Character difference of DNC and RNC Protesters

I noticed that the protesters at the Republican National Convention were more militant than the protesters at the Democrat National Convention. From my analysis, there are two general forms of opposition at each of these conventions. There are those who support the opposition and those who disagree with both and want something totally different. This is considering we are essentially a two party nation.

So, why then would the violent protesters only attack the RNC? Are the liberal democrats more violent than conservative republicans? Do third party protesters only have aggressive tendencies towards republicans?

I'm having a hard time trying to understand the perspective of the violent protesters.

I just came across another thread about a ATS member who is protesting at the RNC. They suggest that the violence or attempted violence was only from police/government plants. (www.abovetopsecret.com...) While I think that the government could and does set up situations to control situations, I don't see an insignificant protest at a political parties convention as something they would benefit from infiltrating.

I distinctly recall some at the DNC chanting O-Ba-Ma at times outside of the MSM booths, so they were not protesters but demonstrators.

And then of course you had the group of "Anarchists" at the RNC.

reply to post by Wolf321

It's EVERY big protest that they want to infiltrate!
That's the point!
Disenfranchise the public to ANY alternative views!
There were black-clothed anarchists at the DNC, who threw stuff and broke stuff, too!
Also, some of the same peaceful protesters.
Not everybody is so stupid as to think that the democratic party is the great white hope.
The point is, the RNC is more conservative, so more support for the police-state crackdown!
"Get those commie hippies"!!!