It’s a counterpoint anyone can identify with. One can interpret it uncharitably as flame bait if one wants to, but it need not be. It could have been Reagan in his second term, but some may not know who he was. Or Lee Smolin.
This is objectively false. It is not a counterpoint, because it's not an argument. It's an extremely subjective claim that is highly contentious (like jedberg's sibling comment[1]), definitely not something that "anyone can identify with" (as the vast majority of people do not know Joe Biden and instead view him through one of a small number of extremely skewed lenses) and clearly in the realm of "off-topic flamebait" that is not appropriate on HN.
I’d avoid the Reagan or other comparison as well even if I have medical evidence for their decline as you see with Reagan. In this specific case of Biden there’s not even that so it’s purely a political opinion and it’s definitely bait for flame even if not intended as such.
