While the question remains as to whether or not the rioters in Portland are funded directly by George Soros, the whole thing seems odd. The media, as usual, is either behaving badly, or the circumstances are. I'm willing to believe it's a mix of both.

For instance, the media is saying Portland's rioters are 'anarchists' and have broken local shop Windows, writing things like 'capitalism kills.'

Why would an anti-government group wait until the the new president got elected to riot? Something is amiss.

By some strange manner of reasoning, one could say that it would make Clinton look good if it was really anarchists--Trump's victory incites general chaos, since they can't hold Trump directly responsible. However, if they were simply anti-Trump protesters, they would make Clinton look bad.

I didn't actually see anything that said 'capitalism kills.' I only heard news people say it.

Sure, Trump could have hired them, but that doesn't seem likely. Soros has more of a track record with this sort of thing. Either way, I can only suspend my conclusions until more is known. They could be funded goons, but Portlanders got violent during Occupy as well... Not to say that couldn't have been funded.