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.