If it’s your writing and debating style to use only the correct formal names for public figures, even if you intensely dislike them, then more power to you. No one will object. But there has also never been a problem on this board with using creative insulting names for public figures, as long as it’s not hate speech such as blatant racism.
You’re still missing the point, though. And your quoted statement is absolutely wrong, because some of the most brilliant insults I’ve seen have been from posters with some of the most informed insights and hence high credibility.
The points you’re missing are encapsulated in the words “gratuitous” and “systematic”.
To take the example of Trump, and my insulting term that you considered some kind of test case: some time ago there was a poster who insisted on always referring to Trump by what was presumed to be the original family name before it was changed, “Drumpf”. It was gratuitious and repetitive. It was also pointless and eventually annoying, and although there were no warnings AFAIK, there was eventually a pinned mod note to cut it out, because it was stupid. This is the more appropriate analogy to “democrat” as an adjective, IMHO.