Unless you're not looking very hard I presume you're making a polemic point here. i.e. it's not a good faith response to the person you're replying to.
They are obviously saying "the differences are significant enough for these measures to be misplaced" and you probably mean something like "I think the differences in these areas are closer than you claim".
So - go ahead and make the argument you intended to make so we can engage with it.
I'm not sure why every conversation about politics on HN brings out everyone's inner asshole. I asked a simple question—how are they different? I'm not being polemic or "making a point". I asked a simple question because I am a simple man and do not understand what makes these situations so different.
On the surface, a popular president is voted into office on promises of "cutting government inefficiencies" and then proceeds to do just that. Not sure if that's "not looking very hard", but those look pretty similar to me.
I happen to hold my politics very loosely, and so (at the risk of being downvoted by angry HN commenters) I asked, "How are they different?"
Sorry I don't spend hours every day reading up on politics and comparing international presidential trends.
Very short answers are often intended as offhand snark. Combined that with the fact that it seemed to me (and I assume many others) that the large differences between the Argentinian situation and the US one was incredibly obvious - I was drawn to the conclusion that you were most likely being snarky.
I did however moderate my reply to be respectful and I attempted to draw out a more thoughtful response. The fact you categorise me as the asshole in this leaves me even more uncertain as to your sincerity.
They are obviously saying "the differences are significant enough for these measures to be misplaced" and you probably mean something like "I think the differences in these areas are closer than you claim".
So - go ahead and make the argument you intended to make so we can engage with it.