NBC: Hate crimes spike following the Election

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Array-of-Hate-Crimes-Reported-Day-After-Trumps-Election-400711591.html

What was that about Trump not inciting violence? we're officially screwed.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Yeah, Obama destroyed police. News at 11.


Under Law and Order president Trump, all the violent crimes will be punished severely.

OK then whatever you say

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Trump supporters who argue that xenophobia isn't part of Trumpism and doesn't exist within the Republican Party are sticking their heads as the sand, like Democrats who argued that elitism doesn't exist on the left.

It's a by-product.

Of course, in an election when one of candidates is in love with BLM, doesn't understand problems with illegals immigration and so on, racists would want for other candidate.

 Correlation and causation.

Yeah, Obama destroyed police. News at 11.


Under Law and Order president Trump, all the violent crimes will be punished severely.

OK then whatever you say

What is your point exactly?

You claim that Obama isn't punishing crimes, while there hasn't been any sort of plummet in jail and prison population which would go along with that.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Democratic hate crimes are hate crimes as well, folks. Let's not delude ourselves here. But Trump's rhetoric, by dividing us, has also widened the divisions which make hate crimes possible in the first place. If Mexicans, or blacks or Asians were universally thought of in the same terms as are whites, then there would be no racial hate crime, and the same goes for other points of division. While there has never been hope for complete equity, Trump's rhetoric has only served to widen these divisions, and with that comes violence.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Stop it. You don't know what they feel. No one didn't care about them and, by the way, Dems never cared about Blacks either and took their votes for granted. Not even Obama's campaigning changed it. Trump seems to get largest share of Blacks (especially black men) then other Republicans. Think about it!

Lol, sure, someone from Sweden understands Americans better than I do. Unlike you, I actually know people in other parts of the country, and while I'm not an expert on the Midwest, I hardly think you can claim more expertise on the subject. You clearly have no understanding or desire to understand how people who are terrified of Trump's presidency feel. But that's okay, because we're just terrible people who don't deserve to be listened to or understood. Whatever. I'm done talking to you. Some people who supported Trump and are actually interested in open dialogue might be worth the effort. You're not. Good riddance.

At least, my prediction were better than yours

Damn the man who can't defend Trump is resorting to this.  Sad.
[/quote]dude just ignore LBP. He's a troll who's schtick got old weeks ago. Just treat him how he deserves and ignore him.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Array-of-Hate-Crimes-Reported-Day-After-Trumps-Election-400711591.html

What was that about Trump not inciting violence? we're officially screwed.

Well, he's not inciting any violence. Unless I missed his post-election memo that stated it was now time to attack minorities.

OK... and Bush never told the housing market to crash, your point is?

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Of course the violence on both sides is wrong, but it is Trump's divisive rhetoric which has led to it all. Remember when this happened in 2012? 2008? 2004? Yeah, no... when you try to divide the country up, this is what you get. Let this be a lesson.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Of course the violence on both sides is wrong, but it is Trump's divisive rhetoric which has led to it all. Remember when this happened in 2012? 2008? 2004? Yeah, no... when you try to divide the country up, this is what you get. Let this be a lesson.

Some people take their losses like adults. Others don't. News at 11, where a professional leftist protest is smashing things in Portland.

There are even postings for jobs on craigslist looking for the rabble!

OK, so point to this happening in 2004. While Bush was by no means a good President, he was never as divisive as Trump.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Even when the people were threatening to rape her? A guy with a Mexican flag literally yells something out about raping her and that is just "racist crap" instead of an event that literally happened?

I know the old racist canard, but does that make every white rape victim attacked by anyone who isn't white a racist liar or something?

Assuming that this whole story is true, it really doesn't explain away the reason why white supremacists think that Trump winning gives them a blank check to do whatever they want. There are people out there posting names on lynching lists and acting as if Trump getting elected has suddenly turned the country into The Purge.

This, exactly. The violence on both sides is a direct result of Trump's rhetoric.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Even when the people were threatening to rape her? A guy with a Mexican flag literally yells something out about raping her and that is just "racist crap" instead of an event that literally happened?

I know the old racist canard, but does that make every white rape victim attacked by anyone who isn't white a racist liar or something?

Assuming that this whole story is true, it really doesn't explain away the reason why white supremacists think that Trump winning gives them a blank check to do whatever they want. There are people out there posting names on lynching lists and acting as if Trump getting elected has suddenly turned the country into The Purge.

It doesn't, but it also doesn't explain why Clinton supporters and creeps like you think it is ok to bully, intimidate, harass, and terrify people either. This backlash you are seeing originates with the behavior of the many (mostly white, by the way) psychotic Clinton supporters.

Too bad President Trump Derangement Syndrome/PTDS (TM) can't be cured.

Even when the people were threatening to rape her? A guy with a Mexican flag literally yells something out about raping her and that is just "racist crap" instead of an event that literally happened?

I know the old racist canard, but does that make every white rape victim attacked by anyone who isn't white a racist liar or something?

Assuming that this whole story is true, it really doesn't explain away the reason why white supremacists think that Trump winning gives them a blank check to do whatever they want. There are people out there posting names on lynching lists and acting as if Trump getting elected has suddenly turned the country into The Purge.

This, exactly. The violence on both sides is a direct result of Trump's rhetoric.

So, because he said something, than she should be assaulted in response?

I don't condone any of the violence on either side. I am just pointing out that, had Trump acted differently, this would not be happening.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Even when the people were threatening to rape her? A guy with a Mexican flag literally yells something out about raping her and that is just "racist crap" instead of an event that literally happened?

I know the old racist canard, but does that make every white rape victim attacked by anyone who isn't white a racist liar or something?

Assuming that this whole story is true, it really doesn't explain away the reason why white supremacists think that Trump winning gives them a blank check to do whatever they want. There are people out there posting names on lynching lists and acting as if Trump getting elected has suddenly turned the country into The Purge.

It doesn't, but it also doesn't explain why Clinton supporters and creeps like you think it is ok to bully, intimidate, harass, and terrify people either. This backlash you are seeing originates with the behavior of the many (mostly white, by the way) psychotic Clinton supporters.

Too bad President Trump Derangement Syndrome/PTDS (TM) can't be cured.

Even when the people were threatening to rape her? A guy with a Mexican flag literally yells something out about raping her and that is just "racist crap" instead of an event that literally happened?

I know the old racist canard, but does that make every white rape victim attacked by anyone who isn't white a racist liar or something?

Assuming that this whole story is true, it really doesn't explain away the reason why white supremacists think that Trump winning gives them a blank check to do whatever they want. There are people out there posting names on lynching lists and acting as if Trump getting elected has suddenly turned the country into The Purge.

This, exactly. The violence on both sides is a direct result of Trump's rhetoric.

So, because he said something, than she should be assaulted in response?

I don't condone any of the violence on either side. I am just pointing out that, had Trump acted differently, this would not be happening.

Would it? I've been seeing a lot of (mostly) millennial violence long before Trump showed up. Look how they acted at Penn State when they fired Paterno. Look at the way they behave at speaking events on campus where controversial speakers give addresses? Those all have been underway long before Trump got on the escalator.

Yes, our generation is one of the most liable to protest, even more than young people have been throughout history. But we are also the most diverse, the most liberal, and the most tolerant generation of our time, and when Trump speaks about immigrants, about Muslims, and about the "other" as a whole, as if they are a problem or a disgrace (deplorable?), it doesn't sit well with us. Look at Bush- after 9/11, he called for America to reject Islamophobia, and to reconcile with our Muslim neighbors and friends. Trump has responded to terrorist attacks in the opposite way- alienating Muslims, calling for discrimination against them, and by extension horrifying those who actually care about the state of our cultural discourse.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Even when the people were threatening to rape her? A guy with a Mexican flag literally yells something out about raping her and that is just "racist crap" instead of an event that literally happened?

I know the old racist canard, but does that make every white rape victim attacked by anyone who isn't white a racist liar or something?

Assuming that this whole story is true, it really doesn't explain away the reason why white supremacists think that Trump winning gives them a blank check to do whatever they want. There are people out there posting names on lynching lists and acting as if Trump getting elected has suddenly turned the country into The Purge.

It doesn't, but it also doesn't explain why Clinton supporters and creeps like you think it is ok to bully, intimidate, harass, and terrify people either. This backlash you are seeing originates with the behavior of the many (mostly white, by the way) psychotic Clinton supporters.

Too bad President Trump Derangement Syndrome/PTDS (TM) can't be cured.

Even when the people were threatening to rape her? A guy with a Mexican flag literally yells something out about raping her and that is just "racist crap" instead of an event that literally happened?

I know the old racist canard, but does that make every white rape victim attacked by anyone who isn't white a racist liar or something?

Assuming that this whole story is true, it really doesn't explain away the reason why white supremacists think that Trump winning gives them a blank check to do whatever they want. There are people out there posting names on lynching lists and acting as if Trump getting elected has suddenly turned the country into The Purge.

This, exactly. The violence on both sides is a direct result of Trump's rhetoric.

So, because he said something, than she should be assaulted in response?

I don't condone any of the violence on either side. I am just pointing out that, had Trump acted differently, this would not be happening.

Would it? I've been seeing a lot of (mostly) millennial violence long before Trump showed up. Look how they acted at Penn State when they fired Paterno. Look at the way they behave at speaking events on campus where controversial speakers give addresses? Those all have been underway long before Trump got on the escalator.

Yes, our generation is one of the most liable to protest, even more than young people have been throughout history. But we are also the most diverse, the most liberal, and the most tolerant generation of our time, and when Trump speaks about immigrants, about Muslims, and about the "other" as a whole, as if they are a problem or a disgrace (deplorable?), it doesn't sit well with us. Look at Bush- after 9/11, he called for America to reject Islamophobia, and to reconcile with our Muslim neighbors and friends. Trump has responded to terrorist attacks in the opposite way- alienating Muslims, calling for discrimination against them, and by extension horrifying those who actually care about the state of our cultural discourse.

Ok, so even if all of the claims you make about what Trump said were true, how does that justify your response? I know it doesn't make you feel good. But I don't go around punching people or throwing things at them.

I never said anything about "justification". That is a strawman. As I said, I don't condone violence on either side, and while I support the right to peacefully protest, I do think that the actions on both sides have transcended this right. But at the same time, if you taunt someone with a gun, and you get shot, you are at least partially responsible. It doesn't make the shooting at all OK, but you should have had better judgement in the first place. There's a reason that there's such a thing as "fighting words".

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Even when the people were threatening to rape her? A guy with a Mexican flag literally yells something out about raping her and that is just "racist crap" instead of an event that literally happened?

I know the old racist canard, but does that make every white rape victim attacked by anyone who isn't white a racist liar or something?

Assuming that this whole story is true, it really doesn't explain away the reason why white supremacists think that Trump winning gives them a blank check to do whatever they want. There are people out there posting names on lynching lists and acting as if Trump getting elected has suddenly turned the country into The Purge.

It doesn't, but it also doesn't explain why Clinton supporters and creeps like you think it is ok to bully, intimidate, harass, and terrify people either. This backlash you are seeing originates with the behavior of the many (mostly white, by the way) psychotic Clinton supporters.

Too bad President Trump Derangement Syndrome/PTDS (TM) can't be cured.

Even when the people were threatening to rape her? A guy with a Mexican flag literally yells something out about raping her and that is just "racist crap" instead of an event that literally happened?

I know the old racist canard, but does that make every white rape victim attacked by anyone who isn't white a racist liar or something?

Assuming that this whole story is true, it really doesn't explain away the reason why white supremacists think that Trump winning gives them a blank check to do whatever they want. There are people out there posting names on lynching lists and acting as if Trump getting elected has suddenly turned the country into The Purge.

This, exactly. The violence on both sides is a direct result of Trump's rhetoric.

So, because he said something, than she should be assaulted in response?

I don't condone any of the violence on either side. I am just pointing out that, had Trump acted differently, this would not be happening.

Would it? I've been seeing a lot of (mostly) millennial violence long before Trump showed up. Look how they acted at Penn State when they fired Paterno. Look at the way they behave at speaking events on campus where controversial speakers give addresses? Those all have been underway long before Trump got on the escalator.

Yes, our generation is one of the most liable to protest, even more than young people have been throughout history. But we are also the most diverse, the most liberal, and the most tolerant generation of our time, and when Trump speaks about immigrants, about Muslims, and about the "other" as a whole, as if they are a problem or a disgrace (deplorable?), it doesn't sit well with us. Look at Bush- after 9/11, he called for America to reject Islamophobia, and to reconcile with our Muslim neighbors and friends. Trump has responded to terrorist attacks in the opposite way- alienating Muslims, calling for discrimination against them, and by extension horrifying those who actually care about the state of our cultural discourse.

Ok, so even if all of the claims you make about what Trump said were true, how does that justify your response? I know it doesn't make you feel good. But I don't go around punching people or throwing things at them.

I never said anything about "justification". That is a strawman. As I said, I don't condone violence on either side, and while I support the right to peacefully protest, I do think that the actions on both sides have transcended this right. But at the same time, if you taunt someone with a gun, and you get shot, you are at least partially responsible. It doesn't make the shooting at all OK, but you should have had better judgement in the first place. There's a reason that there's such a thing as "fighting words".

The taunting that would lead to that hypothetical shooting doesn't matter. Once someone pulls the trigger, that and that alone matters until it is resolved. If the shooting isn't ok, it isn't ok, and the status of the alleged taunting (again, how is that taunting on her part exactly?) shouldn't be referenced period. You keep bringing it up, so I should be rather suspicious about your sincerity here.

The shooting, and its wrongness, not in dispute. Rather, I am pointing out that this is a valuable lesson, and that the kind of rhetoric which Trump has engaged in should be avoided in the future. I don't like that my generation responds in this way (or, OTOH, that right-wingers have responded how they have), but we do need to learn from what happened. Just like we learned from the American Revolution, or from the Great Depression, or from WWII, we need to learn, as a nation, that this kind of rhetoric does not lead to a healthy county. Again, the fact that we learned from Hitler's rise to power doesn't make said rise OK; and the fact that we need to learn from these protests does not make them OK.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Not surprising but sad to hear. You knew Trump's victory would be a victory for bigotry and hatred and you voted for him anyway. While it's not a good thing to say politically, Hillary was absolutely right that a large number of Trump supporters belong in the basket of deplorables.

No? It isn't a victory for bigotry and hatred because opposing illegal immigration isn't bigoted or hateful?

Policing neighborhoods based on religion? Supporting racial profiling? Calling for a test to screen radical Muslims (but not radical racists/sexists/homophobes in general)? Calling immigrants our greatest economic problem, when they actually add to the economy? Referring to different cultures as monolithic blocks ("the Hispanics", for instance)?

Yeah, there's no problem here

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Not surprising but sad to hear. You knew Trump's victory would be a victory for bigotry and hatred and you voted for him anyway. While it's not a good thing to say politically, Hillary was absolutely right that a large number of Trump supporters belong in the basket of deplorables.

No? It isn't a victory for bigotry and hatred because opposing illegal immigration isn't bigoted or hateful?

Policing neighborhoods based on religion? Supporting racial profiling? Calling for a test to screen radical Muslims (but not radical racists/sexists/homophobes in general)? Calling immigrants our greatest economic problem, when they actually add to the economy? Referring to different cultures as monolithic blocks ("the Hispanics", for instance)?

Yeah, there's no problem here

I'd imagine that if there are neighborhoods in Brussels that seem to keep surfacing every time a place in France gets bombed, the Belgiums would police it. This doesn't mean all Muslim neighborhoods. He never said that. You assumed it and the media ran with it.

Racial profiling is something I oppose. But I also oppose nuclear war over muh Syrians, unrestricted immigration and NAFTA, so the scales aren't really balanced here.

The pros and cons of immigration aren't as concrete as you say. They are in your America. Not so much here, where it is up for debate still.

The radial sexists/homophobes in general aren't the ones causing the bloodiest problems. I oppose a religious test. I prefer a blanket regional ban on all people (including Israelis) from that region from entering the country for extended amounts of time.

There wasn't any racism in the Bernie Sanders campaign certainly....wait, there is no problem here right?

Nobody is trying to defend what Sanders's campaign did... you're trying to equivocate again. Sanders was wrong and Trump is wrong. You say you oppose nuclear war, yet you support someone who is willing to use nukes "unpredictably", which is anathema to MAD (which is what has prevented war for decades). And nobody is calling for "unrestricted immigration". I think that NAFTA (and free trade and general) is a good thing in the long term, but I acknowledge that that places me in the minority, and I would not want a president to go against the will of Americans to pursue it. About immigration, immigrants do jobs, pay taxes, and engage in less crime than native-born Americans, as well as disproportionately boosting our tech industry. If illegal immigrants were really taking everyone's jobs, then maybe we wouldn't have unemployment below 5%. And about Muslims, there are some violent, radical Islamists, just as there are some violent, radical Christians. But, while terrorism is obviously a large problem, the number of deaths from terrorist attacks is vastly outnumbered by nearly every other cause of death, and most of these attacks are perpetrated by native-born citizens in the first place. Compare this to thousands of Syrian and other Middle Eastern immigrants, who would have nowhere else to go if they could not go here, and you end up valuing the lives of a few dozen people over the lives of thousands. Syrian Lives Matter- this is the same type of injustice that BLM speaks against, that black lives are not being valued the same as white lives, but with a much more stark disparity between the American lives and the Syrian lives which are being destroyed. If someone from your neighborhood was mentally unstable, and shot someone (from their perspective) in the name of God, would you like it if you were suddenly quarantined there for life? That is what a Syrian ban would entail, except that they are running from violence themselves.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Is there a dispute that the hate crimes committed by leftist affiliated groups / mobs / individuals / protesters vastly outnumber the rare incidents of graffiti or whatever you think is the end of the world?

I mean depending on how you look at it it's 100 to 1 or 1,000 to 1 and you dismiss the 1,000 and try to hammer good people over the head with the 1.  

Here is some steps to fix the country:  
1) Learn how to quantify problems
2) Prioritize the biggest problems
3) promote solutions

So, in practice:
1)
 we have 10,000 crimes motivated by hate or politics committed by leftists and we have 10 "possible" incidents of "hate" coming from Trump supporters or racist groups who prefer Trump to Clinton.  Half of the graffiti incidents are typically proved to be hoaxes done by a democrat.  

2)
So, we have
10,000 crimes and 8 cities overrun with riots by the left
(not denounced by democrats)
and
5 to 10 incidents by right-ish people and some hoaxes by leftists
(denounced by republicans)

3)
I think we need to:
A) pressure democrats, namely clinton, obama, and sanders to publicly slap down these protests  riots / crimes committed in their name.
B) aggressively arrest and prosecute these anarchist agitators.
C) actively educate the public about the error and danger of the lefts actions.  
D) continue to denounce and prosecute the rare incident of someone on the right committing a "hate" crime.  

I hope the country can unite behind my common sense proposals.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

As mentioned earlier:

We have literally thousands of crimes committed in protest of the election in the past week and 8 cities+ overrun with riots by the left. Businesses (dozens and dozens and dozens) destroyed, electrical utilities destroyed, police cruisers vandalized, fires set and Trump supporters literally beaten.. totaling hundreds of felonies or misdemeanors committed by these liberal nuts: not a single damn word or denouncement by the Democrats. (Surprise!)

meanwhile there are maybe a couple dozen national reports of incidents by stereotypically far right cousin lovers, with a handful of the bag having absolutely weak claims to intentionally build the narrative or being shown or admitted to as blatant hoaxes.

What a joke, don't even begin to start bitching when the representation of your party is making a complete SHAME of your voting base. You guys just don't have the stones to step up and admit how ridiculous it is because they are the type of voters that pretty much keep your party even alive in elections.

Tough facts, huh.

Were Democrats to denounce the protests, they would only end up legitimizing them. Seriously: you think that thousands of protestors are going to calm down just because Obama or Clinton told them "please stop"? They'd wind up like John Boehner, unable to contain the anger of their party, and suddenly a pariah because of it.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

As mentioned earlier:

We have literally thousands of crimes committed in protest of the election in the past week and 8 cities+ overrun with riots by the left. Businesses (dozens and dozens and dozens) destroyed, electrical utilities destroyed, police cruisers vandalized, fires set and Trump supporters literally beaten.. totaling hundreds of felonies or misdemeanors committed by these liberal nuts: not a single damn word or denouncement by the Democrats. (Surprise!)

meanwhile there are maybe a couple dozen national reports of incidents by stereotypically far right cousin lovers, with a handful of the bag having absolutely weak claims to intentionally build the narrative or being shown or admitted to as blatant hoaxes.

What a joke, don't even begin to start bitching when the representation of your party is making a complete SHAME of your voting base. You guys just don't have the stones to step up and admit how ridiculous it is because they are the type of voters that pretty much keep your party even alive in elections.

Tough facts, huh.

Were Democrats to denounce the protests, they would only end up legitimizing them. Seriously: you think that thousands of protestors are going to calm down just because Obama or Clinton told them "please stop"? They'd wind up like John Boehner, unable to contain the anger of their party, and suddenly a pariah because of it.

Lol, did you say the same about Trump?

H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.C.Y.

What good do it do Boehner?




 

MUH RACIST GRAFFIT

And these are wrong as well. But it says something when one side can only attack the people, and not the ideas, of the other side. This was Clinton's mistake, and the right won't convince anyone this way either. I would rather join the side whose leaders condemn left-wing and right-wing violence alike, than the side whose leaders ignore hate crime (of all kinds) while glomming onto left-wing protests/violence like moths to a candle.

TL;DR: Your side needs to stop acting like an army of Hillary Clintons.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

As mentioned earlier:

We have literally thousands of crimes committed in protest of the election in the past week and 8 cities+ overrun with riots by the left. Businesses (dozens and dozens and dozens) destroyed, electrical utilities destroyed, police cruisers vandalized, fires set and Trump supporters literally beaten.. totaling hundreds of felonies or misdemeanors committed by these liberal nuts: not a single damn word or denouncement by the Democrats. (Surprise!)

meanwhile there are maybe a couple dozen national reports of incidents by stereotypically far right cousin lovers, with a handful of the bag having absolutely weak claims to intentionally build the narrative or being shown or admitted to as blatant hoaxes.

What a joke, don't even begin to start bitching when the representation of your party is making a complete SHAME of your voting base. You guys just don't have the stones to step up and admit how ridiculous it is because they are the type of voters that pretty much keep your party even alive in elections.

Tough facts, huh.

Were Democrats to denounce the protests, they would only end up legitimizing them. Seriously: you think that thousands of protestors are going to calm down just because Obama or Clinton told them "please stop"? They'd wind up like John Boehner, unable to contain the anger of their party, and suddenly a pariah because of it.

Lol, did you say the same about Trump?

H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.C.Y.

What good do it do Boehner?




 

MUH RACIST GRAFFIT

And these are wrong as well. But it says something when one side can only attack the people, and not the ideas, of the other side. This was Clinton's mistake, and the right won't convince anyone this way either. I would rather join the side whose leaders condemn left-wing and right-wing violence alike, than the side whose leaders ignore hate crime (of all kinds) while glomming onto left-wing protests/violence like moths to a candle.

TL;DR: Your side needs to stop acting like an army of Hillary Clintons.

You mean Democrats need to:
1) run an issues based campaign like Trump did?
2) denounce both sides that get out of line... like Trump did?

...I mean I agree,
i'm not sure you know what you're saying.

Here is some good work documenting the censored coverage you get of these "protesters".   
http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2016/11/the-rest-of-the-story-anti-trump-protests-packed-with-profanity-crude-signs/

Nothing to do with campaigns, so I don't know what you're talking about. Sometimes, a public and private position is needed, because you need to keep the trust of those who agree with you (even when they're angered). That is why I think that Obama and co. have not denounced the violence; they don't condone it, they just know that they're powerless to stop it and would only lose future influence if they tried.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Nothing to do with campaigns, so I don't know what you're talking about. Sometimes, a public and private position is needed, because you need to keep the trust of those who agree with you (even when they're angered). That is why I think that Obama and co. have not denounced the violence; they don't condone it, they just know that they're powerless to stop it and would only lose future influence if they tried.

What does Obama or Hillary have to lose?  
...Also, can they ever do the right thing? EVEN IF IT HURTS THEM POLITICALLY? ? ?

"Doing the right thing" is to do nothing, that is my point! Nobody is going to stop protesting just because Obama told them to! Better to give them no attention than to reward them, which is how the GOP should've treated the Tea Party. Except that the Tea Party helped them politically

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Nothing to do with campaigns, so I don't know what you're talking about. Sometimes, a public and private position is needed, because you need to keep the trust of those who agree with you (even when they're angered). That is why I think that Obama and co. have not denounced the violence; they don't condone it, they just know that they're powerless to stop it and would only lose future influence if they tried.

What does Obama or Hillary have to lose?  
...Also, can they ever do the right thing? EVEN IF IT HURTS THEM POLITICALLY? ? ?

"Doing the right thing" is to do nothing, that is my point! Nobody is going to stop protesting just because Obama told them to! Better to give them no attention than to reward them, which is how the GOP should've treated the Tea Party. Except that the Tea Party helped them politically

I strongly disagree.
I think these people are actively supported by some dem affiliated organizations.  This is astro turf in many cases and a easy (silent) step would be to at least stop the organization and money machinery making it possible.  If Obama has to get on the phone with George Soros, than he should. 
The problem is Obama probably doesn't WANT to stop it.  That is the tragedy of the Obama presidency in a nut shell. 
You would be surprised what effect strong public direction can have on mobs... it wouldn't be perfect but it would have an effect.

Do not make an equivalence between the tea party and left wing agitators.  The tea party (not my cup of tea) was a polite quite assembly in parks and on private property with permits and permission, not riots destroying property and disturbing peoples lives. 

Please provide evidence of astroturfing of liberal protests. I'll wait here.

About Tea Party violence... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6mCTU4NpRQ

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Nothing to do with campaigns, so I don't know what you're talking about. Sometimes, a public and private position is needed, because you need to keep the trust of those who agree with you (even when they're angered). That is why I think that Obama and co. have not denounced the violence; they don't condone it, they just know that they're powerless to stop it and would only lose future influence if they tried.

What does Obama or Hillary have to lose? 
...Also, can they ever do the right thing? EVEN IF IT HURTS THEM POLITICALLY? ? ?

"Doing the right thing" is to do nothing, that is my point! Nobody is going to stop protesting just because Obama told them to! Better to give them no attention than to reward them, which is how the GOP should've treated the Tea Party. Except that the Tea Party helped them politically

I strongly disagree.
I think these people are actively supported by some dem affiliated organizations.  This is astro turf in many cases and a easy (silent) step would be to at least stop the organization and money machinery making it possible.  If Obama has to get on the phone with George Soros, than he should. 
The problem is Obama probably doesn't WANT to stop it.  That is the tragedy of the Obama presidency in a nut shell. 
You would be surprised what effect strong public direction can have on mobs... it wouldn't be perfect but it would have an effect.

Do not make an equivalence between the tea party and left wing agitators.  The tea party (not my cup of tea) was a polite quite assembly in parks and on private property with permits and permission, not riots destroying property and disturbing peoples lives. 

Please provide evidence of astroturfing of liberal protests. I'll wait here.

About Tea Party violence... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6mCTU4NpRQ

OK 2 seconds and the top of a bing serch:
https://stream.org/clinton-campaign-dnc-pay-to-incite-violence-at-trump-rallies/

Yeah your arguments are sh**t if you have to cite James "I edit all the video's" O'Keeffe.

LOL, just admit I win... I mean you just did it unintentionally. 

You cite a man who edits video's to show something that didn't happen and you think you win.  Trumpist people are real delusional.

So you 2 are denying that protesters are paid by democrat affiliated groups in this case and in others?

delusional?