A few things…

First: of course violence is violent, regardless of who’s doing it. But not all violence is the same.

Second: research “proof by anecdote.” Hint, in a big country, individual events are only significant if they are indicative of a larger trend. For example, yes, someone shot at Republicans. But overall, right-wing domestic terrorism is by far the greater threat.

Third: research what was going on at those protests and who was actually involved.

Fourth: were these violent acts fundamentally political? Were they intended to intimidate other groups or overthrow governments? Hint, protests in Portland are breaking windows in a liberal city. Does that pose a threat to conservatives or election results? Throwing rocks at police is fundamentally pointless, if you start to pose a real threat they’ll open fire.

Fifth: compare the reactions of Democratic elected officials regarding violence vs. Republicans.

After going through those steps, do you understand why your questions are irrelevant to the article? Throwing whataboutism dust in the air is unhelpful to understanding the world.