You are a terrible internet detective. So 11/9/16 has zero results, right? So does 11/8, 11/7, 11/6, 11/5... wait, now 11/4 has one result, and then 11/3, 11/2 and earlier all have about a dozen results. Could it be that this online system that looks like it's from 1999 has a delay of about a week in real world paperwork appearing in it? That would seem pretty sensible right?

Probably the case, my bad. I'll check in a week.

Also you think that the police of the port authority of NY and NJ only deal with about 12 incidents a day?

Yes, actually, they have a pretty limited presence and only document cases that progress to a point where someone's in trouble. as someone who lived near that area/toook the GW bridge to work every day, it's really rare to see port authority cops doing anything.

I would bet, in a year Assad is in power again over all of Syria, as the US pulls out, blocks the NATO from doing anything, and congratulates russia to their successfull fight against terrorism in syria... IF Trump is now really such a good friend of putin. He will also be a good friend of Assad.

I'd be fine with that. Assad should stay in power, as he keeps a volitile region in check. Saddam/Gadaffi should have been left in power as well.

(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)

Donating to political campaigns is about the worst thing you can do with your money. Did you see how much Money Hillary/Jeb spent with no impact?

If you want to support a political group, follow them on social media/retweet/share all their posts.

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?

What's going to happen is people will be pissed for a bit, then Trump will take office and be a normal president. People will get less pissed over time, but some die-hardl iberals will say he's been awful regardless of how he does.

If he does fine, he gets another term. If he does bad, someone else gets in during the 2020 election.

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

Exactly this. Remember "Texit"?

Who exactly will "jump on him"? How?

Hostile Senate can work with dems to reject everything. The RNC will still hate Trump for a while.

I'm in Minnesota and it's cold.

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. :)

And in other news, Russia says they've been in touch with Trump's team for a while now. Exchanging hugs and kisses,

The Baltic and Scandinavia is on feets of US president being so sucumb to Moscow agenda.

But that is I believe to...... tweek and correct?

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.

He is going to be a good president. I can guarentee it :). ...... just saying

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.

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.

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 get that argument, but I don't see it happening. I see tons of fake reports, and lots of things that would have happened before Trump's election now being blamed on him winning, which is why I've said multiple times to wait and see the validity. Our culture's in a state where people will lie about things for attention, and the media's willing to give a massive platform to anyone lying about Trump right now.

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.