Hacker News Reader

Did you reply to the wrong comment?

Your (knee-jerk?) characterization is the opposite of what that comment is saying.

What are you talking about? The comment dismissed what I had said about it mattering who we elect, in a shallow and narrowly-focused way. My characterization is indeed the opposite, because I disagree with the comment's premise. That's why I replied.

Their comment: Things were bad during Obama's reign, as they were under Trump. Biden won't bring change, unless systemic change will be implemented.

Your response: I think your knee-jerk focus on who the president is (and denying the possibility of change) demonstrates what I was saying: the rhetoric has convinced people that it doesn't matter and it's all some national team sport.

Naming the three most recent presidents and denying that any of them did or could change things was meant as a direct counter to my claim that it matters who we elect. I replied by pointing out that "who we elect" isn't limited to the presidency.

It is entirely useless for you to quote each of us without clarifying what you've misinterpreted.

"focus on who the president is" is the opposite of what they said.

"denying the possibility of change" is the opposite of what they did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com