Trump said on Oct 1 that he would veto a national abortion ban. Was it a "Sister Souljah moment"?

[Agafin]

According to Wikipedia, here's the definition of a Sister Souljah moment:

A Sister Souljah moment is a politician's calculated public repudiation of an extremist person, statement, group, or position that is perceived to have some association with the politician's own party.

There was quite a risk in Trump coming out strongly against a national abortion ban, first by declining to endorse one back in April, then in October, when he unequivocally stated that he would not sign one if elected. This was a bold move, even for Trump given how reliant he is on pro-life votes (remember, he had to walk back his support for the Florida abortion referendum after intense backlash), but on this issue, he stood by it.

In the end, it seems to have helped him tremendously by completely disarming Harris' strength on abortion (Trump and Harris were tied with voters who believed abortion should be legal in most cases) and he had some of his best performances in states where abortion was on the ballot be it swing states (Arizona, Nevada) or safe states blue and red (Florida, New York).

I personally think it can be considered a Sister Souljah moment. Being pro-life isn't an extremist position, but being the type of pro-life person to support a national abortion ban, no exceptions, believe life begins at conception is certainly extreme. It took courage for Trump to openly distance himself from them just like Bill Clinton had to make the calculated risk of pissing off a part of his (critically important) african american base by repudiationg Sister Souljah. Harris' probably could have done it with the trans issue but she didn't have the guts (despite Bill Clinton himself telling her that she had to). Allred did it in Texas and he ran 5 points ahead of her in the end.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Nobody remembered by then. And abortion ended up only being a priority for the voters already voting for Harris. The lower info, lower propensity types didn't give a damn one way or the other.

[Ljube]

There aren't enough votes in either the House or the Senate for a national abortion ban.

[Don't Tread on Me]

It could've been the tipping point for many pro-choice conservatives who would've otherwise sat it out or reluctantly vote for Harris.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

For the LOLs here's Trump 25 years ago saying he's against banning pro partial birth abortion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914

[Ljube]

For the LOLs here's Trump 25 years ago saying he's against banning pro partial birth abortion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914

Trump is 100% pro choice and has always been pro choice.

The only reason he has assumed the faux pro life facade is because he needed to be "pro life" to win the Republican primary. That's all.

[Pericles]

For the LOLs here's Trump 25 years ago saying he's against banning pro partial birth abortion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914

Trump is 100% pro choice and has always been pro choice.

The only reason he has assumed the faux pro life facade is because he needed to be "pro life" to win the Republican primary. That's all.

It's hardly a facade when he goes as far as overturning Roe v Wade. He might as well be an evangelical fundamentalist because that's what comes with voting Republican.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

For the LOLs here's Trump 25 years ago saying he's against banning pro partial birth abortion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914

Trump is 100% pro choice and has always been pro choice.

The only reason he has assumed the faux pro life facade is because he needed to be "pro life" to win the Republican primary. That's all.

Here's my take.  Trump isn't pro-life or pro-choice.  He just doesn't care about the issue in either direction but will align with either side for political purposes.

Also, in reality, there are tons of Americans who are in that same boat.  The pro-choice campaigns have been doing a good job of messaging so that those people will vote their way in a referendum, but they're also not going to be pushing back hard against pro-life laws or voting with it on their minds.

[Agafin]

For the LOLs here's Trump 25 years ago saying he's against banning pro partial birth abortion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914

Trump is 100% pro choice and has always been pro choice.

The only reason he has assumed the faux pro life facade is because he needed to be "pro life" to win the Republican primary. That's all.

Here's my take.  Trump isn't pro-life or pro-choice.  He just doesn't care about the issue in either direction but will align with either side for political purposes.

Also, in reality, there are tons of Americans who are in that same boat.  The pro-choice campaigns have been doing a good job of messaging so that those people will vote their way in a referendum, but they're also not going to be pushing back hard against pro-life laws or voting with it on their minds.

But irrespective of his own agnosticism on the issue, do you agree that Trump has been a net positive for the pro-life movement? I personally think he has been but of course your justement may be harsher.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

For the LOLs here's Trump 25 years ago saying he's against banning pro partial birth abortion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914

Trump is 100% pro choice and has always been pro choice.

The only reason he has assumed the faux pro life facade is because he needed to be "pro life" to win the Republican primary. That's all.

Here's my take.  Trump isn't pro-life or pro-choice.  He just doesn't care about the issue in either direction but will align with either side for political purposes.

Also, in reality, there are tons of Americans who are in that same boat.  The pro-choice campaigns have been doing a good job of messaging so that those people will vote their way in a referendum, but they're also not going to be pushing back hard against pro-life laws or voting with it on their minds.

But irrespective of his own agnosticism on the issue, do you agree that Trump has been a net positive for the pro-ligr movement? I personally think he has been but of course your justement may be harsher.

If history ended in 2024, Trump is probably narrowly a net positive for the movement due to having appointed the majority of the Supreme Court justices that overturned Roe.  But, if his influence leads to the GOP continuing to become less pro-life, it could tip into being a net negative.

I think we'll be able to tell a lot by what executive action is taken on things like the Mexico City Policy and mailing the abortion pill.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

For the LOLs here's Trump 25 years ago saying he's against banning pro partial birth abortion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914

Trump is 100% pro choice and has always been pro choice.

The only reason he has assumed the faux pro life facade is because he needed to be "pro life" to win the Republican primary. That's all.

Here's my take.  Trump isn't pro-life or pro-choice.  He just doesn't care about the issue in either direction but will align with either side for political purposes.

Also, in reality, there are tons of Americans who are in that same boat.  The pro-choice campaigns have been doing a good job of messaging so that those people will vote their way in a referendum, but they're also not going to be pushing back hard against pro-life laws or voting with it on their minds.

But irrespective of his own agnosticism on the issue, do you agree that Trump has been a net positive for the pro-ligr movement? I personally think he has been but of course your justement may be harsher.

For 50 years conservatives have been begging and pleading to overturn Roe. It was on every evangelical wedding, birthday, and Christmas wish list. Reagan, and the Bushes weren't able to get the judges to overturn it it was ultimately Trump's SCOTUS picks who got it done. That was ultimately the deal of the bargain and abortion is now up to the states as it should be. Trump does not owe them anything else. He is not going to give you a national abortion ban because it's now up to the states. It's not Trump's fault the pro life side has abysmal messaging and doesn't want rape exceptions for 6 week bans, and stuff like that is what ultimately will lead to abortion being legal within reason in the largest states except GA TX and Florida.

[E-Dawg]

Here's my take.  Trump isn't pro-life or pro-choice.  He just doesn't care about the issue in either direction but will align with either side for political purposes.

Also, in reality, there are tons of Americans who are in that same boat.  The pro-choice campaigns have been doing a good job of messaging so that those people will vote their way in a referendum, but they're also not going to be pushing back hard against pro-life laws or voting with it on their minds.

I'm curious if you agree with the arguments I put forth in this post on Republicans failing to message well on abortion:

As somebody who is genuinely pro-life, the fallout from Dobbs has been pretty disheartening. If the pro-life view is correct that human life begins at conception, than abortion is killing, full stop. The only consistent position from this belief is that abortion should be criminalized across the board outside of when needed to save the mother's life (and practical arguments can also be used to also add rape & incest exceptions particularly for young girls, I don’t oppose those).  And a federal abortion ban would be appropriate for the states who fail to properly protect human life from this perspective, as protecting human life is one of the core reasons for having a government in the first place. The last couple of years has shown that the amount of Americans who actually believe this is rather low. A ton of "pro-life" people just believe that late term should be banned and that abortion is icky in general, but they clearly are uncomfortable with outright bans (even when they include rape/incest exceptions) and don't actually believe that humans are distinct persons with value starting from conception.

Also, most Republican politicians have no clue how to argue this issue and I am highly skeptical of how legitimately pro-life they actually are. Pro-choice arguments from mainstream Democratic politicians basically just come down to "abortion is good for born people so it should be allowed", completely sidestepping the obvious pro-life argument that the unborn are also persons and that improving the lives of some people does not justify the killing of other people.

Republicans in these debates should reorient the conversation by making this point. The Democrat would likely then try to pivot the conversation back to the benefits of abortion for born people.  The Republican should not let them do this, and instead ask the Democrat exactly when they believe personhood begins and make them concede that killing a person is not justified by benefits for other people. If the Democrat fails to concede the later point, then that puts them on extremely shaky moral ground and gives the Republican the easiest ever attack against them for not valuing human life. If the Democrat concedes the later point but doesn't answer the former (saying something like "I'm not a biologist" or "Philosophers have debated that a long time, I don't know"), then the Republican can easily attack the Democrat for wanting to allow the killing of something that even they admit is possibly human life. It can be easily compared to firing a shotgun into a crowd. Worst case scenario for the Republican here is that the Democrat gives an actually good answer (they could use the consciousness argument that it would be a person when it begins at about 20 weeks). In this case, the Republican could just have that philosophical argument directly, which should go fine for them if they know how to argue it.

But no matter which way the Democrat responds, actually reorienting the conversation away from the positive effects of abortion for born people (which is winning ground for Democrats) to the actual moral implications is a far better tactic and is a much better showcase of what the pro-life argument actually is. Republicans don’t do this. Instead, they just fight on the ground Democrats set on the benefits for born people and of the consequences of abortion bans. Which is a battle the Republican will lose every time, since they aren’t actually making the moral case against abortion, beyond abstract cliches like “choosing life”. I wouldn't take issue with the Republican giving stories of mothers who considered abortion but were very glad they didn't get one after they had their children, and stuff along those lines. But it has to be coupled with making the moral and philosophical pro-life argument.

Trump doesn't even really try to make the pro-life case now, he basically just says it's an issue for the states to decide that he wants to stay out of. Republicans do an effective job arguing against the obvious evil of late term, and thankfully the American population does overwhelmingly oppose that. But Republicans do not know how to argue against abortion at earlier stages, and instead they fight on the ground the Democrats set. The failure of Republicans to make the pro-life argument has led to major setbacks for the pro-life movement and the success of many pro-choice referendums. They were not prepared for the fallout of overturning Roe vs. Wade.

[David Hume]

For the LOLs here's Trump 25 years ago saying he's against banning pro partial birth abortion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914

Trump is 100% pro choice and has always been pro choice.

The only reason he has assumed the faux pro life facade is because he needed to be "pro life" to win the Republican primary. That's all.

Here's my take.  Trump isn't pro-life or pro-choice.  He just doesn't care about the issue in either direction but will align with either side for political purposes.

Also, in reality, there are tons of Americans who are in that same boat.  The pro-choice campaigns have been doing a good job of messaging so that those people will vote their way in a referendum, but they're also not going to be pushing back hard against pro-life laws or voting with it on their minds.

But irrespective of his own agnosticism on the issue, do you agree that Trump has been a net positive for the pro-ligr movement? I personally think he has been but of course your justement may be harsher.

For 50 years conservatives have been begging and pleading to overturn Roe. It was on every evangelical wedding, birthday, and Christmas wish list. Reagan, and the Bushes weren't able to get the judges to overturn it it was ultimately Trump's SCOTUS picks who got it done. That was ultimately the deal of the bargain and abortion is now up to the states as it should be. Trump does not owe them anything else. He is not going to give you a national abortion ban because it's now up to the states. It's not Trump's fault the pro life side has abysmal messaging and doesn't want rape exceptions for 6 week bans, and stuff like that is what ultimately will lead to abortion being legal within reason in the largest states except GA TX and Florida.

Trump's just lucky. He has no deeper understandings about justices than any other R president/candidate. I don't think it was his priority as well. It was the priority of Mitch. Mitch took pressure to make the unusual decision to hold the Scalia seat for him, and another one to fill the RBG seat right before the election.

Trump did not nominate hard core conservatives like  Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. His picks of Kavanaugh and Barrett were weak. In fact, Mitch tried to interfere with the Kavanaugh nomination at the last minute but Trump rejected. Ironically, had Dems not tried to Thomas him and burnt all his bridges to evolve left and be popular with his liberal friends, it is very likely that he join Roberts to preserve Roe.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

For the LOLs here's Trump 25 years ago saying he's against banning pro partial birth abortion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914

Trump is 100% pro choice and has always been pro choice.

The only reason he has assumed the faux pro life facade is because he needed to be "pro life" to win the Republican primary. That's all.

Here's my take.  Trump isn't pro-life or pro-choice.  He just doesn't care about the issue in either direction but will align with either side for political purposes.

Also, in reality, there are tons of Americans who are in that same boat.  The pro-choice campaigns have been doing a good job of messaging so that those people will vote their way in a referendum, but they're also not going to be pushing back hard against pro-life laws or voting with it on their minds.

But irrespective of his own agnosticism on the issue, do you agree that Trump has been a net positive for the pro-life movement? I personally think he has been but of course your justement may be harsher.

Trump has been a tremendous positive influence in weakening the pro-life movement in the Republican Party. Like Nixon going to China. With Trump taking a national abortion ban out of the party platform, appointing RFK Jr. to HHS (who is not pro-life), and rejecting a pro-lifer associated with P2025 as undersecretary (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/21/project-2025-author-rejected-for-top-health-position-00190887), pro-life will be DOA at the federal level going forward. The most they’ll get is the standard “Mexico City policy” and other scraps. Overturning Roe was always a poisoned chalice, but Trump is just the right person to deal with it, since he isn’t really pro-life. It’s great news for the country, and for the viability of the Republican Party in federal elections.

[Badger]

No, it was simply Trump lying yet again.