OK, that's more indirect than I understood the point to be: you're saying that he used unacceptable speech to get elected, and that resulted in the imminent ove

OK, that's more indirect than I understood the point to be: you're saying that he used unacceptable speech to get elected, and that resulted in the imminent overturn of Roe. I have to say that I'm very uncomfortable limiting any kind of speech on the grounds that it may get the wrong person elected. If someone says something hateful and gets elected, that's just one of the flaws of democracy. But I haven't heard of any better system. The U.S. has checks and balances to slow down the worst of it. I mean, given how much Trump wanted to do vs how much he actually did, it's pretty clear the system worked. I'm pro-choice, but I also know that many people aren't, and the Constitution is certainly not clear on the point. So even though I don't want Roe overturned, it's basically the system working as designed. Even perfect systems don't produce perfect outcomes all the time. If you have an idea for improvements to the system, I'm all ears, but limiting speech of political candidates is very likely a regression. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that could be turned against you.