It’s not so much the factual inaccuracy as the loaded language. One can factually describe Trump in a positive light and Clinton in a negative light. It’s needlessly emotive and doesn’t belong on HN in my opinion.

I'm not sure I'd classify it as "needlessly" emotive; the topic is very serious and deserves engagement from people, and emotions are one of many ways to engage people.

In the spirit of the founder of Y Combinator, I'd suggest that perhaps the emotive response signals that there is a sacred cow worth exploring here.

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

I assume you would appreciate the loaded language if it was biased against your side then.

Yes.

Ok then. Personally I don’t like it and I suspect a lot of others don’t appreciate it either though. I think it also sabotages your own overall point because half the audience will just roll their eyes at the biased emotive language, rather than fully paying attention to your main point.