> When the campaign of a presidential nominee (Hillary) is recruiting the homeless and mentally ill to cause violence at Trump rallies

Citation very VERY needed. James O'Keefe is not an acceptable - that is, truthful - source. [1]

> The tolerant left is on some radical moralistic high ground right now and it's far more dangerous than any words Trump has said.

You need to unpack this. I don't understand how any ideology of "radical moralistic high ground" is more dangerous than Trump's "rigged election" rhetoric, which calls into (unnecessary and unfounded) question the system our country is built on.

[1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe

The O'Keefe video[1] shows extended primary source material of named Democratic operatives bragging about recruiting the homeless to deliberately cause violence at conservative events, including providing scripted words.

You may not like the editing, and there could be material edited out that redeem the Clinton operatives 1-5%. But not much. At least by my lights, the evidence is quite damning.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

The "we have mentally ill people" bit is at 1:26, for anyone who doesn't want to sit through the whole thing.

https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY?t=86

The thing is, that's what people said about his previous work, and so much of that was discredited, it's hard to believe it this time. Definite case of boy-who-cried-wolf, for me.

I will admit I'm biased: I find the allegations very difficult to believe and their timing extremely convenient. That doesn't mean they aren't true (any more than the sex assault allegations against Trump are false because they only just came out recently), but rather that further scrutiny is reasonable.

There's also the argument that there's a big difference between individuals in the campaign doing something, and the campaign endorsing/encouraging/demanding something. That defense has been used by the Trump campaign whenever it finds anti-Semitic, white nationalist or obviously racist campaign operatives in the media (as has happened several times), so if it applies there, it ought to apply here.

> There's also the argument that there's a big difference between individuals in the campaign doing something, and the campaign endorsing/encouraging/demanding something.

The Foval Group is contracted directly with the DNC. As far as anyone knows, Trump has never paid anti-Semitic or racist protesters to literally cause physical harm to people at Hillary rallies.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to make excuses for the words Trump has spoken, words are EXTREMELY important, but the level corruption inside the Hillary campaign is on a completely different level than things Trump says. Remember, actions speak louder than words. With Trump, all we have right now are words. With Hillary, we have actions. What I am seeing right now is one candidate being exposed for massive corruption while another candidate is promising to clean up the corruption in US politics and essentially make it illegal for politicians to become lobbyists. That, in my opinion, is very important.

Edit2: Also, on the topic of voter fraud https://d1sb17b1leotpq.cloudfront.net/rigging-election-%E2%8...

Foval and Creamer are disgusting, but it remains unclear how much power they had in the DNC at large and if Hillary was aware of any of it. From the undercover recordings, they seem to me like megalomaniacs who see themselves as Machiavellian gods or something, which is a common theme for middle-managers overstating their reach. Maybe it'll be revealed the upper tiers were aware of what they were doing, but it also seems plausible they were self-initiated.