The DNC was caught red handed funding political operatives to organise and fund protests at trump events that started the violent riots that unfolded. There is numerous videos of Trump supporters being assaulted by Democratic thugs. And at this very moment protest organised by MoveOn.org are smashing windows and starting fires in Oakland, LA, NY and other Democrat controlled cities.

I do not see any healthy democratic virtue there at the DNC. It looks a lot like third world political intimidation tactics and violence.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked-emails-show-dnc-off...

Undercover fomenting discord is entirely unacceptable and should be.

But let's not pretend that was solely the domain of the DNC.

Trump has stood in front of a camera and called for his supporters to beat people up at his rallies. He's said that people should be punched "right in the face". He's offered to pay legal fees for people charged with assault for attacking protestors.

Also "caught" red handed. Except he was openly advocating for it.

I don't disagree re the DNC but do feel there is a difference between scuffles at a protest and openly condoning violence against specific people over multiple months.

I'm not understanding your point. The DNC has not only been condoning violence but actively organising and funding it. People have had to step down from there jobs at the DNC because of these scandals.

I don't recall any time that Trump or anyone at the RNC 'openly condoning violence against specific people'. If there is some proof of this I would like to see it.

Yeah, you're definitely not trying hard:

- http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-tells-crowd-to-knock-th... "Knock the crap out of them" complete with video and offers to pay legal fees

- https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trump-my-fans-were-right-to... - "Maybe he should have been roughed up." on Fox and Friends

- https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-punch-him-in-the-fac... - "He's smiling [a protestor]. I'd like to punch him. Punch him right in the face."

I find it ... 'odd' ... that you can be so well-informed about DNC issues but have "no recollection" (I love that phrase, works so well when people are being hauled in front of Congress) of any specific issue of violence from Trump or the RNC.

In fact, here you go, someone's collated them all, with evidence:

http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#...

At least nine video captured incidents:

- "I'll beat the crap out of you"

- "Part of the problem... is no-one wants to hurt each other any more."

- "The audience hit back. We need more of that."

and so on. and so on.

Yeah, no recollection. Because none of these events received much notice...

Thanks for posting those links. The thing to think about is that the 'protesters' that showed up at the rallies were precisely the people the DNC sent there to try there hardest to stir up violence.

The DNC sent those protesters to provoke violent confrontation that the Clinton media operatives at the networks could use to craft the narrative that trump was a big baddie.

So while its not the sort of behaviour anyone want to see in an election. The fact remains that the entire scenario was being crafted by the DNC to damage there opponent which is far worse then what happened on the ground.

The use of fake protesters sent to stir up violence at political events is an attack on democracy itself. And an attempt to shut down peoples write to participate in a democratic society. In that light the behaviour of Trump is quite understandable.

Would you let a few paid protesters shut down your political rally?

If that's the case, and it's also the case that Trump supporters showed up at rallies too (not that it's okay for one or another)...

my solution would certainly not be to say "beat them up, and I'll pay your legal fees for you".

Because paying someone to protest is one thing, inciting others to actual, physical violence and offering to pay 'costs', is a felony.

> There are multiple reports and videos of crowds at his rallies chanting "Kill the bitch, "Hang the bitch", and "Lock her up". Trump knew this and condoned the behaviour. He has actively singled out members of the "corrupt media".

Of all the things Trump has ever said or done in his life these 2 things aren't even close to the worst and were pretty poor choices for this argument.

Both of these examples are just a reflection of many people's anger with the status quo, globalism, elitism, whatever you want to call it. People are pissed at government. This is happening around the world.

They were widely reported in the media. He could have taken the approach that McCain took in regards to Obama being called a muslim but instead he continued the rhetoric of "locking up crooked Hillary" and insinuated that the second amendment could be a solution. He was/is deliberately exploiting the anger of some people. History tells us that this is playing with fire.

I dont mean to sound like a smart alec but "healthy democracy" does not describe America in my view.