Agreed. They don’t necessarily vote for the better candidate, they vote for their favorite candidate.

They vote against their interests but not against their emotions. People hate her now, for good reason. The people voting for her then, clearly didn’t hate her.

There are plenty of reasons to hate her but she was the longest serving UK PM ever. She couldn’t have been that hated if they kept re-electing her

Exactly. The real debate is on which parts should be off limits.

Most people can think of some speech that they consider so horrible that nobody should be allowed to say it.

People often try to hedge that position by arguing that they’re not even really infringing on anyone’s speech because their form of restriction doesn’t meet a sufficient threshold of censorship.

Does anyone?

The closest I can think of to “real free speech absolutists” is the old-school doctrinal libertarians. Even they have limits on what they believe should be allowed and specifically state that contracts should be legally enforceable.

As a joke, I once asked an LLM to produce a review of Top Gun that argued that it was actually a trans allegory. It made terrible arguments but it did produce words that technically met that requirement. (It included some kind of hilarious lines about the satirical use of hypermasculinity)

I imagine an argument that “Amerika is a love song” would look similar.

Rammstein released “Amerika” in 2004. That was during the 1st Bush Jr administration but the complaints in the song aren’t limited to Republicans.