Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google United States

Google Searches For 'President Impeachment', 'Canada Immigration', 'Nuclear Shelter' Skyrocket After Trump's Victory 332

As people celebrate Trump's victory in the United States (and many come to terms with it), the search trend on Google illustrates what's going on in many's minds. Searches for "how to impeach a president", for instance, have gone up 4,850 percent. Similarly, searches for "how to move to Canada", "are people moving to Canada", "list of people moving to Canada", "immigrate to Canada", "list of people moving to Canada if Trump wins" and "where to move if Trump wins" were also very popular, toot. Amid all of this, searches for "nuclear shelter" have skyrocketed as well.

Deja vu. In the aftermath of Brexit, Brits had shown a lot of interest in making Google searches about Irish passport, meaning of EU, and why it all happened.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Searches For 'President Impeachment', 'Canada Immigration', 'Nuclear Shelter' Skyrocket After Trump's Victory

Comments Filter:
  • Tech people (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @12:22PM (#53247459) Homepage Journal
    Tech people (including me) need to get out of their bubble. What you see in Google is a very low percentage of people. It isn't representative of anything realistic.
    • Re:Tech people (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @12:29PM (#53247537) Journal

      As Pauline Kael famously said [commentarymagazine.com] about President Nixon in the 1972 election [wikipedia.org]:

      I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.

      Most of the rest of the US does not live anywhere near to the world we see in the world, especially in the Bay area. Totally disconnected - and, at least politically, a massive echo chamber. Diversity in tech tends to only apply to gender, race, and religion - not political beliefs or socioeconomic status.

      • Re:Tech people (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @01:04PM (#53248015) Journal

        Everyone, especially Liberals in Big Cities ... you need to read this.

        http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-... [cracked.com]

        After you actually read that article, then we can have a proper discussion. Our view of "Our World" is distorted by our view of "our world". The people in other places that seem "weird" are only that way because ... we're weird ourselves. It is all a matter of perspective.

    • by JackAxe ( 689361 )
      I completely agree with you on this!
    • True patriots swim away when a boat is sinking. Fuck them. More room for immigrants that want to be here.
    • by Luthair ( 847766 )
      If you were talking about Twitter trending topics you'd be right, but Google is used universally by everyone to try to find information.
      • No it isn't. That is why we are so disconnected from reality. Not everyone uses Google, or even uses a search engine. Tech people just assume everyone does, even occasionally. But they don't. What you are seeing is a relatively small segment of the population.
        • The vast majority, especially the non-technically-informed majority, use Google. Hence why the verb form of the name has entered our lexicon as a synonym for 'search'. A minority of non-technical people with a concern for privacy use Bing on the belief that Microsoft cares less about tracking their personal information than Google does. A very small minority of technical people use alternatives such as Duck Duck Go, but those alternatives are almost completely unheard of among the non-techs. So while it is

          • by skids ( 119237 )

            I would add, Clinton won the popular vote, so that's a rather large number of people right there.

            I don't blame them. We could easily have some analogue to the Flint water crisis replicate itself nationally, given what will likely be done to the EPA and business regulations.

            Personally I have given completely up on the low-information voter. They can go screw the country up all they want. I'll leave if/when it looks like they are starting to try to prevent me from doing so and there is a better place to li

            • > I would add, Clinton won the popular vote

              Maybe, maybe not. 5 million voted haven't been counted yet. Right now, she's up by about 100k. Which means nothing other than that she messed up strategically - she should have devoted more resources to states she barely lost and less to states she won decisively.

              Anyway, what we can say is that about half the country preferred Trump, about half preferred Clinton (other than the 4% who couldn't stomach voting for either).

              We can't even say that the popular vote

        • According to https://www.statista.com/topics/1001/google/ [statista.com], Google had 247 million unique US visitors in the month of November 2015.
    • It is not just google.

      Canadian Immigration servers have crashed.

      http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
      http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/... [cnn.com]
      http://www.bbc.com/news/techno... [bbc.com]

      As a tech (in a bubble?), I wonder what OS they are using.
  • Impeachment? (Score:4, Informative)

    by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @12:23PM (#53247471) Journal
    High Crimes and Misdemeanors. In the history of the US, only two Presidents have been impeached (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton), but none have ever been removed. Can't start until President Trump takes office - and then does something that is a High Crime and Misdemeanor.
    • Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment.
      • And thus - was not impeached. Only two impeachments ever. Interestingly, both were Democrats.
        • And thus - was not impeached. Only two impeachments ever. Interestingly, both were Democrats.

          Its not that simple. Force does not have to be applied to reach a desired outcome, sometimes only the threat of such force is necessary. I would think someone with your signature would well understand that reality. :-)

          • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
            There is also something called bluffing with a "threat of force", and having your bluff called.
            • There is also something called bluffing with a "threat of force", and having your bluff called.

              It wasn't a bluff, Republicans were deserting Nixon and advising resignation.

            • Nixon was an avid poker player. Sometimes you know the other person has what they are representing.

        • Not interesting (Score:3, Informative)

          by sjbe ( 173966 )

          Interestingly, both were Democrats.

          It's only interesting if you are a ridiculously partisan Republican. Both of them were impeached for "crimes" that really were covers for an effort to remove them from office for political reasons rather than any actual serious crimes. Basically it tells you that Republicans will fight incredibly dirty and use any tactic no matter how unsavory.

    • That was my thought as well. Maybe if a lot of people are doing Google searches to learn about impeachment, rather than just saying stupid things on Facebook on Slashdot, they'll learn that impeachment is how you handle serous crimes committed by a President; that I don't like his campaign style" isn't grounds for impeachment.

      Impeachment is appropriate when a President or certain other high officials commit crimes in office which other people would go to prison for. For example, Navy machinist Kristian Sau

    • If the reports are correct he has a couple of felony charges to answer to before he is sworn in. What happens to those? If he still has to answer to them, what happens if he's convicted?
      • The two cases against him were civil, and one - a dubious charge of underage rape - has been dropped albeit under equally dubious circumstances.

        The Trump U case (of the infamous "Mexican" judge controversy) is ongoing, but again, it's not a criminal case.

        Trump has racked up a lot of fraudulent, dishonest, behavior in his life, but he's been careful to avoid anything that would result in him being arrested. There's a legal distinction between signing a contract to buy $100,000 worth of furniture, and th

    • Considering Trump has a December court date for his alleged rape of a 13-year old, if he is found guilt of that crime he could then be impeached once in office.

      • Do you mean the civil case that was dropped on November 4th after it was widely exposed as a hoax?

    • High Crimes and Misdemeanors

      In other words "crimes". Those are just two the categories of crimes under Common Law. Both were mentioned in the constitution because in the terminology of the day to say only "crimes" might have been misunderstood to include only "High Crimes", now more commonly called felonies in the United states. So "Misdemeanors" was added to clarify that the president can be impeached for lesser crimes as well.

      and then does something that is a High Crime and Misdemeanor

      Nowhere does it say that the crime must have been committed after taking office. Trump may have to be impeac

  • by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @12:23PM (#53247479)
    Is tending upward as well.
    • If your last name was Clinton, it was always legal...
    • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
      Grabbing pussy has always been legal, so long as the pussy is willing.
  • by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @12:25PM (#53247499)

    From all those conservatives who left the country when Obama was elected .. twice /s

    • Obama is the first president since Eisenhower to win consecutive elections with 51% of the vote.
    • by Nutria ( 679911 )

      I don't recall many (any?) Conservatives saying they'd flee if Obama won. OTOH, it's been an election season pastime to see how many celebs swear they'll move to Canada if The Republican gets elected and then don't move to Canada.

      • Considering this is an article about people using Google to search for things let me help: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flee+the+... [lmgtfy.com]

        Both sides have rather astounding selective memories when it comes to recollection bias. So while you may not recall many (any) it did in fact happen. It was stupid then (vs Obama) and it's stupid now (vs Trump).
        .

      • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
        I'm just waiting for DeNiro to shake off the secret service and punch the president-elect in the face. Like he told everyone [cnn.com] he would do. Is California one of these states where verbal promises are as binding as contracts?
  • "By the way, and if he gets to pick his judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."
    • Good. We can use a little sanity when it comes to our 2A rights. They just got trampled even harder in the State of California, especially with permits needed to purchase or sell ammunition. I wonder if we could consider needing a permit to write political posts on the Internet, or to petition the Government...
      • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

        Good. We can use a little sanity when it comes to our 2A rights.

        Exactly. Like expanded background checks and mandatory safety and competency lessons for receiving a carry permit. And I say this as someone with a carry permit, multiple "hi capacity" handguns, an "assault weapon", and multiple other firearms. However, the NRA has pushed so hard to define "sane" gun control as "allow anything short of nuclear weapons to anyone with the money to buy them", and most gun control activists define "sane" as "even seeing a picture of a gun could cause irreparable harm to chil

        • You're correct. I have a friend who refused to even LOOK at a weapon of mine when I was trying to explain semi versus full automatic. She literally hid her eyes in the manner of a five year old viewing a snake. How can we have a reasonable discussion about this when that's the case?

    • Are you quoting someone incapable of forming complete sentences?
    • "By the way, and if he gets to pick his judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

      You truly do not know. The "second amendment solution" was shown in 1994 when they absolutely devastated and destroyed Bill Clinton's Democrat controlled Congress because of the passage of the Assault Weapons ban.

      If second amendment types are know for anything it is showing up on election day to protect their rights. Politicians at the more local levels (i.e. Congress) are very well aware of this. That is why even reasonable reforms like a universal background check go nowhere, because the politicians re

  • Move to Australia.

    http://www.workingin-australia.com/ [workingin-australia.com]

    • McDonald’s workers get $16 hr there.

      • by OzPeter ( 195038 )

        McDonald’s workers get $16 hr there.

        I suggest you take a look at the cost of living in Oz before you salivate over $16/hr minimum wages. EG standard chocolate bar in the US is about $US0.80, in Australia it's about $US2.00

        BTW Speaking of which if the US minimum wage had tracked inflation, it would be in the $12/hr range right now.

      • Cost of living [numbeo.com] is also quite a bit higher though as well. Effectively, I believe that their $16 minimum wage comes out ahead of U.S. minimum wage (at least the Federal minimum wage, but not necessarily that of some states or cities) when adjusting for Purchase Power Parity, but it isn't going to translate into minimum wage workers being more wealthy to a considerable amount.

        Also, some people would consider the Australia's government (currently a coalition lead by the Liberal Party of Australia (don't let
  • The long line of Priuses heading North causing traffic jams on the usually quiet border-crossings. Ah, if only [theonion.com]...

    BTW, why is not any one of these people talking about moving to Mexico [foxnews.com]? Racist much?..

  • And every time, nothing happens.

    While mass exodus from the US has happened in the past over some issues, it was always over issues that were far less temporary than a single presidential term.

    It's only 4 years, with a repetition of no more than 1 additional 4-year term afterwards, How bad can it get?

  • Isn't that racist? There's another perfectly good Democratic-leaning country next door, it's called Mexico, but I haven't heard any Hollywood celebrities saying they're moving there. Only Canada.

    • I would imagine it's because most Canadians speak English, thus reducing the need to learn another language, and because the standard of living is considerably higher than in Mexico.

      I'm not sure how "racism" comes into it, but it sounds like the kind of thing a right winger would say who doesn't know what racism is, but throws the word at the wall hoping it'll show some kind of "hypocrisy" because left wingers are anti-racism.

  • Assuming the Americans googling "canada immigration" (though they actually meant emigration) are mostly the leftie peecee prius-driving SJW "personally offended at everything" types that apparently made up the majority of Hillary voters, then their leaving will be another win for the USA.

  • Seriously, just focus on the wall. Forget all of the other terrible ideas that you might be able to follow through on and instead spend the next 4 years working on a continent wide boondoggle and pray that the US has come to its senses by then.

    Don't count on impeachment to keep Trump in check, the house is so gerrymandered that the Democrats would need huge majorities to take control, and the election campaign caused the Republicans to throw out their final pretence of responsible government. Out biggest ho

  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @01:00PM (#53247961)

    1) Trump is a left-of-center conservative who until recently was actually a Democrat. He's not Hitler. He's not going to eat your babies or throw you out of the country because your grandmother was Mexican.

    2) Trump is a sane human being who has no intention of starting any wars or launching any nukes.

    3) Trump may be inexperienced as a political leader but he's also smart enough to delegate to people who do have experience.

    4) Canada has its own problems. They just elected their own dumb himbo as leader and their economy isn't exactly booming. They also are trying to enact some pretty repressive anti-free-speech laws and continue to be plagued by division between French separatists in Quebec and the English in the rest of the country. Paradise it ain't. If you go there, you're probably in for some harsh awakenings.

    • by Nemyst ( 1383049 )

      1) Trump is a left-of-center conservative who until recently was actually a Democrat. He's not Hitler. He's not going to eat your babies or throw you out of the country because your grandmother was Mexican.

      Correction: Mr. Trump was a left-leaning Democrat. President Trump is a wildcard with no real plan or policies aside from building a wall, all backed by an evangelical vice-president and a very troubled Republican party.

      2) Trump is a sane human being who has no intention of starting any wars or launching any nukes.

      That's not what he said, and what he said is all we have to work off. You're ascribing intent to him that he has never expressed. The real answer is that we don't know.

      3) Trump may be inexperienced as a political leader but he's also smart enough to delegate to people who do have experience.

      Republican-leaning people, most likely, who can still do significant damage in many areas such as social policies, healthcar

    • by mlw4428 ( 1029576 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @02:13PM (#53248969)
      > 3) Trump may be inexperienced as a political leader but he's also smart enough to delegate to people who do have experience.

      You based this on what? His business acumen? Those advisors, did they stop his multiple bankruptcies, Trump Airlines, Trump steak, or his severe inability to pay contractors and banks what they were owed to the point that no sane company does business with him at or at the very least until they're paid entirely upfront? Are you stupid?
    • 1) Trump is a left-of-center conservative who until recently was actually a Democrat. He's not Hitler. He's not going to eat your babies or throw you out of the country because your grandmother was Mexican.

      Outside of his core platforms his ideology is ill-defined and not traditional left/right. On non-core issues he might be a moderate, or he might give Paul Ryan and Mike Pence a blank cheque. There's not a lot of evidence that he cares about or even understands much about policy. An advisor could probably take him whatever direction he wants with a short presentation.

      2) Trump is a sane human being who has no intention of starting any wars or launching any nukes.

      Sane perhaps, stable? No. The guy who wrote "The Art of the Deal" said that he had to listen in on Trump's phone calls because his attention sp

  • ... if a small percentage of those who are contemplating to emigrate to Canada, go ahead and actually do this, I think this country would be better off. But, keep in mind, no backsies. Really, as an immigrant to Canada in a far far away time in my life, I remember the ordeal and under no circumstance, I would want to go back and live in a socialist world. Yet again I am living in California, the state as communist as it can get in the union, I know, it is not saying much. For the god's sake, think once wha
  • by sootman ( 158191 ) on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @01:38PM (#53248507) Homepage Journal

    ... but that's just because I was up late. You can ignore that.

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Working...