Election cycles are anything but friendly and well mannered. In the US, an election can be as friendly and civil as a bad family reunion. In 2016, we have two dreadful candidates from the Republicans and Democrats. And they will not play nice. From Reuters there is this:

All signs point toward a negative campaign as Clinton accused Trump of being temperamentally unfit to serve and the New York businessman charged that Clinton had a dark past and a weak record as President Barack Obama’s first-term secretary of state.

And water is wet. Both make a valid point against the other (and there is not a sellable point for either candidate it should be noted).

Reuters continues:

“I’m going to talk about why he’s unqualified to be president based on his own words and his deeds. And I’m going to continue to make the case he is temperamentally unfit to be commander in chief,” she said in the interview

The irony is all but deafening. Benghazi ring any bells Mrs. Clinton? I am thinking we need a backhoe to slog through the manure piling up here. And Trump’s response is no less hypocritical:

Trump said money given to the Clinton Foundation charity from foreign donors had earned the Clintons millions of dollars and had a corrupting influence when Clinton was secretary of state.

“Hillary Clinton turned the State Department into her private hedge fund – the Russians, the Saudis, the Chinese – all gave money to Bill and Hillary and got favorable treatment in return. It’s a sad day in America when foreign governments with deep pockets have more influence in our own country than our great citizens,” Trump said.

Trump who wants to gut the first amendment in his favor says what? Allrighty then.

As if this election could be any worse, there is the incitement to violence from both sides. This video does a nice job capturing some NSFW language and stupid coming from both sides.  And racism abounds.  On both sides.

From the left, we find this screed from Jesse Benn at the Huffington Post:

In the face of media, politicians, and GOP primary voters normalizing Trump as a presidential candidate—whatever your personal beliefs regarding violent resistance—there’s an inherent value in forestalling Trump’s normalization. Violent resistance accomplishes this. In spite of this, such resistance is apparently more offensive and unacceptable to societal norms and liberal sensibilities than the nastiness being resisted in the first place.

So because Trump talks smack then it is ok to break things and hurt people? Nastiness? Well Jesse grown people call that a felony. But Jesse says his violent racist friends are better than Trump’s violent racist followers because?

Amidst the hot takes and denunciations from liberals, they all seem to miss a few key points. First, they misplace the blame. Second, they misunderstand the desired outcome from violent resistance and those protesting Trump in general. And third, they ignore the history of successful violent insurrection in the US, instead favoring the elementary school version of history in which nonviolence is the only means of struggle that’s ever achieved a thing.

So Jesse Benn says his side can willfully, knowingly and violently break the law. Good to know.  And Jesse what is the difference between your lawless hordes and the lawless hordes following (or using) Trump?  Is there one?  Reminder to the Clinton and Trump camps: this is an election in a free country, not a riot or a dictatorship.  Lastly, the concept of Free Speech is about civil disagreements not beating or doxxing or outing your foes.