This sounds like your disappointment is largely that HN has high volume behind political opinions which you disagree.

No.

It's that there's little opportunity for meaningful, substantial discussion in a form that moves discourse forward.

HN's guidelines are reasonable. Their application is lacking. And where discussion occurs on controversial subjects which challenge the status quo, one example of which is the current governance of the country in which HN operates, HN's guidelines actively handicap those arguing against power.

The fact that those with the advantage of power also tend strongly toward nonsubstantive, partisan rhetoric, inflammetory baiting, and gloating ... helps little.

My comparison isn't of HN against discussion at other sites. Again, HN is generally better though the bar is parlous low. There are some other smaller discussions which seem better managed, the most notable of which I'm aware is Metafilter, for reasons which may merit further exploration. There are reasons to believe that any sufficiently large discussion will tend to a minimum viable standard for reasons I've discussed for many years though scattered amongst many comments here and elsewhere, ultimately having to do with media theory, power laws, and group dynamics.

What the HN of the past three days does suggest is at least four years of distressingly poor discussion quality. I hope not longer than that, and if at possible, shorter.

As for news: I read / listen to news media to some extent. Many of those are exceptionally poor, and my results recently writing a parser for CNN's "lite" page give measurable assessment of that. My own media selection is generally left-centrist, and includes numerous non-US venues. I can assure you that the general take on the US is somewhere between disappointment, shock, and horror.