That doesn't sound like us, though of course it's always possible that we made a mistake. I've made hundreds of thousands of moderation decisions and tens of thousands of posts. No doubt thousands of those, at least, were wrong.
If you're going to make a claim like this, you should provide a link so that readers can make up their own minds. When such complaints show up linklessly, it's usually because there's more to the story that the complaint is omitting (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
It's rare for people to actually supply a link in response to such a reply, so kudos to you!
The description ("The nickname was nothing bad, you just didn't like it") was false though. 'lovetrump' was a trollish username, and we don't allow those on HN because they effectively troll every thread they post to, which is bad.
To be specific: to your knowledge dan has never allowed any troll bait political nicks of any kind.
Additionally: you have a feeling he might allow democratic troll nicks. the strength of that feeling ranges from not surprised if to hard to believe not depending on the day.
Your evidence: claim that the forum is very democratic
I don't believe you would choose a username like that (and to a lesser extent, your current one) for any other purpose than to explicitly provoke heated arguments. There are plenty of places on the web where you can go for those, I am happy that dang et al are making an effort to minimize them.