>>Is that a bait question, or are you and I implying the same thing here?
>>If I have to speculate, I'd say that Obama has not used that kind of rhetoric so it would be more difficult to invoke outrage based on what he has not done.

What "kind of rhetoric" can you mean? Credible US Jewish organizations and most recently Netanyahu praised Trump and his administration, saying the accusations of anti-Semitism need to be put to rest- but still some persist with false claims of "rhetoric" to justify hit jobs.

>>Stay away from those articles, or if you consider them worthy of discussion then please reference them directly so I know what you're talking about.

Please do the same re the Trump "rhetoric" you say justifies outrage and connection to desecration of Jewish cemeteries.

For your benefit: In his recent Florida speech, Trump made a reference to "last night in Sweden" that he said referred to a piece on Fox News, but detractors decided was a fake claim about migrant atrocities in Sweden. Lovies took turns mocking and ridiculing Trump for the false claim they invented for him... and then migrants staged a riot with burning and looting. Reich, a previous Secretary of Labor well liked by CNN and its ilk, claimed that Trump provoked these riots just as he claimed that earlier student riots at Berkeley where he is a professor, actually were trumped up by conservative media. It seems that no evidence is needed as long as you can use words like "rhetoric" and you're critical of Trump.