So pointing out that Trump hasn’t killed anyone as opposed to liberalism writ large in the form of Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot’s communist regimes is ‘supporting’ him?
The question under discussion had to do with why, if ‘Mother Nature’ were punishing the U.S. for electing Trump [now discounted], why didn’t she go after ISIS or the liberal commies who murdered and starved up to 70 million people (you know, the ones whose deaths Rieman so casually handwaved away as a dead horse, because those deaths were apparently nothing when compared to the 40,000 or so alleged (and merely alleged) to occur at some time in the who-knows-when future because Donald Trump.
In that context pointing out that Trump hasn’t killed anyone at all compared to all those killed by liberal efforts to ensure that, wah, nobody has more than anybody else, is hardly a ‘defense’ of Trump, it’s a simple fact.
As Bricker once inquired (and got something along the lines of ‘fuck you’ as a response), is pointing out that somebody didn’t do something defending them?