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.

Also, you know, Americans seem to be quite fond of the day some troublemakers boarded 4 ships in Boston and threw their cargo into the Ocean, despite the fact the Tea Act
was a perfectly legal Act passed by a perfectly legal Parliament that enforce Law inside its jurisdiction. Those anarchists/terrorists! Couldn't they just protest their disagreement with the law and the taxes peacefully?

Yes, those were "different times". It's always "different times". I mean, for one, everything was in grainy black&white back then.

This is just a general observation: In nearly every historical crisis, there are those that insist "everything is fine", there are those that admit not everything is fine, but we must resist by always respecting the current law and order, otherwise violence will turn against the movement and we will face even stronger retaliation from our opponents(which many times is actually true) and there are those that take risks and actually go beyond legal means if that will result in making unjust rulers feel more uncomfortable.

When the "moderate" ones are reminded that the current order we must absolutely respect only came to be by previous violent uprisings that we solemnly celebrate as national holidays, we invariably respond "yes, but those were different, turbulent times, today we are civilized". Every time. Like clockwork. The moderates of those "turbulent" times said the exact same thing, and so on and so forth.

Of course, the "troublemakers" take a risk : If they lose, they are destroyed. If they win, they establish the new order, their resistance is capitalised and becomes Resistance, celebrated in new national holidays and parades, the "moderates" try to overexaggerate their role in it, and the "everything is fine" people move to Brazil and change their names. :)

Meanwhile, whilst we all discuss things here, just saw the racist fallout from Trump's victory with my own eyes today.

Yea, to all of you deniers out there, it's real, and it's happening.

EDIT: @mikeman, to answer you question, it's like I said before, I haven't got a fucking clue, to be honest. I mean, protests and stuff are already happening I guess. There's also the courts and things like that I suppose.

It's already started

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37953528

He told the Wall Street Journal he favours keeping two pillars of the bill because "I like those very much".

One is a ban on insurers denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The other provision that the president-elect told the newspaper he favours allows young adults to be insured on their parents' policies.

You're going to see more reversals such as this, since Trump's going to keep aligning more to the left.

You don't seem to want to understand that the real problem isn't Trump himself but his supporters and the people his victory has enabled/empowered, but at this point we're just repeating ourselves.

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),

That's how everyone who understands basic english and accepts that words have *some* meaning understood it.

meant pq or pq. Freaking come on.

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),

That's how everyone who understands basic english and accepts that words have *some* meaning understood it.

Can we please playing this stupid game of "Trump didn't necessarily said that, even if he basically did say it"? Geez. The least we can do is not allow Trump and his ilk to reduce our IQ levels. By saying nonsense like "he said he will accept the resuts *if* he wins, but he didn't say he won't accept them if he loses", you're insulting everyone's intelligence, including your own. What, did he have to use the condition "if and only if" so the statement is...mathematically well-defined? Maybe he should have spelled it "iff"? Use the logical biconditional operator? Yes, let's sit and argue whether Trump

meant pq or pq. Freaking come on.

I'm honestly not seeing the point of going on here. I mean like the people who basically have their heads in the sand are never going to admit to anything possibly happening because of Trump, or anything about Trump. Frankly this is turning into a circle of stupidity really.