Opening a new thread every time a new thought pops in his head:
i think the main objection in most cases is actually posting every *trump* thread which can be shoe-horned in here . . . and maybe just about it; any agent provocateur case is mighty hard to make, i must admit . . .
maybe someone could start a new thread for every gun and public safety thought and we can see what that does to the board statistically . . .
i am guessing that our short, ffishy torch bearer has thoughts crossing his/her head about music local and otherwise, restaurants, cooking, television and radio, state & local affairs, and books and so on, almost certainly worthwhile and quite possibly uncommon & unique in cases too . . . i am not sure exactly who is whom but there may very well be pure decent intention in there somewhere; there is a strong case for always making that the default assumption about anything, and everybody, caeteris paribus . . .
. . . buuut . . .
when gaming the system* or something worse first looked more than 99 44/100 per cent likely to me, i asked for opinions on it, because gaming the system by maximising thread counts by any means necessary, just like double-counting inaugural attendees and other such things on both sides, insults everyone's intelligence . . . . now, in this case i felt comfortable floating such a balloon because, well, i'm not the biggest fan of trump either and i was a sanders primary voter too; no trying to tune the circuits in the echo chamber or whatever . . .
it apparently doens't bother people all that much, and my own pique on the matter in question flew rather quickly too . . . and he/she makes it possible to organise one's trump reading rather than being obnoxious about it and doing things like calling a trump thread "spay & neuter?" and things like that . . . generally speaking, and perhaps goes further to do so than most readily realise . . .
* what truly irritates me is as follows, and maybe a voluntary moratorium on spreading the virus for a couple of weeks would have some interesting results in the debate (on i d p f ) i myself don't even start reading such articles anymore, which maybe is not a good idea, or maybe it makes no difference: the ultimate gaming of the system involves polling and pollsters, and pundits who cherry pick diseased polling data for some increasingly obscure objective . . . so now just about any mention of political polling done in the united states makes me roll my eyes and give the pundit and outlet some points on the list that leads to "all right, time to read/watch/listen to something else . . ."