And the great admission tour continues..

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 08:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This argument really does you no favors.  I would agree that Trump's campaign rhetoric was far more aggressive, use "violent" if you want, than Clinton's.  Yet, it was Clinton supporters going to Trump rallies and physically attacking people.  This did not occur in reverse.  It was a Clinton supporter who went to a Trump rally with the intent to assassinate him, albeit in half-assed manner.  It was Clinton supporters sending electors death threats in an attempt to get them to vote for a president other than Trump.  That being the case we should be thankful Hillary reigned herself in on the rhetoric, imagine how much more violent her supporters would have been if she hadn't?!  The mind bottles.

There's a thread directly below this one with a concrete example.  It's not easy to miss, why haven't you commented in it?  I suspect I have a fair idea why. 

I stated the fact that I wasn't interested in tracking down examples at that time and stated then that I would present them as I now see them.  I have followed through on that promise this very day and will continue to do so.  See for yourself and dissemble some more afterwards.

So then I was not "biased" in implying the Clinton's rhetoric was less violent, but factually correct?

The earliest incidents of campaign violence recorded appear to be of protestors were being punched by Trump supporters at rallies; the more violent ones in California come later. But I so far have not made the case that Trumpsters had a monopoly on campaign violence. No sense refuting an argument I never made--or is there?

Why not name the thread you are referring to? I have no idea what you are talking about. A guy who doesn't "dissemble" should be less coy. You say you finally followed through with a promise?