“The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September.”
The implication of the text is that 190,000 fewer, i.e. zero, would have died, except for his “inept response”. But, this is obviously a lie, as no response would have attained zero deaths.
This doesn’t make sense. Are you missing a NOT? (e.g. “...as no response would NOT have attainted zero deaths)
>>“The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September.”
Which death was the first one that was Trump’s fault?
Should he have locked down cities in February while Democrat mayors were whooping it up in the streets/public in Houston, New Orleans, San Francisco, New York?
Should he have closed borders in January?
If we don’t stop the initial deaths, then are the first deaths not Trump’s fault?
“His inept response... which cost (caused)...”
Where is the proof of causality? This is not science.
>>The implication of the text is that 190,000 fewer, i.e. zero, would have died, except for his “inept response”. But, this is obviously a lie, as no response would have attained zero deaths.
There are thousands who would still be dead by their primary ailment, “with measurable traces of Covid19” be damned.
And think of all of the Americans who did NOT die by medical mishap (a leading of death in America, normally about #3). Staying out of hospitals can save your life.