Being about politics doesn't automatically make a comment flamewar. The GP had elements of flamewar (e.g. the phrase "mass psychosis" which is name-calling in HN's sense of the word, and too much of a provocation). But the bulk of the comment was thoughtful, and a decent argument (whether you agree with it or not). If the level of political discussion on HN were mostly at that level, there would be room for improvement, but we'd be a lot better off than we are today.
Your reply https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43631215 on the other hand, is a flamewar comment in all sorts of ways: it's a generic tangent, aggressive, inflammatory, filled with denunciatory rhetoric, nationalistic flamebait, and seriously in violation of this guideline:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
as well as this one:
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
As for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43634806, yes, no doubt there are many flamewar comments in there, but it's not a good response to point fingers at others when your own posts are so clearly in violation of the guidelines. Not being the only rule-breaker doesn't make breaking the rules ok!
We don't come close to reading (or even seeing) everything that gets posted here—there's far too much. We can only moderate the things we happen to see. If you see someone else's post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...