A user posts a blatantly off-topic political message on a Stack Exchange site, but expresses it in civilized language. For example, something like this might qualify:
Don't vote for [politician], he wants to raise your taxes (source) and supports interference with the X process to accomplish Y and otherwise has been found to be less than trustworthy in previous projects (source). Please vote instead for McStamper, he loves low taxes and lowering the cost of living for lower-income families (source).
The post is blatantly off-topic on the site and clearly doesn't belong anywhere near it. Is such a post considered red-flaggable as rude or abusive, or should it be handled as a regular off-topic post (vote to close if a question, flag as NAA or VLQ if an answer, downvote in either case, etc.)?
Obviously, a political rant that compares a certain politician with certain intimate parts of the body or with waste products, or that is otherwise offensive by its very nature is red-flaggable, but does "ordinary" political screed rise to that level, or is it more akin to a regular, non-red-flaggable post such as a programming question posted on Meta or a WiFi driver installation issue posted on Stack Overflow?
To be clear, I'm not asking whether such posts should be allowed to remain. I'm asking whether they are sufficiently bad that the red-flag process (six flags to delete, automatic 100 rep penalty, being fed into SpamRam) is called for in such cases.