A user voted to close a this question citing
"The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies and political processes as defined in the help center."
It is fine to disagree about the validity of close votes/reasons, but assuming malicious intent is nothing more than a personal attack, and not the sort of conversations that we want (or are allowed) on this site. I am getting a little bit tired of it. Please stop doing that.
The two users' whose comments were removed could very well have diametrically opposing world views. Am not aware if the user who decided to delete the comments of the two users is a moderator or any of the comments posted by the two users were flagged for moderator attention.
From perspective here political questions and answers will inherently incur disagreement, given that individuals could have have vastly different political experience and, or training.
The user who voted to close the question citing "does not appear to be a good-faith effort" could be considered to have malicious intent against the user who posted the original question and by voting to close the question citing a baseless claim that cannot be objectively proven, demonstrating that the source of the vote to close is an expression of a personal attack against the OP of the question. Whether the user who deleted the comments is individually "getting a little bit tired of it", liking or not liking the discussion, is wholly irrelevant to the users engaged in the chat discussion concerning the original question.
Explain how the accusation of "It does not appear to be a good-faith effort" relevant to a user voting to close a political question is different from "assuming malicious intent" of the user who posted the original question.