocrites:


Supreme hypocrites: 
Liberal justices vote in lockstep

Zachary Leeman - September 11, 2019

While liberals screamed that Brett Kavanaugh would bring about the apocalypse when he joined the Supreme Court and any other conservative picks would do the same, a breakdown of how the current judges have voted shows a very different picture, one where Americans may want to be a bit more cautious of the more left-leaning judges.

Based on the last several Supreme Court sessions, justices who were appointed by Democrat presidents voted in lockstep far more than ones appointed by Republican presidents, according to USA Today.

(Screenshot from supremecourt.gov)

Of the 67 decisions after argument in the term that ended in June, judges appointed by Democrat presidents voted in unison a whopping 51 times. The five Republican appointed judges voted in unison only 37 times. A further breakdown of those numbers actually paints a scarier picture.

While liberals remain in lockstep, each conservative justice has broken from the pack at least once to be the deciding vote on a case that the liberal justices agreed on.
Of the 20 cases that were split 5-4, only seven found the “expected” divide of conservatives justices over liberal ones, according to Empirical SCOTUS.

What this says is that the more right-leaning justices are independent thinkers able to break from party lines. Left-leaning justices, on the other hand, are beholden to their base more and participate in groupthink, two very dangerous things for Supreme Court justices to do.

Trump’s two picks to the courts, Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, were both completely torn apart by the mainstream media and protested to no end by leftists when they were nominated. The world was told these two otherwise upstanding men were plants for Trump to push an extreme conservative agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. Kavanaugh has been an unpredictable judge and Gorsuch has shown his more libertarian colors in his votes. The two have actually voted the same in their first term less than any other two justices appointed by the same president, going back as far as at least John F. Kennedy.

The report from Empirical SCOTUS actually shows that this is not a new phenomenon. Liberals more often have a sheep-like mentality in their approach to issues.

In the 2014-15 session, which was the last full term before Justice Antonin Scalia’s year-long vacancy and death, the four liberal justices stuck together in 55 of 66 cases. The four conservatives (not including Kennedy, who was a famous swing vote) stuck together in only 39 cases.

The report also often found that in past sessions when conservative justices are completely united, it’s because the entire court is behind a decision.

While some may see these numbers as a call for a more united conservative front in the court, it should be more of an indictment of the thinking on the left. Leftists do their best to paint conservatives as myopic thinkers, but when it comes down to it, there is far more diversity of thought on the right. Liberals more often simply vote how they are told to, exhibiting a herd mentality that is quite scary.

The current justices are Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Soaking Wet Gate



Last night, President Trump committed the impeachable act of saying rally goers waiting on line for his North Carolina event were soaking wet.

HOW DARE HE?!!!

Twenty-fifth Amendment!!!!!

Clearly this is just yet another example of how unfit for office President Trump really is.

So says hard-hitting journalist Brian Stelter who fact-checked the weather to determine whether or not rally goers could possibly be soaking wet.


Sunny and 88 degrees in Fayetteville, North Carolina.

To hard-hitting journalist Brian Stelter, this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that rally goers could not be soaking wet.

Really?

Having lived in North Carolina, I can tell you that if you arrive at a Trump rally a couple days in advance and hang around outside in the sun, you’re gonna sweat like a stevedore.

Is Brian Stelter a lizard?

Or is it just that he’s too lazy to drag his fat ass outside to notice that sun and heat make people sweat.  And sweat, in turn, will cause wetness?

Why else would deodorant commercials tell you to “stay dry all day” by using their product.

Could it be that sweating profusely makes you wet?

News flash, Brian: Sweat is wet.


It must have confused the crap out of Brian to see Beto O’Rourke’s shirt soaking wet while campaigning in the hot sun of Texas.


Nonetheless, there were faithful Trump Deranged ResistanceLOL members who believed Brian’s hard-hitting journalism on Soaking Wet Gate revealed something sinister about Donald Trump.



“If he means sweat, he should say sweat.”

Good grief.

These people need help.

President Trump didn’t say “They’re soaking wet because it’s raining outside.”

He said they’re soaking wet.

And, yes, you would be soaking wet if you were sweating like a stevedore while waiting hours on line to see President Trump.

This isn’t rocket science, people.

Brian is so desperate to find something, anything to prove that President Trump can’t be trusted, he’s become a perspiration-denier.

And thankfully for Brian, there are plenty of hateful Trump-deranged drones who will deny the science of perspiration right along with him.

It truly is laughable.

But as long as there are dimwitted morons on Twitter who nod in agreement like dashboard doggies, no sweat, folks, Brian will keep on making scandals out of nothing. 

We have push notifications, so CLICK THAT BELL!


Unless you are on an iOS device this bell should be in the bottom right hand corner of the site.

  Click it to receive notifications  
   of when new discussions are posted.  

When we lost the channels we also lost the ability to send out invites. Now that we are set up for push notifications we can send out invites via this method. Just click the bell and tell it to allow notifications from W³P Lives.

Go Ahead...

you know you want to

 

 


Brace Yourselves: Eating With Forks Is Eurocentric Racism

silverware: public domain

One of the basic tenets of liberalism is that everything is racism, but since there are so many things in existence it’s a monumental task to detail and catalog them all. Thankfully one of them finally got around to letting us know that using forks is racist. Yup, in fact all silverware is representative of colonialism, Eurocentrism, and white privilege. That’s the trifecta of racism, so you know this is serious. 

Joshna Maharaj is a Canadian celebrity chef of Indian descent and here’s what really pisses him off: 

Why the way we teach kids table manners is actually kind of racist
 
Maharaj starts this stupid thing off by writing how his Indian father taught him and his brother to eat food with their hands, which is the way he thinks it should be. Upon learning that non-Indian people teach their children to eat with forks and knives, he lost his curry: 

Recently, I chatted with someone who told me a story about her young niece, who goes to a prestigious preschool and was eating rice with her hands at lunchtime. The feedback her parents received was that this child needed to work on her table manners and use proper cutlery to eat. I immediately felt a rush of anger bubble up inside me when I heard this.

If this is what causes anger to bubble up, maybe this guy doesn’t have the temperament to be a chef, or even live in civilized society. 

The message that eating food with your hands is an unmannered way to eat is a real problem for me because it is dripping with the control and shame of colonization, which is particularly dangerous in an educational context. Suggesting that a child who eats with her hands has no manners is an echo of European colonial powers looking to tame the wildness out of the people they controlled.

Apparently this guy is serious about this. 

These European table manners were imposed on conquered people in an attempt to “civilize” them. It’s a damaging message about right and wrong ways to do things. It positions the technique as superior and the people who practise it as setters of the standard, leaving those with a different approach to eating with a status of inferiority.

And finally: 

The idea of a single standard of acceptable table manners is just one of a host of strategies used to grow and promote racism. It’s a subtle message but one that is reinforced three times a day, every day, which makes it quite powerful.

So it’s not just that using a fork is racism, but also that teaching kids to use a fork grows and promotes racism. And here you thought it was just a really effective way to transfer food from a plate to your mouth without making a huge mess. 

Under these standards, wearing clothing and practicing basic hygiene are also tools of racism, since these are some of the other things Europeans taught to the savages. Does Maharaj reject using toilet paper or washing his hands after using the bathroom? I hope not because he’s a chef who likes to eat with his hands. 

And speaking of being a chef, does he use cutlery and utensils to prepare the food he serves? I feel like that should also be racist under his definition. To avoid being a hypocrite, he would have to tear raw meat with teeth, karate chop the vegetables, and stir boiling pots with a clenched fist. It doesn’t really matter to me because you couldn’t pay me to eat Indian food. 

We shouldn’t be teaching kids that they’re not supposed to eat with their hands at all or that eating with cutlery is a more refined or sophisticated way to eat. Different people eat their food in different ways.

Well yeah, different people do a lot of things differently but it doesn’t make them all acceptable. Female genital mutilation is practiced in some Muslim countries and honor killings are common in many parts of the world. Does that mean there many acceptable ways to treat females or that some of these places are savage and backwards?

Rogue Democrat: Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Tells Dave Rubin She Supports Third Trimester Abortion Restrictions


Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, speaks during the second of two Democratic presidential primary debates hosted by CNN Wednesday, July 31, 2019, in the Fox Theatre in Detroit. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has made it clear during her run for president that she is not afraid to ruffle a few feathers and buck the Democratic establishment in order to shake things up in the race for the nomination for president.
As Brandon Morse noted yesterday, she’s come out against impeaching President Trump, a position that is at odds with a growing number of her Democratic colleagues in Congress. Impeachment, she noted in an interview withGreta Van Susteren, would “tear our country apart.”

Gabbard also sat down this week with Dave Rubin to talk about a wide range of issues. One topic of particular interest was the issue of abortion and how far left the Democratic party has gone:
…Gabbard agreed that abortion should not be legal during the third trimester unless a medical emergency necessitated it. Though she tends to think of abortion as a “libertarian” would, she disagrees with the Democratic Party’s mantra that there should be open, easy access to abortions any time and any place.
 “I think that there should be some restrictions,” she said. When asked what  her “cutoff point” would be, Gabbard replied, “I think the third trimester. Unless a woman’s life or severe health consequences is at risk, then there shouldn’t be an abortion in the third trimester.”
Gabbard also stated during the interview that abortion is not an option she would choose for herself:
“You know, for me personally, I would not make that choice for myself. But I don’t believe I should be telling anybody else the kinds of decisions they should make for themselves or for their family.”
Gabbard’s position on abortion restrictions in the third trimester, which is a view most Americans across the political spectrum share, will now make her even more of an outcast and extremist within her own party. 
This in spite of the fact that she stands with them on the vast majority of issues related to abortion and so-called “abortion care.” This in spite of the fact that it is actually their position, which goes so far as to advocate for post-birth abortion, that is extreme.
“It’s sad that we’re at a point where we have to praise the sole Democratic candidate who’s willing to regulate some abortions late in pregnancy, but good for Tulsi,” tweetedpro-life writer Alexandra DeSanctis. “I hope she doesn’t back down when the pro-abortion mob comes for her.”
Indeed.