No, it isn't, nor does it suggest anything about whether my post had commentary - much less try to 'mislead' people into thinking that something they can scroll up to see is suddenly not there.
Hell, I don't even have those editing privileges.
It focuses on the fact that you asked about how to judge 'something' that was '
brought up a couple of weeks ago when that was published' in terms of '
figurative cost in votes going to Trump or actual cost of over a billion dollars'.
Unless a claim in my commentary directly prompted that question in those metrics, there is no basis to construe my pointing out the disparity between your question and the actual claims in the article as an intentional bait-and-switch, since there is no advantage to be gained for me by doing it.
This being the case, what you did may be the actual misleading element in this discussion, since you're purposely shifting attention towards a less relevant element of the post that ultimately holds no bearing to the original point.
Or, as some prefer, a classic red herring.