At least six users -- with sufficient rep to do so -- have flagged the answer as rude or abusive. Unless we are to assume bad faith, I don't see how to avoid the conclusion that that the answer is susceptible to being taken as rude or abusive.
The nature of the medium precludes determining a majority opinion on the matter, but I don't think that's the standard we should choose anyway. Should we tolerate rudeness to a substantial subpopulation simply because a majority are not offended? The criterion really ought to be interpreted something like this: is the post subject to being interpreted as rude or abusive by a reasonable person? (Not necessarily every reasonable person.) Certainly that's still terribly subjective, but that's the nature of this particular area.
So how does the answer fare under that standard?
This sets the tone of the answer early on:
actually locking up Clinton, or trying to, would detract from the purity of hating her and everything she represents.
As far as I can tell, the answer is attributing Trump ralliers' chanting to pure hatefulness. Whereas that may not offend the question's OP, who seems uninclined to participate the kind of chants at issue, I don't see how anyone could think it would fail to offend people who do participate in such chants, or who feel a a political or ideological kinship with such people. And Trump has enough popularity that we should believe that that's a lot of people in practice.
If the answer presented a plausible basis for that assertion then perhaps a different analysis would be in order, but not only does it not do so, the question itself and various other answers present plausible alternative interpretations:
- it's a meaningless rallying cry
- the chanters are genuinely seeking justice for a perceived abuse of power
- the chanters are conveying continued outrage over a perceived past abuse of power (even if they don't genuinely expect action)
A bit later the answer asserts
I put it to you that they can't, don't or won't [see that Trump seems to have no interest in or plans to investigate Clinton ...].
They're not interested in having their prejudices unconfirmed.
The most favorable way I see to spin that is as a claim that the people in question are ignorantly prejudiced, but I'm inclined to read it as a broader claim that at least some of the people are willfully or stupidly prejudiced. Any way around, this is practically bound to offend people whose political sensibilities are aligned to any significant degree with the people alleged to be prejudiced. (And I note also that in the U.S., that particular word has racial overtones and stronger negative connotations than I suspect it does in most other English-speaking countries.)
The next bit of the answer returns to attributing the chanting to hatefulness, and then it wraps up with
That's why they don't care about "outcomes". Offending liberals is the desired outcome.
That's one of the milder assertions in the answer, actually, but its still a claim that a large group of people is deliberately being offensive. How ironic. Here, again, the analysis might be different if there were a plausible basis for that assertion, or if it seemed reasonable on its face, but no basis is presented, and I, for one, do not find it plausible that offending liberals is the objective of many of the people involved. Again, a person could reasonably find this offensive.
Overall analysis: from beginning to end, top to bottom, the answer chock full of assertions and arguments that reasonable people could find offensive. The whole underlying thesis seems to be that a group of people are irrationally hateful and intentionally offensive. That seems unlikely to be categorically true, and as a flat assertion, standing next to plausible alternative interpretations, it is wide open to being interpreted as a plain and simple smear. Even if it reflects its author's or others' genuine opinion, the answer should be deleted.