So now we're down to to "we should restrict the speech of people I don't agree with, which might get them elected."
Say...how did I end up on this hill, and why is it so slippery?
Merrick Garland should be on the court and if you disagree then you are arguing in bad faith.
...'twas ever thus.
But seriously: nothing in my comment was specific to any particular politician. I am a free speech absolutist because I don't trust you to judge what I'm allowed to hear. For all values of "you".
The correct reaction to "omg, this person whom I hate just won the election!" is not to censor the person in some desperate, misguided attempt to prevent people from liking him. It's to offer a better alternative in the marketplace of ideas. Asserting that you can't do this because "society is broken", or similar excuses, is just a cop-out.
So instead of letting stupid people vote, you would prefer that their vote is manipulated and therefore cast for them? You would prefer a fascist state?
looks around nervously
You assume people can't think for themselves in any capacity so you need to protect them. That's an authoritarian mindset that needs to be removed from this country entirely.