The left feel entitled to rebel and the extreme right feel empowered to spew hate.

For added 'comedy' many on the right were making threats to arm themselves if Trump lost - those same people are now saying those who left should just shut up and accept it.

Trump, also, 4 years ago was calling for a march on Washington because the country was so divided. (Obama won the popular vote). This year? The protesters are all professionals, the media have stirred them up, its all "unfair". (Trump just lost the popular vote and polled less over all) So you can add 'whining manchild' to his list of faults.

So now that Trump is President and the people that hate him still hate him, there's only two questions. First, so what now? Second, what are you going to do moving forward?

Because expressing exasperation and protesting has its place and contrary to popular belief (nowadays) are useful. But that only gets you so far.

So now that Trump is President and everyone hates him, there's only two questions. First, so what now? Second, what are you going to do moving forward?

Because expressing exasperation and protesting has its place and contrary to popular belief (nowadays) are useful. But that only gets you so far.

My humble proposal to someone in the US that wants to do something? Liberals and Democrats are completely pulverised and discredited and have no idea how to handle this. There isn't much of a strong/mature Left in the US atm, but you have to start somewhere. For instance :

https://twitter.com/DemSocialists (Tried to register myself there to at least help with a $50 monthly subscription, but sadly they don't accept cards outside US/Canada - for better or for worse, what happens in the US affects us all)

https://twitter.com/hashtag/j20

Start from there and see where it goes. Obviously in the next elections none of these leftist organizations will have any serious claim to elect a president, but they can help building a movement that will wake up the Democrats.

Of course, keep in mind you will be doing this probably at personal cost - Obama built a pretty nice surveillance machinery that will be handed down to Trump and his goons. I'm not even pretending *I* would organise like that if I was living in the US - I probably wouldn't. I'm no hero, and fighting fascism requires heroes. But since you asked a question...

(Mods, please feel free to delete this if you think I'm stepping over the line here).

There were riots in Portland, Oregon. There's calls in California for secession. There is some violent instability here.

It's always interesting how undemocratic democrats can be, isn't it.

I mean... like him or hate him, but Trump has been elected your president, following the democratic process that is the law in your sacred lands. Unhappy with that? Well, move to China, or move to Russia. Enjoy the much better leaders there. Or, pay better attention during the pre-election cycle next time. Democracy also means accepting something/someone you don't like, if that's what came out of the elections.

(interlude)
Same story here with AfD, by the way. I'm not saying that AfD is precisely the right thing, but as a matter of fact, they are following a perfectly democratic process. Despite the constant derogatory wordings against them in the left media (I sometimes think this provokes an act of defiance and indeed gets them more voters!) such as referring to them as "the xenophobic hate party" in every sentence (which they aren't, that's PEGIDA), they are getting people to vote them. And if they get elected, that's perfectly democratic -- like it or not, but you have to accept it. Saying that's undemocratic is simply a lie. Saying "I will not cooperate with them" such as socialists did half a year ago simply shows how undemocratic one self is. Also, saying "80% of the people don't want them" shows not only a serious lack of democratic understanding, but also a serious lack of intelligence when they got some 22-23% and your own party only got 15%. But... that's alright, as long as the right people say it, that's perfectly acceptable.

Besides, when the ultra-lefts out of the '68 movement who finally converged to B90/Greens did the exact same thing 30 years ago, funnily there were no complaints. They regularly did much more serious things than AfD has ever done. True, there are some people in AfD ranks (a minority, though) who are... well, let's say, not so great, and some people who vote for that party (mind you: individual voters, not candidates!) are outright dangerous criminals. No doubt there.
But there is no single incident of any of them having done something similarly severe as sabotaging a high-level nuclear waste transport -- something the Greens have done dozens of times. They've risked the health and lives of hundred thousands doing so, but is it a problem? No, of course not. That's perfectly alright.

Also, the ultra-lefts openly admitted that their goal was to destroy the state, if not by force then by the law. That's more or less a verbatim translation, and it is also exactly what they have been doing for the last three decades, too. Can you be more undemocratic than that?
One particular stone thrower who later became foreign minister openly defended Baader-Meinhoff. Sure, terrorists who kill innocent people with bombs are totally within their rights. You know, they're not really terrorists because they murder people, that's a misunderstanding. They're heroes.

But hey, all of that is fine, as long as someone else isn't getting votes, everything is perfectly democratic.

(end of interlude)

I'll give you that Trump himself said he would "totally accept the vote if he wins", which of course all Clinton followers will use as argument for him being undemocratic. But is that so?

First of all, he did not say he won't accept the vote otherwise. This is what you may induce (and it's indeed how I understood the statement, too), but in the end it's just that, your and my understanding, not necessarily the truth.
If you are being honest and realistic, unless there's very compelling evidence of voter fraud, you hardly have much of an option but to accept when you've lost... and even then, see what good it was for Gore. (Did we have Presiden Gore or President Bush in the end? I don't remember...). Insofar, who knows, he might have been joking (or deliberately provoking!), too. Trump is the right guy to throw in a surprise provocation, so quite possibly this might have been just that.

But also, there exists this manuscript for that speech where it said "will accept the concession speech of Clinton" instead. Which may have been an early sketch, or maybe just what he had originally intended to say, but then changed mind at the last instant on-stage because he feared it might be too much shame to have risked that much of a big lip, in case he loses. Or, whatever. We don't know.

I mean... like him or hate him, but Trump has been elected your president, following the democratic process that is the law in your sacred lands. Unhappy with that? Well, move to China, or move to Russia.

Protests are perfectly legal and part of a democratic system, and are a tool to put pressure on your political opponent, keep public officials in check, and also build a movement and momentum that will help you win the next elections. That's how it works. Democracy doesn't begin and end with voting day.

Protests are perfectly legal and part of a democratic system

That is correct. However: protest != riot.

Democracy means you get to vote, and there is an outcome, but of course you can still have a differing opinion. You are entitled to discuss it out, and you are entitled to make your concern visible (as in e.g. a peaceful march). You are not entitled to lead a mob in the streets, attack people, have a brawl with the police, smash windows, set fire to other people's goods (cars), whatever.

But see, this goes into the same direction as what I tried to explain in the previous post: When some right-aligned mob is in the streets doing some very obviously illegal stuff (which I will neither defend, nor call "good"), there is a huge uproar. And indeed, rightly so.

When a left-aligned mob does exactly the same, it's their "democratic right". That's fine, they're defending democracy.

So now that Trump is President and the people that hate him still hate him, there's only two questions. First, so what now? Second, what are you going to do moving forward?

Because expressing exasperation and protesting has its place and contrary to popular belief (nowadays) are useful. But that only gets you so far.

Short answer: we have no fucking clue.

Long answer: a lot of this really does depend on if Trump turns out to be the nutcase he seems to be. I mean, people will just have to be vigilant and jump on him the minute he does something crazy. This is still the US and not some banana republic after all. So far, Trump does seem to be unhinged when he went after those protesters again on Twitter, but there's hasn't been too much to go on right now.

In short: it's still to early to say.

I mean, people will just have to be vigilant and jump on him the minute he does something crazy.

What does that mean, though? I mean, he will be the President, and he will control the Congress. Let's assume "he does something crazy". Who exactly will "jump on him"? How?

What I'm saying is, currently there are 2 things you don't know:

1) Whether or not he will do "something crazy".(whatever that means - does cancelling ObamaCare count? Closing Planned Parenthood clinics or making abortion prohitively expensive? Starting "building the Wall"? Strengthen racial profiling? Retreating from the Paris Agreement? He won't actually resurrect Zombie Mecha Hitler and start putting people in the oven, if you're waiting for some Apocalyptic sign).

2) In case he does, if there are effective ways to challenge him, at least to some extent, and what are those ways.

You will know the answer to (1) when he actually does "something crazy", but that won't make you any wiser as to (2). You still won't know.

Small example: If you don't have a plan how to restore files in case of a server failure, you won't suddenly figure it out the day it happens. And, conversely, nothing is stopping you from starting figuring it out before it actually happens. Saying you first have to wait for the failure in order to start devising a plan(s) is really just procrastinating, hoping the failure doesn't happen and you won't have to deal with it.

Which, in case of Trump, is totally understandable - most people want their peace and quiet, including me. I'm no activist, and I don't even live in the US. But Alpheus asked a pretty critical question that remains.

The left feel entitled to rebel and the extreme right feel empowered to spew hate.

For added 'comedy' many on the right were making threats to arm themselves if Trump lost - those same people are now saying those who left should just shut up and accept it.

Trump, also, 4 years ago was calling for a march on Washington because the country was so divided. (Obama won the popular vote). This year? The protesters are all professionals, the media have stirred them up, its all "unfair". (Trump just lost the popular vote and polled less over all) So you can add 'whining manchild' to his list of faults.

Welcome to US Presidential elections where the people against the elect demand a recount/call for secession/question the validity of his candidacy, and people on the other side of the fence chant "we won, get over it". It's been happening every election since I've been alive, and California is just our version of Brexit's London.

Both sides are wrong. There's a social contract involved in democracy wherein you agree to accept the results even if you get outvoted. There's also an implied understanding that just because you "lost", doesn't mean you should get ignored entirely if you're at all a significant population.

But see, this goes into the same direction as what I tried to explain in the previous post: When some right-aligned mob is in the streets doing some very obviously illegal stuff (which I will neither defend, nor call "good"), there is a huge uproar. And indeed, rightly so. When a left-aligned mob does exactly the same, it's their "democratic right". That's fine, they're defending democracy.

You're ignoring the fact that most of the protests are peaceful. I don't see many on the left condoning the violent elements (in fact my friend in Portland made a fb post this morning condemning the people who were destroying his city).

A handful of anarchists smash windows and burn things, and then you generalize this to everyone else in attempt to delegitimatize the protests and paint the left with hypocrisy.