POLITICS Trump Letter to Nancy RE: Abortion

No. Exactly not that.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

No I wouldn’t claim some personal victory if some great accomplishment could in some way be ascribed to US tax dollars.

 

You’ve never talked about the merits of lottery scholarships in a positive light, on a web forum, where I could find the remark?

 

That doesn’t sound like me. I highly doubt I was boasting of some personal pride from a lottery scholarship recipient’s achievement.

 

I think you are locking in on a word that is replaceable, as it contributes nothing to the actual argument. Let’s switch proud to “accepting of having” since that seems to be a word of contention, and alters the argument not in the least.

 

I wouldn’t accept it any more than if the kid simply used EBT. I mean he probably drove to the lab where he came up with the cure on government built and maintained roads.

 

Acceptance is a binary thing. There isn’t a scale.

Yes. A lot of government funding went into what was accomplished. A lot. For good and bad.

All from you, indirectly.

 

It is indirect enough to where you could never claim that your aim was what occurred. Thus, when discussing funding decisions it is not relevant.

 

Who sets out aiming for an abortion?

 

Another puzzler.

 

In 99.999999936% of the cases, irresponsible and amorous women, apparently.

 

I’m sorry. How many levels of removed does “morality” lose its significance, vs “amorality?”

I want to make sure I’m close enough to relevant for my social justice. Is it Kevin Bacon rules, or just things the church says be mad about?

 

I paid the treasury, the treasury gave it to Congress, Congress have it to Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood gave it to a provider. So that’s 4 levels. So 4 must be the right number.

 

Did you make that number up?

 

Yes. But it’s close.

 

Again. Part of Planned Parenthood is specifically geared toward providing abortions. That’s different than school lunches maybe being provided to a kid that performs an abortion 20 years later. It’s not a complicated distinction. One could have a problem funding one operation and not the other without some logical fallacy.

 

"Part of Planned Parenthood." They provide reproductive-related care. Abortion is a small (10%?) part of what they do, and that portion of care is not funded by the federal dollars.

 

That’s more than I wish, or believe the Feds should, directly subsidize.

 

And your tax dollars go to it INDIRECTLY. Exactly the same as it goes to the school lunch INDIRECTLY.

So what is the difference, you keep saying exists, but failing to demonstrate?