Well I mean you are free to make your conclusions, despite our disagreements and no compelling argument presented contrary to position I outlined. After all, it is a *free* country that was built by Constitutionalists for your benefit. So that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump wouldn’t tell you what to think. So in one sense you can thank us (constitutionalists) for the very liberty which you now hope to prohibit. But you also haven’t presented any reasons or arguments in favor of your view, founded in Scripture, tradition, or reason.
I almost get the thought here that some people think disagreeing with the government and saying it publicly is wrong. I also think that they would do what ever the government told them because well that is the government and they have to listen. I draw the line on when they start violating natural law, which God created. Up until that point I will submit and obey but not alway agree.
So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses in stability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely upon feeling, the worst it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded its adherents are that their feeling must have some deeper ground, which the arguments do not reach; and while the feeling remains, it is always throwing up fresh intrenchments of arguments to repair any breach made in the old. .