No it is not.
That was a pretty obvious, if not very good, joke.
I’m not dying on this hill, but in 2016 MAGA-hats really was in use.
You’re telling me you were being serious? Wow?
Well, as long as we’re stretching credulity, “maggots” isn’t an offensive term because larvae of certain flies are useful in cleaning up necrotic or badly infected tissue. 
Insulting? Sure. Dehumanizing? Maybe. But even referring to MAGAs or terming them a cult (which I’ve done, since the behavior of many of Trump’s supporters is what you classically see in cult members) can be seen as “dehumanizing”, as it reinforces negative stereotypes and portrays them as less than fully sentient beings.
Are references to Repuglicans and Demoncrats also verboten?
Not sure where to draw the line, if one even exists these days.
Yes, as was referring to Trump supporters as Red Hats (an allusion to the Brownshirts). But “MAGAt” is “maggot”. There may be an etymological connection to “MAGA hats”, but the current use of it is just calling MAGA folk “maggots”.
Red-hats → Rats.
We good??
ETA: On reflection, I think I agree with the OP *in principle," but my preference would be to self-censor on this one, and not to ban the term for use on the board – particularly in The Pit.
I thought this, too. Didn’t make the maggot connection.
~Max
No Moderator has ever said they were. Some posters might have, but no moderator to the best of my knowledge.
It’s pretty clear to me now after learning of the maggot connection that the MAGAt appellation took hold because of the “maggot” similarity/homophone.
In the context of a modern American political discussion, if I say MAGAt does that make me a jerk?
That should be your guiding light. Replace terms as appropriate.
~Max
My understanding is there is no rule against general political slurs so long as they don’t violate one of our other rules against racism, misogyny, etc.
I don’t much care for them and I try not to use them myself, although I did use MAGAts for awhile.
I’ve had to brush back flags that were thrown when someone on the right used a particularly unpleasant term to describe President Biden, reminding the flaggers that what’s sauce for the goose…
I don’t want to be responsible for moderating every instance of a political slur against a candidate. Ugh.
That’s pretty much it. But I’d also suggest an additional reason why it’s objectionable. Liberalism and conservatism are both widely held ideologies and both have value. To suggest that one or the other is worthless is indicative of a prejudiced and intolerant mindset that rejects reason. This is not at all the same as “MAGA”, which over time has come to be associated with hardcore Trump supporters, the kind who invaded the Capitol on Jan 6, many of whom promote violence and all of whom promote fascism. MAGA is literally a cult – and a dangerous one – and deserves to be disparaged.
I think it’s quite a stretch to interpret “MAGAt” to be “dehumanizing”. But to the extent that it’s disparaging, see my last sentence above.
I’ve used and will continue to use MAGAt in the sense of maggot. It’s actually a mild disparagement, considering how despicable, stupid and disgusting I think these people truly are. If that makes me a jerk, so be it.
No reason to be insulting. Just call them hat-reds, with or without the hyphen.
A lot of religious identity holds whether a person actually holds the faith or not. The Nazis persecuted Catholic priests and atheist philosophers if they had Jewish ancestry. Similarly a lot of IRA members were Marxist atheists, but were still considered Catholics in the popular discourse.
Religion is a category unto itself for this discussion. It is partially a set of chosen beliefs and partially an unchosen ancestry.
ExCUSE me?! As the chief attorney for the animal kingdom, I must vehemently protest this slur on behalf of my clients! 
But even then, the “Chosen beliefs” are acknowledged to be based on “faith”, an irrational concept that is heavily influenced by your upbringing and respected social institutions, and usually directed at things like the existence of a soul, and an afterlife. Things that are inherently unknowable outside of the context of a religious faith.
Politics is supposed to be about the real world. You’re supposed to care about the facts, and use them to guide your opinions, and thus your votes. MAGAts have entirely abdicated that responsibility, in favor of believing horrendous lies from a terrible person.
Which is perfectly mainstream in political discourse, and wouldn’t turn heads in a left-leaning audience. However if you know you’re talking to a Trump supporter who identifies with MAGA, that could possibly be different. Especially if you’re coming across with an attitude of ‘you are “despicable, stupid and disgusting”’. Even in politics, where disparaging opposing parties and ideologies is often fair game, personal insults are not considered “civil discourse” and are still perceived as disrespectful.
~Max
I’ve used the term Maganut here, to describe someone I used to know.