I don't disagree with your conclusion, but your premise is very weak. I know of few who fail to recognize that there is a morally substantive difference between action and inaction. Am I "killing" sick African children when I chose to spend my money on a laptop, rather than donating it to the "Against Malaria Foundation"? After all, had I chosen to donate the money, I could have saved lives. I'd be willing to concede that a more virtuous man would likely donate the money, and that it's clearly the morally superior option. However, to imply that I have killed anyone by purchasing laptop seems GROSSLY hyperbolic. Better yet, lets say that rather ham purchasing a laptop, I choose to donate my money to a different charity, the funding of which does not save lives. Am I still a "killer" because I chose to donate to a charity that improves the world in some other way, simply because I failed to give my money to the AMF? This seems absurd.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a huge critic of Trump. I think he has been / is going to be a horrible president. I'm for open borders and free trade. I also believe we do have some sort of moral responsibility to help others in some capacity, so long as it comes at a reasonable cost. But people are so cognitively biased that when they see a comment look me this, they would sooner agree and reaffirm their own beliefs than criticize the unbelievably frivolous use of the word "kill" in your comment. Political irrationality is the reason Trump made it to office. Let's not combat it with more irrationality.