Thanks for trying to give a helpful answer. BTW, when I said I may be violating guidelines, I was referring to:
>Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Regarding "Umm... no", I suppose some people see it as snarky. I didn't intend for it to be that way, and at least in real world situations, people don't appreciate it if I start the conversation with "You're wrong!". The "umm... no" was meant as a way to lighten the effect of pointing out that someone was wrong.
Regarding the conversation veering into politics, I'd buy that argument if the parents were downvoted as well, which is clearly not the case. I'm not the one who brought politics into this thread.
At the same time, consider the very same guideline you pointed out:
>Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Yet multiple comments beneath mine are accusing me of being both partisan and disingenuous. Not exactly thoughtful, and as of the time of me writing this comment, I am the only one providing actual sources/references. Who else is being "substantive" here?
As far as HN guidelines go, this is part of one of them:
>Assume good faith.
I find it hard to square comments accusing me of being disingenuous and partisan with that.
And obviously, there is:
>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
At the end of the day, I'm more inclined to think that the evidence points more to HN readers of my comment as being partisan. I merely posted a fact and backed it up - it was not an opinion. And it certainly was not an accusation. And in a later comment, I even acknowledged the nuances - yes, the senators were possibly motivated by preventing quorum - not something. Despite stating that, I'm still accused of being disingenuous by omission. What am I omitting?
(Mostly replying to you as you actually tried to provide a helpful response, and if I respond to everyone individually, I'll hit the post limit very soon).