Thursday, May 26, 2016

Why Doesn't Hillary Condemn Rioters? Four Possible Reasons

UPDATE San Jose leftist riots;
See; "Rioting Clinton/Sanders Supporters Work Hard To Elect Trump"  LINK

"Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta condemned reports of violence on Twitter, writing, "Violence against supporters of any candidate has no place in this election."

But nothing from enabler Hillary herself
Posted after earlier leftist riots-San Jose affirms that the Clinton/Sanders faction has no interest in the rioters apart from enabling them.

Hillary Clinton was quick to condemn rioters-but what she determined as "Trump incited rioters". How she reached this conclusion when, clearly, the thugs in 1.Chicago caused so much disruption to public life that Trump's event had to be cancelled for fears for public safety is a mystery.

Certainly she's been spared having to condemn Trump supporters for rioting at her events, causing 2.ten thousand dollars damage to property during one riot alone, jumping on police cars and throwing rocks
at police.

But for someone running for president, whose role encompasses creating an atmosphere of peace and civility, Hillary is failing miserably in that aspect. Why would she not condemn these violent attacks on free speech and lawful assembly?  A number of possibilities arise.

1. She agrees with these activities and sees them as a normal leftist adjunct to her campaign, and sees the rioters as useful tools to promote her agenda. 

If that is the case it is certainly debatable whether this is a wise move tactically as history proved with the Democratic convention riots of 1968. One would think that middle America would be disgusted at what they are seeing and such terror, for that is what it is, 3.would redound against her.

Of course, if indeed she sees these riots as useful tactics it would be  terrible indictment of her character, or lack of it.

2. Hillary is not commenting on or condemning the rioters by calling on any of her supporters to desist because, by not tying her supporters to the riots in any way, it leaves open the suspicion that all of the rioters are Sanders supporters and her followers are above all such things.

If that is indeed the reason, the hypocrisy would be boundless as would the responsibility for all damage to property, life and limb, and free speech. The betrayal that decent Sanders supporters would, rightly, feel would be palpable as would their not voting for Hillary in November.

N.B. From "The Last Refuge;
MVW says:
Hillary is losing to Bernie. This her way of smearing Bernie in hopes of discrediting him. It also is an attempt to turn Trump supporters against Bernie supporters. She is an evil crooked force.
Don’t fall for it. This is Soros – Hillary mayhem."

3. Frankly she just doesn't care. One would hope that is not the case, but in absence of any condemnation whatsoever that is certainly a sad possibility. That her moral compass could be so warped, if that is indeed the case, would be shocking.

4. Hillary sees the rioters as hurting Trump in the polls and is keeping quiet about the riots because it good for her campaign. Again, if that is her thinking, then the lack of morals would be utterly repugnant. Further, every time there has been an anti-Trump riot his 3.polls went up and he won key primary races.

Perhaps there are other reasons for Clinton's puzzling silence, but in the absence of her commenting on these disgusting people and their terrible actions it is only fair and just to examine her stance in the light of this speculation.

Frankly, silence is an encouragement and an enabling for the rioters and stands as a condemnation of Hillary Clinton. Any further such activities, especially if they result in damage to life and property are on her until she speaks up and demands they stop.


Hillary Clinton condemns Donald Trump after protests shut down Chicago rally


Relax: Albuquerque’s police horses are fine; $10,000 in damage done to convention center


3. Who Will Work Hardest To Elect Trump? The Rioting Clinton/Sanders Supporters.  LINK