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.
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.
Tech people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tech people (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Tech people (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure I'd describe him as a "liberal"; he's rather mixed. You can probably get your best sense of who he is by looking at the things he said before he got involved in politics, because after that, it's anything goes.
* He always seemed rather ambivalent about politics in general. He seemed to prefer Bill Clinton to either of the Bushes, although you got a sense that that was mainly just because the economy was good and he felt that Bill was being persecuted for sex.
* He really does genuinely not seem to understand why people are concerned with Russia. He doesn't appear to have ever really followed anything about any of the assassinations, invasions, etc over the course of the last decade, and he's worked with, done business with, and generally gotten to know a number of oligarchs over the years.
* He was pro-choice before he got involved in politics, so that's probably his real personal stance.
* He does have a troubling history with racism that long predates involvement in politics, so that is probably legitimate.
* He does genuinely seem to have broadly isolationist sentiments, but can be swayed to support military conflicts.
* He does not genuinely appear to have anti-trade views; he made many statements in favor of reduced barriers and outsourcing before he got involved in politics
* He does not appear to have had anything against LGBT individuals
* He has a mile long rap sheet with women predating involvement in politics, so that one appears to be who he is.
With Trump, since he has no record and since he seems allergic to both clarity and consistency, looking at the sort of things he was saying before he got involved in politics seems to really be the only viable option. And what you come across is a person who's not very political, anything but wonkish about domestic or international policy, but does have opinions on various issues.
Re: (Score:2)
It answers the motivation of both people, those that supported Trump and Clinton. You only read the story the way you wanted to. You're the person the article is really pointing at.
It will not go well for the people
You are the Elitist the Trump people hate. And you still don't understand why. But it is right there. You know better than they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Maybe, maybe not. 5 million not counted yet (Score:3)
> 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
Re: (Score:3)
That basically means that 27% don't really use the internet (maybe they do, just likely not that much if they're on dialup speeds.) That's roughly 85 million people in the US.
Sure, while the cities make up most of the population, it kind of sucks being governed by them, especially when most of them wouldn't have anything to eat without you and yet at the same time they basically despise you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Nixon was an avid poker player. Sometimes you know the other person has what they are representing.
Not interesting (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
will fight incredibly dirty and use any tactic no matter how unsavory.
And this differs from Democrats how?
No seriously, it is what is wrong with party politics. You get stuck defending party over principle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe searchers will get a clue (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean the civil case that was dropped on November 4th after it was widely exposed as a hoax?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Impeachment != removal from office (Score:3)
Cool - I'll take that bet. Given what has become the standard for impeachment, anything short of outright murder of another person (and even then, it's OK if you use a drone to kill a US citizen, without trial) won't qualify for impeachment.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob so the standard is considerably lower than murder. Andrew Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act [wikipedia.org]. Both were actions of political expedience that had essentially nothing to do with any actual crimes.
Impeachment means to accuse - it is a legal statement of charges, basically an indictment. It does not mean to remove a public servant from office. You impeach and then hold a trial to determine if the person is removed from office.
Re:Impeachment != removal from office (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Sexual Assault is easy to accuse, hard to prove. Which is why it is fair game for political dirty tricks.
The democrats have no real argument about misogyny since Clinton. They tried pinning that tail on Donald, and most people were instantly reminded of Bills sordid adventures with females, both willing and unwilling.
Get real (Score:3, Insightful)
No, Clinton was was impeached for perjury in front of a Grand Jury, in which he was being investigated for sexual assault
Get real. He was impeached for lying about a blowjob and a sexual harrassment lawsuit which was dismissed. The impeachment was completely a politically motivated hatchet job. I'm not claiming he was clean as a daisy but anyone who actually believes the impeachment had any actual honest justice-seeking motivation is delusional.
an assault that he later paid off with $850,000 and surrender of his law license
He was sued for sexual harassment, not sexual assault and the charges were dismissed. He entered an out-of-court settlement while the case was being appealed to make it go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Get real. He was impeached for lying about a blowjob and a sexual harrassment lawsuit which was dismissed.
And when you do that lying under oath, it's called perjury [wikipedia.org]. And that is a felony. Which typically is considered as a violation of high crimes and misdemeanors [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a person admits they're going to attack the U.S., gets involved with an organization which has vowed to attack the U.S., and has made plans to do so, killing him is the only thing to do. A trial isn't necessary since the person has already admitted to the crime.
Or are you one of those when a criminal points a gun at a cop doesn't believe the police should be able to fire back but inst
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So... you expect the Republican-controlled House & Senate to impeach a president of their own party?
Good luck with that.
Re:Only two options (Score:5, Insightful)
If you didn't vote for Clinton then effectively you voted for Trump whether or not he actually got your vote.
Mathematically false, as voting for Johnson/Stein/McMullin/whoever else does not increase the number of votes Trump got.
If the Democrats wanted to win the presidency, they should have nominated a less dreadful candidate who deserved to win it.
"it was her turn" (Score:4, Insightful)
This year's Democrat primary was truly weird, no Presidential incumbent but only a single prominent Democrat running? How the hell did that happen? It should have been a crowded field like 2008. Somehow the party machine convinced other prominent Democrats to stay out of the race, "it was her turn". There was one token opponent who mostly said he largely agreed with her and that she would be a good President. And there was the Independent running as a Democrat, a party outsider, Bernie.
It should have been a crowded Democratic primary field like 2008 and a more viable candidate emerging like in 2008. But that didn't work out for the party machine's preferred candidate last time did it, so they worked to avoid that same "mistake" and essentially ran her "unopposed" in the primary. The shock of Bernie doing so well should have told them something, but no, "it was her turn".
[sarcasm] DNC, thank you for Trump. You found the one candidate he could beat [/sarcasm].
Re: (Score:3)
It should have been a crowded field like 2008.
Because a crowded field did so well for us on the other side of the ballot? Both parties are their own worst enemy (and our's too). Nothing will change, however, without some serious reform (breaking up the 2 party system, term limits, killing the PACs and super PACs, etc..), but contrary to his campaigning Trump will not do any of that.
I agree with your general sentiment though. It was clear very early on that hell or high water, HRC was going to be their nominee. The Dems made it blatantly clear this time
Re: (Score:3)
If you didn't vote for Clinton then effectively you voted for Trump whether or not he actually got your vote.
Not true for McMullin voters in Utah. It looked like he had a real shot at getting the state's electoral votes. Then if all the other cards fell the right way that could have left no Electoral College winner and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives might have picked him over Trump, because the Republican party really isn't comfortable with him (for the obvious reason that he's not really a Republican and could well blacken the party's name, or even rip it apart -- of course picking McMullin mi
Re: (Score:2)
Just shut the fuck up you stupid piece of shit, did you not see where he said Clinton won his state REGARDLESS of how he voted? Typical Trump supporter: violently ignorant.
Curious to call me a Trump supporter since I voted for Clinton and have posted quite a bit here on slashdot indicating that I think Trump is the worst presidential candidate in my lifetime.
He did not know that she had won his state when he voted so that is an idiotic argument.
Re: (Score:2)
He is also not hiding behind rock, nor 'Anonymous Coward' as you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Is grabbing pussy legal now?" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Brain broke (Score:2)
After looking at how many women voted for Trump it doesn't bother many of them I guess.
That's one of the things that really baffles me. How any sane and self respecting woman could vote for Trump absolutely mystifies me. I heard a report this morning that a (slightly) higher percentage of women apparently voted for Obama than voted for Hillary Clinton! Apparently women are totally cool with being demeaned, insulted, objectified, and having their reproductive system controlled by Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There should be a lot of property freeing up (Score:3)
From all those conservatives who left the country when Obama was elected .. twice /s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: There should be a lot of property freeing up (Score:2)
If it is, then Trump should be worried if he made any election promises in California.
Other options (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe those bullets went right over your head (Score:2, Insightful)
"Whoosh"
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
The 1994 "second amendment solution" (Score:2)
"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
Forget Canada... (Score:2)
Move to Australia.
http://www.workingin-australia.com/ [workingin-australia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
McDonald’s workers get $16 hr there.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, some people would consider the Australia's government (currently a coalition lead by the Liberal Party of Australia (don't let
Long line of Priuses heading North (Score:2)
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?..
Re: (Score:2)
Mexican isn't a race. Idiot much?
Every 4 years, without fail, this happens (Score:2)
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?
Why Canada only? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we speed up emmigration? (Score:2)
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.
Build the wall!! (Score:2)
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
Calm down and don't buy the FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Maybe, just May Be... (Score:2)
Also a spike in 'tentacle porn' searches (Score:3)
... but that's just because I was up late. You can ignore that.
Conservative Doublethink (Score:2)
At one point, this was said:
Trump: " For me, nuclear, the power, the devastation, is very important to me "
With that in mind, consider this exchange:
Moderator: " OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in 45, heard it. They`re hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using
Re: (Score:2)
At one point, this was said:
Trump: " For me, nuclear, the power, the devastation, is very important to me "
With that in mind, consider this exchange:
Moderator: " OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in 45, heard it. They`re hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president. "
Do you have some other quote where he actually talks about nuking somebody? Nuclear power is indeed important; acknowledging that fact does not mean we want to nuke anyone. Or maybe you'd prefer if he responded:
"Do you think nuclear weapons are important?"
"Nah, who cares about nukes. Bunch of hot air if you ask me. Don't care even a little about them. Just put the codes on my desk and I'll lock them up before I leave for the day."
Re: (Score:2)
Sure do. [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
How about a transcript?
And this better not be another thing where somebody asks him whether he would consider and he just says he wouldn't rule it out. Because during the Cold War, we were totally all about making that big stockpile of nukes and telling the Russians, "lol we're never gonna use these."
It's called a deterrent for a reason: they're afraid you might use them. It's when you start explicitly threatening under what conditions you would use them that tensions crank up.
Re: (Score:2)
The only statesmanlike answer to these questions is of the form:
"These weapons are a deterrent. They are weapons of mass destruction. We reserve the right to use them in any case where weapons of mass destruction are used by another party."
Everything Trump said on the matter was not helpful, the result of clueless fumbling when faced with (one of many) topics in which he has zero competence..
No surprise. The man is an idiot, after all. The very best idiot. There's no problem with the size of his idiocy, I
Re: (Score:2)
You are truly an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Canada,
2016 isn't over yet. Are you sure you don't want to join us?
Love,
Britain & The United State of America
Re: (Score:2)
The United States of America*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your link is irrelevant. It shows things on a five-year time scale."
Here is the same source, only scaled to show trends over the past 24 hours. [google.com]
This tells a very different story.
1/5 on your troll attempt, AC.