Slashdot Mirror


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

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.

332 comments

  1. Tech people by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Tech people by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As Pauline Kael famously said about President Nixon in the 1972 election:

      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.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re: Tech people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In any case, I think most of those searches are idle curiosity, not a serious interest in moving to Canada or building a bomb shelter.

    3. Re:Tech people by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      I guess you can't read.

    4. Re:Tech people by JackAxe · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with you on this!

    5. Re:Tech people by Whorelander · · Score: 1

      Well said!

    6. Re:Tech people by megamind · · Score: 2

      True patriots swim away when a boat is sinking. Fuck them. More room for immigrants that want to be here.

    7. Re:Tech people by Luthair · · Score: 1

      If you were talking about Twitter trending topics you'd be right, but Google is used universally by everyone to try to find information.

    8. Re:Tech people by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:Tech people by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

      It is not just google.

      Canadian Immigration servers have crashed.

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

      As a tech (in a bubble?), I wonder what OS they are using.

    10. Re: Tech people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. ISIS would be happy to recruit the libtards that want out.

    11. Re:Tech people by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

      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.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    12. Re: Tech people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its used by the kind if people who are disconnected from reality. A sociopath starts trying to impeach their president before he takes up office. A small number if deranged people, probably google employees

    13. Re:Tech people by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is Trump is a NYC Big City Liberal born and bred. The only "country" he goes to is his vacation home in the Hamptons. That is what is ridiculous. He doesn't represent rural America. He has never BEEN to rural America!

    14. Re:Tech people by Rei · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
    15. Re:Tech people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      definitely not age either.

    16. Re:Tech people by harperska · · Score: 1

      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 definitely not the entire population that uses Google, it is still a pretty sizable majority, such that Google search trends can probably be considered meaningful.

    17. Re:Tech people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What could we have done? How could we have stopped the march of corporations gutting law and small towns for profit? How could we have stopped offshoring? How could we have made the plight of those who had little any better?

      I demand those answers from you. But you have none to give.

      The reality is not merely Trump and who he is. It's the GOP establishment standing behind him that fucked those same people with their corporate leanings, that fucked the people of New Orleans when Katrina came, those Christies and Guiliannis. They will not do better.

    18. Re:Tech people by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      According to https://www.statista.com/topics/1001/google/, Google had 247 million unique US visitors in the month of November 2015.

    19. Re:Tech people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That only answers the motivation. It does not answer that the GOP has proved with Bush not to have answers to these questions. They stand behind Trump. They will approve the laws. They will make the policy. It will not go well for the people mentioned in that article.

    20. Re:Tech people by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    21. Re: Tech people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, like the entire Republican Party did the day Obama was elected, and never stopped trying his entire administration? Like that?

    22. Re:Tech people by skids · · Score: 1

      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 live. As it is, I'm relatively isolated and don't have other people less well off than me close enough to personally feel the hurt that is to follow. So, they can clean up their own mess, or not -- I'll just dodge through the cracks. I do feel sorry for those without that option, but I've never been emotionally connected enough to society to even consider watering the tree of liberty with my own blood... which is sadly the only currency history seems to suggest is effective. I think I can manage to squeeze out the rest of my estimated lifespan in this manner, especially given it is probably irredeemably shorter as of last night.

    23. Re: Tech people by skids · · Score: 1

      A sociopath starts trying to impeach their president before he takes up office

      ...but a well prepared citizen informs themselves of the mechanics of the law when an incoming president is so likely to commit offenses meriting it. It's called preparation.

      It's a waste of time, though... no matter how much they argue, the congress will not have th guts to impeach for even the most blatant offenses, and frankly, we're probably better off with the chaos of Trump than the under-the-radar-crazy of Pence.

    24. Re:Tech people by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No. You are in the tech bubble. A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T EVEN HAVE COMPUTERS. Especially in the areas where Trump wins. That is why I say we are in a bubble.

    25. Re:Tech people by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Doubtful. I trust those statistics as much as I trust political polls. Even if it were so, that leaves over a 100 million.

    26. Re:Tech people by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      If Trump people hate Elites, why did they elect one? It makes no sense. He is a NYC elite, born and bred. The fact is that Trump people don't really know the difference between elites and those portraying themselves as something else.

    27. Re:Tech people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you throw a bunch of people who agree with each other that argue with themselves, what do you expect? sanity and "politically correct" solutions? As many have already put it, most people live in a massive echo chamber deprived of freedom of thought.

    28. Re: Tech people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that a certain percentage of these searches may just be research for making comments that have some clever context while trolling. I do this myself in the hopes of knowing what the hell I'm talking about when a relevant conversation arises.

    29. Re:Tech people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The people in other places that seem "weird" are only that way because ... we're weird ourselves.
          Fact is that every one is every one else's weirdo. .

      You write as if we are everyone else's weirdo, and they're normal. Stop canibalizing your self .

    30. Re:Tech people by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I forgot that everything is rigged. I knew I was forgetting something when I left the house this morning.

    31. Re:Tech people by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >The people in other places that seem "weird" are only that way because ... we're weird ourselves.

          Fact is that every one is every one else's weirdo. .

      You write as if we are everyone else's weirdo, and they're normal. Stop canibalizing your self .

      I know I'm weird. I expect if I said the things I really think, people would consider me to be weird. I filter to get along with people.
      I suspect many or most people are like that.

      The ones who appear weird filter less than the ones who appear normal.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    32. Re:Tech people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im sure there is no amplification factor there where one person uses their phone, home/office laptop, home/office desktop, tablet, ...smart Tv? Does Xbox havea google app? Coffee shop Wifi, bus wifi......

    33. Re:Tech people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dang. Thanks for the link. That was the most insightful _anything_ I have read about the election.

    34. Re:Tech people by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Read the article. It actually explains this.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    35. Re:Tech people by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I am not responding to the AC above, but I know I am weird, as in ... not normal (for just about norms). I haven't voted D or R in nearly thirty years, and it gets called as "protest vote" by the "normal" people who don't understand that it is not just a protest vote, it is principled in ways they cannot fathom. To the "Normal" folks, they end up voting D or R, and possibly switching on occasion. They don't waste their vote on "protests" and my vote is "wasted" because I refuse to vote for lessor of two evils.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    36. Re:Tech people by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      We're all weird to people who are different from us. And that scares people.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    37. Re:Tech people by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      * He was pro-choice before he got involved in politics, so that's probably his real personal stance.

      He's likely financed some abortions, in fact. My feel based on the last election is that he's decided late-term, last-minute abortions are kind of bad, so that's how he can justify calling himself pro-life.

      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

      In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (I tried to find the interview for you, sorry; it was in April or something and there are too many search results on DT), he said that's kind of a negotiation strategy; you start with an extreme anti position, and then move towards the middle. So for example, he might 'moderate' his position and get Mexico to pay for half of the wall, then he Mexico feels like they got a good deal, Trump looks magnanimous, and he still got Mexico to pay for half of his hair-brained scheme.

      Off-topic but also worth mentioning that Hillary had a really nice-looking suit today.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    38. Re:Tech people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >* 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 doesn't take Russia seriously because no one in our leadership took it seriously until recently. Obama/Clinton initiated the reset button and terminated the missile defense treaty/plan with Poland. The government uncovered a Russian female spy ring and Obama just turned them over with nary an objection. Obama mocked Romney's concern over Russia as vestiges of the 1980s. The Russian action in Crimea also didn't bring any serious response.

      Not until they started intervening in Syria. Then, suddenly, Russia was a problem to be dealt with.

    39. Re:Tech people by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The irony is that Trump is pretty much an elitist city person. Trump is putting on a suit for dinner and eating the raw fish and drinking coffee from tiny cups and going to the opera and is on first name basis with many famous gays and lesbians and only goes to church for weddings and funerals.

      On the other hand, most of California dislikes the sort of elitist person as well. Everyone in California laughs at the hipsters except the hipsters, we all think that green tea colonics is the stupidest thing ever and laugh even harder. The sorts of people that look so weird to the someone from Kansas also look weird to most Californians.

    40. Re:Tech people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he doesn't look down his nose at them.

    41. Re:Tech people by harperska · · Score: 1

      According to the Pew Research Center, 84% of households in the US have a computer, and 73% have a broadband subscription. 87% say they use a computer to access the internet, the difference made up by lower income families using resources at libraries.

      92% of internet users use search engines. Google has 63.8% of the search market in the US. Simple arithmetic (0.87 * 0.92 * 0.638) shows that about 51% of americans use google. Half of the population is very much not "a very low percentage of people".

      Ironically, this information was obtained with 30 seconds of googling.

    42. Re:Tech people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to be fair, anyone that's learnt to tie their shoes could probably predict it won't go well for the people. I wouldn't call that particularly elite

    43. Re:Tech people by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      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.

    44. Re: Tech people by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      ...but a well prepared citizen informs themselves of the mechanics of the law when an incoming president is so likely to commit offenses meriting it. It's called preparation.

      Likely based on what? Before and after the primaries, he's changed his stance either partially or fully on just about every subject, and he's pretty much never expressed most of these opinions (in public at least) even before he decided to run for president. So how the hell do you have any idea what he'll do?

      In fact that's actually one of the things that bothers me about him winning: There's a lot of uncertainty about what the future brings with this guy. I think most of his supporters probably don't even know why they voted for him either. My guess is that they're sick and tired of all of this social justice shit, and I can't blame them. We're supposed to worship the tech community and give empty talks about why marginalizing minority groups is bad, but then we refer to most of America as "flyover country"? What a load of horse shit; it's no wonder somebody like this gets elected.

    45. Re: Tech people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two types of people in this world:

                           

    46. Re:Tech people by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Not really surprising. After all, a bunch of people in Britain decided that they'd punish the political elite in London by voting to give them more power a few months ago...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    47. Re:Tech people by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      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".

      Jason "David Wong" Pargin is a smart and insightful guy, and a good writer,[1] and that is a pretty good article (I'd read it before, not long after he posted it). But:

      - Many of the "liberals"[2] in the "big cities" (I'll skip the scare caps, thanks) know small-town midwest America well. I've lived in the Midwest or the Plains almost all my adult life. My wife was raised on a farm in the Midwest and has lived nearly all of her life in rural districts, small towns, or small cities, in the Midwest and West. Most of our friends grew up in the Midwest.

      - The "big cities" are far from homogeneous too. Lumping places like Hammond, Palo Alto, San Antonio, Atlanta, and Dorchester into one vague "big cities" blob is arrant nonsense.

      - Pargin, like many (well-intentioned and insightful) commentators who have sought to describe the conditions of Trump supporters in low-density America, discounts the sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and general small-mindedness that has characterized this election. No, it's not universal; there are a great many open-minded folks of goodwill in middle America. But it is rampant. That's been demonstrated over and over again in public, and it's readily apparent on social media. Those of us with middle-America roots have heard plenty from family, friends, and acquaintances. Yes, people outside the cities are hurting, and that deserves sympathy and attention. That doesn't mean they're saints.

      Of course labor tensions in the US have always tended to become organized on racial and gender lines rather than class ones. Anyone with a passing familiarity with American cultural history knows that. This election is really not so different.

      [1] His portrayal of small-city Indiana in John Dies at the End and This Book is Full of Spiders is also very accurate. Well, aside from the supernatural invasion. Maybe.

      [2] A meaningless term. There's "liberal" as a term of art in political science, which describes nearly everyone in the US; and then there are millions of individual political ideologies which include one or more of the components vilified, at one time or another, by some commentator as "liberal". As a noun describing a kind of person it refers only to some bugbear of the writer's imagination. For the moment, though, let's pretend there is such a group.

    48. Re:Tech people by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because it was a choice between two elites? Hillary isn't really all that far behind Trump financially, the Clintons are pretty solidly 1%.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Impeachment? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Impeachment? by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment.

    2. Re:Impeachment? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      And thus - was not impeached. Only two impeachments ever. Interestingly, both were Democrats.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re: Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No problem,

      They can learn in Brazil.
      Need media, supreme court, a lot of bots acting everywhere.
      And acusation of some financial trick that everyone does, but with one Hommer Simpson explanation

    4. Re:Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since he was Guilty he had few options.

    5. Re:Impeachment? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'll give Trump a week, ten days at most, before he does something actionable. 48 hours, tops, before he says something actionable, while his Press Secretary visibly being restrained by Secret Service agents, as he tries to physically stop Trump from opening his fat, loud mouth.
      Make no mistake: I did not vote for Clinton, either; wouldn't have mattered how I voted, Clinton won my State anyway. But I didn't want that loudmouthed son-of-a-bitch to win, either.

    6. Re:Impeachment? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:Impeachment? by perpenso · · Score: 1

      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. :-)

    8. Re:Impeachment? by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      What can be made is a coup, like here in Brazil: many juridic annalists have sad that not even crime qualified to start the impeachment processes occurred (and the processes ended some months ago, apparently "fully legal"...) - the right-wing politics/jurists here are a complete joke!

    9. Re:Impeachment? by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      So... you expect the Republican-controlled House & Senate to impeach a president of their own party?

      Good luck with that.

    10. Re:Impeachment? by Art+Challenor · · Score: 1

      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?

    11. Re:Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Infidelity is a high crime?

    12. Re: Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that in Brazil, the Media, the Supreme court, and the bots were all on the side of the government, until it got so debouched that they felt they had to save their own posts, and just gave through the president under the bus, appointed the existing VP as the new saviour for change (you know, the bloke that run on the same ticket as the president, of all people), but it doesn't matter, it was all a coup d'etat.

      Then you wonder why the place is crap... Note: I'm from that hellhole.

    13. Re:Impeachment? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    14. Re:Impeachment? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      There is also something called bluffing with a "threat of force", and having your bluff called.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    15. Re:Impeachment? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      (and even then, it's OK if you use a drone to kill a US citizen, without trial) won't qualify for impeachment.

      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 instead should wait to be shot before firing?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    16. Re:Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

      Sorry but ordering a military operation that results in the death of any, US Citizen or not, is an act of war, meaning it is not murder. Even the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials had to acknowledge that.

      Unless, of course, you want to rewrite the laws. Of course, there is a law that would prevent a prior act from being criminalized, so the most you can do is forbid it in the future.

    17. Re:Impeachment? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

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

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    18. Re:Impeachment? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      First you have to catch him enabling the corruption of a large oil company... Dilma was removed for a reason. Oh and I doubled my money on Petrobras shares - bought them at $5 they're now $11+ :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    19. Re:Impeachment? by swillden · · Score: 1

      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 impeached so he can be prosecuted for several possible felonies related to Trump University. Or if the felonies have a statute of limitations that's short enough and he can avoid impeachment, maybe he'll be able to use his presidency to avoid prosecution entirely. Or perhaps the prosecution will have to wait until after he leaves office. Or maybe he didn't commit any crimes, though from what I can see that's unlikely.

      I should note here that Clinton may also be up for prosecution for her handling of email, so it's not like the other option was much better in that respect.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    20. Re:Impeachment? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      OK, so all those who have talked about killing Trump - it's OK to just shoot them now, no trial needed? Really?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    21. Re:Impeachment? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Treason - which is committing an act of war against your own nation - is supposed to be followed by a trial. But I guess you war-mongering Democrats love to summarily execute people without any right to face their accuser, or any other Constitutional protection we US citizens are supposed to enjoy. I guess it makes the fascism easier to swallow, eh?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    22. Re:Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Trump is smart enough to fall back to his corporate tactics. He has a poison pill with Pence.
      Who do you think the democrats would rather have in power, The sociopath-without-remorse Trump or the Fundamentalist Christian Pence?

    23. Re:Impeachment? by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      Dilma was removed for a reason.

      Yeap: lack of popularity (maybe media related...), but not by an unquestionable "responsibility crime" (that qualified the start of process: the sessions on deputy chamber and senate that validated it was two big jokes [that generated various memes :P])

    24. Re:Impeachment? by perpenso · · Score: 1

      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.

    25. Re: Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Garden-variety, low-hanging-fruit-level Internet troll

      *yawn*

      I remember when trolling was a art..

    26. Re:Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      With a GOP Congress (House, Senate)? Good luck with that. I don't think there are enough annoyed Republicans to do that.

      You'll perhaps have to wait for 2018 and see if their chamber changes hands.

    27. Re:Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: "Impeachment" is when the trial results in a guilty verdict. Until that point, it's just "impeachment proceedings".

      Clinton is the only POTUS to ever be impeached. Johnson had articles of impeachment leveled against him and was put on trial, but he was acquitted.

      Clinton got away from his impeachment (full-on, with a guilty verdict) without a scratch because nobody had the political balls to deliver a sentence against him. That's because it looks petty, even to laypeople, to punish someone for being perceived by political enemies to lie under oath because he asked for clarification on legal terms and prosecutorial intent.

    28. Re:Impeachment? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    29. Re:Impeachment? by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      So... you expect the Republican-controlled House & Senate to impeach a president of their own party?

      Good luck with that.

      Given sufficient cause I would expect them to, it is a question of law and order. Nixon knew Republicans would vote to remove him.

      That is a much more open question when it involves Democrats as they tend to circle the wagons. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton demonstrate that, among others.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    30. Re: Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi!

      Trump just won Michigan. Suck it

    31. Re:Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What can be made is a coup, like here in Brazil: many juridic annalists have sad that not even crime qualified to start the impeachment processes occurred (and the processes ended some months ago, apparently "fully legal"...) - the right-wing politics/jurists here are a complete joke!

      South American communists infesting Slashdot. Why am I surprised.

      Go suck the balls of that band of thieves, you despicable ignorant Chavez cock sucker. WE took the power away from you just in time, supported by our Constitution. Brazil will never will be communist. It's gonna be a great capitalist nation, and the world will see.

      Now go fuck yourself in the ass, Leblon faggot.

    32. Re:Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dilma was removed for a reason.

      Yeap: lack of popularity (maybe media related...), but not by an unquestionable "responsibility crime" (that qualified the start of process: the sessions on deputy chamber and senate that validated it was two big jokes [that generated various memes :P])

      You will love Alckmin in 2018, Braga faggie. I'd like to see your face then.

    33. Re:Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if it's better or worse that somehow Hillary doesn't have any yet.

    34. Re: Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans tend to ignore or justify their wrongdoing.

    35. Re: Impeachment? by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

      He didn't mention anything about 'hate' which you seem to preach.

      He is also not hiding behind rock, nor 'Anonymous Coward' as you are.

    36. Re:Impeachment? by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      You will love Alckmin in 2018, Braga faggie.

      I think not: the world as we know it is probably ended in 2017 (a maniac with atom bombs! And there's the other side too: Putin and North Korea dictator, for example...)

      * thanks for the "faggie" adjective: you have more than 13 years to post here?

    37. Re:Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Treason - which is committing an act of war against your own nation - is supposed to be followed by a trial.

      Sorry, but Anwar al-Awlaki refused to submit to trial, and while Treason can result in a trial, I'll note that many thousands of people have died, while committing violent acts without trial.

      And of course, not all trials are truly legitimate.

      But I guess you war-mongering Democrats love to summarily execute people without any right to face their accuser, or any other Constitutional protection we US citizens are supposed to enjoy. I guess it makes the fascism easier to swallow, eh?

      Sorry, but did not invent the use of violent force, but it is a common rhetorical strategy that you are using. Which, of course, is ancient history itself.

      Again, I suggest if you wish to enact your proposal, you will have to realize that you will need to initiate a new law.

    38. Re:Impeachment? by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      Chavez cock sucker

      Maduro is not but a dictator, you know...

      Leblon faggot.

      Leblon is a Rio de Janeiro neigborhood, hundreds of miles from here (I'm from Rio Claro / São Paulo)

      * thanks for de adjectives (you are 13 years old to post here, right?)

    39. Re: Impeachment? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Nope, I'm not hiding behind (or under, LOL, he didn't even get that right) any rocks, I'm out here right in the open, and I'm not saying here, or anywhere else, anything that, according to the voting results from yesterday, at least half of U.S. citizens aren't also saying about Trump. As usual the Internet is full of people with mouths at least as loud and uncontrolled as Donald Trumps' is. They somehow think that they can insult me here and silence me (and everyone else), which is about as far from reality as you can get.

    40. Re:Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What really do any of you attacking this guy think you're going to get out of it? Do you think you're going to silence him? Are you going to somehow magically find out where he lives and go beat him up for daring to speak out against Trump? This ain't Thailand, kids, you can't prosecute someone for them saying they think the President sucks. Also, speaking of magic, I don't understand how any of you can actually believe that Trump will 'magically' learn the poise and eloquence required to deal with other world leaders, let alone 'magically' learn even the basic self-control and self-editing that even a 12 year old has learned is necessary to successfully deal with daily social situations. At least one world leader has said they refuse to deal with Trump; do you really believe that's going to be the only one? The next 4 years will likely be madness. The closest recent analogy I can think of will have been Schwartzenegger as governor of California; it was a farce the whole way. Our only hope as a Nation is that the GOP will somehow manage to keep him on a short leash so everything doesn't fall into complete chaos. Trump as a puppet President would be a better alternative to Trump as the loose cannon he's been all along.

    41. Re:Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chavez cock sucker

      Maduro is not but a dictator, you know...

      Leblon faggot.

      Leblon is a Rio de Janeiro neigborhood, hundreds of miles from here (I'm from Rio Claro / São Paulo)

      * thanks for de adjectives (you are 13 years old to post here, right?)

      Ah, Rio Claro, I see. Home of one of the apparatchik's UNESP campus. I'm so close to you. I could punch your face without leaving my desk.

    42. Re:Impeachment? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      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 then refusing to pay or just paying 2/3 of the bill, and stepping into a warehouse and taking $100,000 worth of furniture without paying. He and his lawyers know the difference, even if it leaves the victim in exactly the same spot.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    43. Re:Impeachment? by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      UNESP campus

      I've graduated in Computing Science on http://rc.unesp.br/ (2000-2003)

    44. Re:Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UNESP campus

      I've graduated in Computing Science on http://rc.unesp.br/ (2000-2003)

      I see. A free-loader, then. You graduated without paying tuition and now sets out to bash your fatherland in the eyes of the world. Well done.

      I gather that you must be a terrible programmer, stuck in some bureaucratic job. That's what commies do, don't you agree?

    45. Re:Impeachment? by fbobraga · · Score: 1
      I gather that you must be a terrible programmer, stuck in some bureaucratic job.

      I'm not an programmer, but an DBA (that works with postgresql.org, besides the outdated/unsupported MS-SQLServer 2005 and some mysql.org DBMSs...)

      That's what commies do, don't you agree?

      The two things era possibly unraleted (but I don't know any commies to perceive it... are you one?)

    46. Re:Impeachment? by skids · · Score: 1

      Those people shouldn't be doing that. But then, I have not run into any of these supposed people IRL.

    47. Re:Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Does rape count as a High Crime and Misdemeanour?

    48. Re:Impeachment? by skids · · Score: 1

      Given sufficient cause I would expect them to

      Nixon was pretty damn unpopular by the time they got to impeaching him.

      This will not happen until polls say the anti-establishment wing of the Republican party is for it. And since they were either A) dumb enough to fall for Trump's bullshit or B) just wanted to make things explode, all Trump has to do is fool them again in case A), or threaten to blow more shit up for case B).

      The congress is almost entirely Party before country and own-ass before Party.

      I won't tell you not to hold your breath though, I like the color blue.

    49. Re:Impeachment? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      The one which was dropped because of threats to her as well as the one where other people corroborated what went on at the pedophile Epstein's place which Trump frequented.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    50. Re:Impeachment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, he is a psychopath... great..

    51. Re:Impeachment? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      So in other words, about half of the BLM movement.

    52. Re:Impeachment? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Andrew Johnson, though a Democrat, was Lincoln's vice president. This was the National Unity ticket. His impeachment was not over anything someone today would call serious. He was impeached because the Republicans after the war hated him for being a southern Democrat, and the Republicans did want to impose strong punitive measures on the south (which they eventually did). They passed a law forbidding him to fire any cabinet member that he inherited from Lincoln. When he did fire them for insubordination they started the impeachment. 100% political.

        (While we think of Lincoln as a hero, many of the top Republicans who succeeded him after the war, like Grant, were outright bastards. If Johnson had prevailed over them with his way of trying to re-integrate with the south and not punish them I think we'd be much better off today as a more unified nation.)

      Similarly, Clinton's impeachment was 99.999% political. The legislature hated him and wanted any reason no matter how slim to impeach. He lied under oath about something almost no one would ever confess to in public in front of a spouse. Yes technically perjury but also almost no one else would ever go to jail for the same thing. The worst maybe is the judge rules for contempt of court. Otherwise it's something you tack on to a larger crime to get a larger sentence (ie, lying to obstruct justice). This disgusted both Democrats and Republicans that such an incident would be considered to be high crimes and misdemeanors.

      Nixon, if he had been impeached, at least would have been over actual misdeeds while in office.

    53. Re: Impeachment? by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      That is what is known as "projection."

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  3. "Is grabbing pussy legal now?" by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    Is tending upward as well.

    1. Re:"Is grabbing pussy legal now?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      After looking at how many women voted for Trump it doesn't bother many of them I guess.

    2. Re:"Is grabbing pussy legal now?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill already proved this.

    3. Re:"Is grabbing pussy legal now?" by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      If your last name was Clinton, it was always legal...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:"Is grabbing pussy legal now?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Getting clawed" too; small wonder

    5. Re:"Is grabbing pussy legal now?" by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Grabbing pussy has always been legal, so long as the pussy is willing.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:"Is grabbing pussy legal now?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another fuckboy who doesn't know the meaning of the word "consent", I see.

    7. Re:"Is grabbing pussy legal now?" by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

      Unless you are someone who "can get away with things like that".

    8. Re:"Is grabbing pussy legal now?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean unless they "let you do it," which is what GP said (and, incidentally, exactly what Trump said).

    9. Re:"Is grabbing pussy legal now?" by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  4. Missing from the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Drain the swamp"

    Trump 2020!

  5. There should be a lot of property freeing up by OzPeter · · Score: 2

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

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:There should be a lot of property freeing up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most "conservatives" can't afford property.

    2. Re:There should be a lot of property freeing up by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Obama is the first president since Eisenhower to win consecutive elections with 51% of the vote.

    3. Re:There should be a lot of property freeing up by Nutria · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:There should be a lot of property freeing up by belthize · · Score: 1

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

      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).
      .

    5. Re:There should be a lot of property freeing up by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I'm just waiting for DeNiro to shake off the secret service and punch the president-elect in the face. Like he told everyone he would do. Is California one of these states where verbal promises are as binding as contracts?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:There should be a lot of property freeing up by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      It would be completely awesome if the promise was legally binding, and as a result, the Secret Service had to let DeNiro punch Trump in the face.

      Alas, while he mentioned punching Trump in the face, I don't think he said anything that could be interpreted as a commitment to do so.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re: There should be a lot of property freeing up by oobayly · · Score: 1

      If it is, then Trump should be worried if he made any election promises in California.

    8. Re:There should be a lot of property freeing up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most "conservatives" can't afford property.

      Laughable!

      Do you know the meaning of the word "conservative"... It certainly doesn't equate to someone who is poor and uneducated, nor does it mean they are necessarily a Republican.

    9. Re:There should be a lot of property freeing up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think someone saying something legally binds others to do or not do something, regardless of state. At the worst he would get taken down for having to try.

    10. Re:There should be a lot of property freeing up by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I'm always annoyed by people who threaten this. If your impetus for leaving the country is one presidential election ( regardless of which "side" you support ) and you can't handle the opposing side winning-- then please, go somewhere else. You're an amateur throwing temper tantrums and we're better off without you.

    11. Re:There should be a lot of property freeing up by Nutria · · Score: 1

      A handful of tweets, and a bunch more articles asking "where will the Tea Partiers move to?" That's not much evidence.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  6. And this is why Trump won in the first place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going by the questions, the opposing camp (I'm not saying the Democrats because many Democrats voted for Trump) didn't listen to the Trump supporters and didn't want to listen, continues not to be interested in what moves them, and is now only focussed on coping with the result by doing whatever is required not to have to listen. Guess what, that isn't going to win anyone over. (And all the emigration grandstandery is bullshit and we all know it. Nobody is going anywhere.)

    1. Re:And this is why Trump won in the first place by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      We already know why Trump supporters voted for Trump. We all listened.

    2. Re:And this is why Trump won in the first place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, ignorance racists enjoy listening to their own kind.

    3. Re:And this is why Trump won in the first place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you didn't. You really, really didn't.

      Trump supporters all have one major thing in common: they come from marginalized, rural areas that have been hurting while the rest of the nation prospered and have been mostly ignored.

      Clinton's problem was that she appealed only to the urban elites, and they barely showed up at the polls while rural voters showed up in record numbers.

      What you're seeing here is that rural America is sick and tired of being ignored by the political elites, and they're making their voices heard.

      If the Democrats fail to learn that lesson, they'll lose in 2018 and 2020 as well.

    4. Re: And this is why Trump won in the first place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. All the rural uneducated white Americans can feel good about themselves while Trump treats them with exactly the same consideration that he's treated them for the past 40 years.

      Their slide into oblivion won't slow down at all. Actually, this president will accellerate it. But, all those uneducated rural white Americans will feel better about themselves while it happens.

      Trump is like giving an Advil to a dying patient. The patient won't get better, but the patient's suffering will be somewhat relieved.

    5. Re:And this is why Trump won in the first place by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No we realized that. That is why Hillary's main message/rhetoric was a focus on ALL families. What is Trump going to do for rural areas? He has never ever BEEN to a rural area, except to open a golf course for the elites. He is a NYC boy.

    6. Re:And this is why Trump won in the first place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was her rhetoric. We all know it was a lie given a) her actual political record and b) her campaign finance sources.

      No number of "get tough on wall street" ads can make a guy from a rural area actually believe she would "get tough" given the millions paid to her for speeches and the hundreds of millions donated to her foundations by wall street. they may not be educated but that doesn't make them retarded. It just means they don't know basic calculus and physics, not that they are brain dead you dumb fuck.

      Pick any other topic. She doesn't represent the people and the people know it.

    7. Re:And this is why Trump won in the first place by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      After reading a number of your comments it is painfully obvious you haven't listened, don't want to listen, and excuse everything that doesn't support the narrative the media has been selling for months that a lot of people didn't buy.

    8. Re:And this is why Trump won in the first place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about

      I'm not saying the author isn't pissing in his own pocket, but the last 2 democratic presidential terms have been a fucking disaster for the rural areas.

      The "DNC liberals" actively threw away a gimme with Bernie, who had a massive point score over Trump, unlike SoS Clinton.
      Obama didn't help the blacks, didn't help the poor and put drone killing into high gear. In his first year with a dem majority, he didn't pull his weight as promised.

      What Hillary has been doing to the poor rural areas in Eastern Europe, Northern Africa and Mesopotamia doesn't bear speaking any more about.
      She's not REALLY interested in the poor rural areas of America either, more in the rich, swanky corrupt corridors of America's stinking cities that host Sachs parties and other elite "important" matters. Hillary isn't a NYC boy, no. Make up your own suitable epithet, but she ain't no country girl neither.

    9. Re:And this is why Trump won in the first place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just proved his point. Congratulations. "We lost because you're all racists! And sexists! and communists! and Pedophiles! You're bad, we're good!"

    10. Re: And this is why Trump won in the first place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that all rural people are white, and that blacks, asians, etc. can't live in rural areas? And that all people living in rural areas are uneducated? And they're the bigoted racists?

    11. Re:And this is why Trump won in the first place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't vote for Clinton, and so that means I supported Trump, despite living in a state that would have never gone to him.
      Now, instead of reflecting on what they did wrong, it's my fault that Trump won. Because I owed her that vote, it was hers no matter how poorly she represented the party. She didn't need to be electable, she didn't need to not be a corrupt goon wearing a (D) like a wolf wears wool, it was her turn.

  7. Other options by burtosis · · Score: 1

    "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."

    1. Re:Other options by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Other options by chispito · · Score: 1

      Are you quoting someone incapable of forming complete sentences?

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    3. Re:Other options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more concerned for the first and fourth.

    4. Re:Other options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats use guns to kill people. Republicans use them to defend themselves against Democrats.

      Get out of my country you impotent fuck. Go to Saudi or Mexico if you want to be surrounded by Arabs or Mexicans so much.

    5. Re:Other options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i.e. Trump?

    6. Re:Other options by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      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 children and any gun that can hold more than 1 round at a time, is less than 5 feet long, doesn't have a stock, and isn't permanently chained to a 30lb cinder block should be illegal" that it's almost impossible to have sane discussions regarding gun control.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:Other options by kaatochacha · · Score: 2

      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?

  8. TOOT!! TOOT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The train kept a rollin all night long!!

    1. Re:TOOT!! TOOT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we go toot
      toot toot toot toot...

      This is actually one the funnier msmash mushies.

  9. Forget Canada... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Forget Canada... by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      McDonald’s workers get $16 hr there.

    2. Re:Forget Canada... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      As long as they don't put mayonnaise on their fries...

    3. Re:Forget Canada... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like halfway decent internet though...

    4. Re:Forget Canada... by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    5. Re:Forget Canada... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I'll just bring a suitcase of chocolate bars along. Problem solved!

    6. Re:Forget Canada... by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Cost of living 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 name fool you, the main "politically left" party is Labor)) to be as bad or worse than U.S. conservatives. If you're leaving the U.S. because of Trump, Australia isn't going to be any different or better for you politically speaking.

    7. Re:Forget Canada... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and americans are also fucking fat arse motherfuckers

      meanwhile, the the average male weight in australia is 85.9kg vs 88kg in the US

      www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/4338.0main+features212011-13

      www.newsmax.com/US/average-weight-man-woman-obese/2015/06/15/id/650546/

    8. Re:Forget Canada... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think a difference of just over 2kg is enough to trumpet about.

  10. Don't forget your playbook on the way out liberals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You dropped something... http://s12.postimg.org/8j9n01pel/Cwz_HH31_Uc_AE1_L15.jpg

  11. Liberl Doublethink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Trump is best buds/a servant of Putin
    >Trump is gonna start a nuclear war!

    Christ, I would be very happy to have these idiots out of my country.

  12. What's really skyrocketing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=clinton%20investigation,%22how%20to%20impeach%20a%20president%22,%22immigrate%20to%20Canada%22,%22nuclear%20shelter%22

    1. Re:What's really skyrocketing... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      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.

      This tells a very different story.

      1/5 on your troll attempt, AC.

  13. Yes, my pool business is saved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll have the bulldozers prepare the sites for bomb shelters instead.

    Everyone could use that

  14. Brain broke by sjbe · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Brain broke by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. It is baffling to me as well. But I am really disconnected from the rest of America. I don't understand the typical Americans thought process.

    2. Re:Brain broke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is only one thing women hate more than men: other women.

    3. Re:Brain broke by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      I guess those women wanted change that they could really "feel".

    4. Re: Brain broke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently the average woman is smarter than you think. Many women actually cast their vote after carefully considering what is within a realistic realm of possibility for either candidate to accomplish and what is just typical campaign pandering and slander. I assume you expected all women to vote for Hillary because "OMG Trump is so sexist, us women should vote for the woman."

    5. Re:Brain broke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think there is such a thing as "the typical American[']s thought process"?

      The majority of Americans actually voted for Clinton, anyway.

    6. Re: Brain broke by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      I would have expected the average woman to not vote for him because he's a raving lunatic rather than the other negatives you listed.

    7. Re:Brain broke by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Good point.

    8. Re:Brain broke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Clinton savaged women who accused her husband of sexual improprieties (I believe she referred to Monica as a loon), so it seems she only stands up for women when her own skin isn't in the game. Perhaps they saw Clinton's private/public face of support of women as yet another thing they couldn't trust her on.

    9. Re:Brain broke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      So lying, and committing at least 3 felonies while holding gov't office is a qualifying factor ?

    10. Re:Brain broke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As surprising as this may be...there are quite a lot of conservative, and Christian or with Christian roots, women in America.

      They are pro-life, not because they want to have their reproductive system controlled by the government, but because they want to prevent other people from killing babies. That is how they see it, whether you spin it that way or not.

      Also, they are more interested in being taken care of (by husband and/or state) than facing the stress of having their own career. They don't care how many feminists tell them that they can and should do it themselves, they don't want to, and so they favor political and social movement in the direction of conservative gender roles. They don't see that as disrespect, but as providence (and tradition).

      Also, many women get a self-esteem boost from being seen as attractive. Even the "good christian girls" are sexual beings, and they know that men's response to their sex appeal will impact how they are treated (that is to say, how wealthy a provider they can catch). So, they don't so much mind sexual objectification. It actually furthers their interests.

      Such women are likely to vote for Trump.

    11. Re: Brain broke by skids · · Score: 1

      It's utterly hilarious that in thrashing about for some advantage Trump had as an actual candidate, you picked realistic promises.

    12. Re:Brain broke by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Allow me to paraphrase my wife and my brother: It would be awesome to have a woman POTUS. Just not Clinton anyone but her. She is not something kids or anyone should aspire to be. The first woman POTUS should be someone that we all respect and admire so that we can look back in history and be proud of that moment. There is nothing to be proud of in electing Clinton.

      People see Trump as the lesser evil than Clinton. Why is that hard to understand? For me, personal misgivings aren't as important as professional misgivings. An unknown is better than a known bad. I would rather a POTUS that the media and congress would hold accountable than not. In those areas, I think Trump does better than Clinton.

  15. I believe those bullets went right over your head by fyngyrz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Whoosh"

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  16. Only two options by sjbe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I did not vote for Clinton, either; wouldn't have mattered how I voted, Clinton won my State anyway. But I didn't want that loudmouthed son-of-a-bitch to win, either.

    If you didn't vote for Clinton then effectively you voted for Trump whether or not he actually got your vote. Those were the only real world options on the table. There was no third option as much as many of us would like one. Hold your nose and pick one or the other. If you vote third party then you effectively have let someone else vote on your behalf. If you really didn't want Trump to win then your only option was to pick Clinton and vice-versa.

    1. Re:Only two options by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, 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.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:Only two options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you didn't vote for Clinton then effectively you voted for Trump whether or not he actually got your vote.

      Translation: "I'm either an idiot, or a foreigner, and I don't understand how the electoral college works."

    3. Re:Only two options by sjbe · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Only two options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you didn't vote for Clinton then effectively you voted for Trump whether or not he actually got your vote.

      That's only true because your fellow citizens are cattle and followed the same thought process as you. If enough of you would actively cooperate, agreeing that neither of the primary options forced on you by the powers-that-be are desirable and collectively choose an alternative, you could demonstrate that you won't be led to slaughter. Even if the third (or fourth or fifth) options are also undesirable, you would send a clear "f--k you" to the PTBs and hopefully spur them to make changes, as if they don't, more cattle are likely to turn on them.

    5. Re:Only two options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you didn't vote for Clinton then effectively you voted for Trump whether or not he actually got your vote.

      And I suppose if you didn't vote for Trump then effectively you voted for Clinton? What if you didn't vote for either of them (or anyone else, either)? Did you effectively vote for both of them?

    6. Re:Only two options by swillden · · Score: 2

      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 might have done that last bit).

      Anyway, long odds, but it could have happened. And Clinton wasn't going to get Utah's votes no matter what happened.

      There was also a good reason for voting for Gary Johnson. Thanks to the level of dislike for Trump and Clinton, he got more nationwide support than third party candidates have seen in a while, and if he'd reached the 5% mark (it looks like he only got about 1%, so big miss) it would have given the Libertarian party federal funding for the next go-round. Could that have made the Libertarians a contender in 2020? Highly unlikely, but it would have given them a much larger place at the table, perhaps including representation in the debates. This was a particularly good option for libertarian-leaning people who live in states where the overall outcome was a foregone conclusion. The same could apply to other candidates for other parties, though it's pretty rare that one gets even as many votes as Johnson did.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:Only two options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Logically of course, that also means that not voting for Trump was a vote for Clinton. Remarkably this means I voted for three people this election without committing fraud. Amazing!

      Or maybe you could admit to yourself that the reason Clinton lost was this exact attitude that all of the votes somehow belonged to her.

    8. Re:Only two options by skids · · Score: 1

      Mathematically false

      Mathematically half-true. You had three options that had three different possible effects. Add a vote to Trump, add a vote to Clinton, or fail to alter the vote total.
      Choosing the latter has precisely half anti-Trump effectiveness as choosing the second.

      Of course, the GP was not voting in a swing state, which means I don't have any criticism for them, as long as it was actually a solid swing state and not a state like MI where it was potentially close enough to matter even though the polls indicated it would not be... one should err on the side of caution in those cases.

    9. Re:Only two options by skids · · Score: 0

      TLDR: "I have no idea how coalitions actually work in the real world, I just expect the real world to do what I want it to."

    10. Re:Only two options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      As opposed to Trump, a magnificent saint of a man who truly deserved to win?

    11. Re:Only two options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I saw, Johnson got about 3% and Stein got 1%. Still not enough for either to get funding, but it's closer than they have come in a while.

    12. Re:Only two options by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Mathematically half-true.

      "Half-true" is another word for "false."

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    13. Re:Only two options by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      As opposed to Trump, a magnificent saint of a man who truly deserved to win?

      Clinton and Trump were both dreadful candidates who did not deserve to win, which is why neither one got my vote. The results of the election don't change that.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    14. Re:Only two options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously seen as the lesser of the two evils by the majority of states' majority.

    15. Re:Only two options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? The Pubs put forward a dreadful candidate that didn't deserve to win it as well, and it worked out fine for them.

    16. Re:Only two options by swillden · · Score: 1

      Ah, you're right. I googled it just before I posted; not sure how I got such a bad number. The latest value I find is 3.23% for Johnson.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    17. Re:Only two options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming I would have voted for Clinton if I hadn't voted Libertarian. All I can say is... you really haven't though about this at all, have you? NOTA (None of the above) is what would have got my vote if the Libertarian party hadn't been on the ballot.

    18. Re:Only two options by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Clearly Hillary Clinton is the worst Presidential candidate in your life time because she lost to Trump.

    19. Re:Only two options by Bartles · · Score: 1

      He was just slightly less dreadful than the candidate the Dems put forward.

    20. Re:Only two options by Bartles · · Score: 1

      It only looked like he had a chance to people who were completely incorrect in their interpretation of the race. He never actually had a chance.

    21. Re:Only two options by skids · · Score: 1

      Mathematics is not confined to boolean logic systems. Neither is electoral politics.

    22. Re:Only two options by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Mathematics is not confined to boolean logic systems.

      In some contexts, yes. In this context, no. The statement "If you didn't vote for Clinton then effectively you voted for Trump" is completely, utterly, false.

      If what he means is "a vote for a third party is not as effective a vote against Trump as a vote for Clinton," then maybe that's true, but that's not what he said.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    23. Re:Only two options by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      If, for example, you live in California: you KNOW before the vote that Clinton will win the state. California is so dark blue it borders on black. I was so confident of this that I placed a bet with a friend, I'd pay her $10,000 if Trump won California, She's pay me $10 if he lost. For me, that was a sucker bet. I'm up $10.
      Knowing with this level of certainty allowed me to vote however I felt, without worrying about "throwing away my vote".

    24. Re:Only two options by swillden · · Score: 1

      It only looked like he had a chance to people who were completely incorrect in their interpretation of the race. He never actually had a chance.

      Both the polls and the feeling on the ground in Utah disagreed with you a few weeks. But of course the polls were all sorts of wrong, and "feeling" is a very localized phenomenon and often misleading. Still, what else would you go on?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    25. Re:Only two options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And going by this logic, if you didn't vote for Sanders in the primaries, you voted for Trump.

    26. Re:Only two options by skids · · Score: 1

      No it is not "completely, utterly" false. It was, in fact, effectively a half-vote for Trump in this situation, and he did say "effectively". It's just off on magnitude. And. there really was no reason to bring mathematics into it, just arithmetic.

    27. Re:Only two options by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Everyone likes to point fingers about who's fault it was. The story from Gore vs Bush should have been to not take a large voting bloc for granted. Instead what seemed to happen then is that all the Democrats accused the Greens for not being loyal to the party they didn't belong to. Fast forward, are we going to see that same idiotic accusation that it's someone else's fault? Hillary lost the election, not the voters who voted for Johnson/Stein/etc. Own up to the fact that the candidate did not do well for many reasons.

    28. Re:Only two options by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Proof by repeated assertion may work on Facebook, but not here.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    29. Re:Only two options by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If your party can't pick someone less unelectable than Trump to represent them, it's probably time to give up.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  17. Maybe searchers will get a clue by raymorris · · Score: 1

    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 Saucier is currently in prison for taking a selfie aboard ship. The interior of the ship is classified information, so Saucier is in prison for putting classified information on a non- secured computing device, which is a crime. If a President did the same, they could be impeached.

  18. Long line of Priuses heading North by mi · · Score: 1

    The long line of Priuses heading North causing traffic jams on the usually quiet border-crossings. Ah, if only...

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

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Long line of Priuses heading North by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Mexican isn't a race. Idiot much?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Long line of Priuses heading North by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right - Obama downgraded it to an "Ethnicity" - I am sure you forgot that most of the peoples of Mexico share an ethnic and cultural heritage which in common parlace is called a 'Race' and as such would then mean that people moving to Canada instead of Mexico are in fact Racist.

      Do you want your crow with Butter & Herb or BBQ Sause?

    3. Re:Long line of Priuses heading North by mi · · Score: 0

      Mexican isn't a race.

      It is not? When then-candidate Donald Trump criticized the tiny minority of Mexicans, which chooses to cross into the US illegally, he was denounced as racist ...

      Were you raising the same objection then? Could you post a link to it, if you did?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Long line of Priuses heading North by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot much?

      Checks serviscope_minor's recent comment history... Yes, I suppose you do.

  19. Re:Dear Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Immagration

    Wow.

    Trailer Park Boys spelling right there; the snaggle-toothed knuckle-draggers of Canada are worried the US is going to export its libtards.

    Oh, and we'll do with you as we wish, as we always have. Just so you know. :)

  20. Need shelter and pool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not both? Bomb shelter underneath the pool? Just need a hard sealing cover for the pool, your new fresh water reservoir.

  21. Every 4 years, without fail, this happens by mark-t · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:Every 4 years, without fail, this happens by Second_Derivative · · Score: 1

      >How bad can it get?

      Jesus christ. If there was ever a catchphrase for the year 2016...

    2. Re:Every 4 years, without fail, this happens by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      >How bad can it get?

      Jesus christ. If there was ever a catchphrase for the year 2016...

      I kind of like 3D iMax Shit-Fit Dumpster Fire 2016.

  22. Why Canada only? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Why Canada only? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I guess you have never been to Mexico. I wouldn't describe it as progressive or liberal.

    2. Re:Why Canada only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or safe

    3. Re:Why Canada only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EXACTLY!

    4. Re:Why Canada only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because canada has more white people.

    5. Re:Why Canada only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. its not racist.

      It has to do with the fact that mexico is not particularly safe or stable. That has nothing to do with what color they are, what language they speak, or their genealogy. Don't give up on the false equivalencies though.

    6. Re:Why Canada only? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Why Canada only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean that 'The Standard of Living is Assumed to be higher'?

      An American in Cabo San Juan (espcially a really rich one) can live really well. So - in the same way that redlining neighbrohoods is racist, so is everyone moving to 'the white section of the world'

      Check it out - you might even learn something.

    8. Re:Why Canada only? by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      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.

      There is a rather brutal drug fuelled civlil war raging in Mexico that has apparently escaped your notice but I suppose if you are a card carrying NRA member that might be an option for you.

    9. Re:Why Canada only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its as racist as associating white privilege with racism where the congregation of well-off white skinned people getting better things because they will have better funded (higher taxed) localities. And perhaps a bit more pride in keeping up their environment from graffiti, litter,....

    10. Re:Why Canada only? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You must be an idiot.
      Mexico is ruled by the Mob/Mafia.
      The 'democracy' there is only paint.
      But well, you are american, you probably never read/watch any news about Mexico..

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  23. Impeachment != removal from office by sjbe · · Score: 2

    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. 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.

    1. Re:Impeachment != removal from office by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, Clinton was was impeached for perjury in front of a Grand Jury, in which he was being investigated for sexual assault (an assault that he later paid off with $850,000 and surrender of his law license). That's an actual crime - you cannot commit perjury, you cannot lie to a Grand Jury, and you should NOT be able to commit sexual assault.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Impeachment != removal from office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you draft articles of impeachment to make the accusation. When the trial is concluded, the person is either "impeached" or "acquitted". After they are impeached, you can then find a way to punish them, including removal from office.

    3. Re:Impeachment != removal from office by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Impeachment != removal from office by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

      A Grand Jury commissioned to investigate a literal non-issue and was designed to be nothing more than a political hit job. Sexual assault doesn't happen if both parties are complicit. Nothing that came out during the investigation showed Lewinsky wasn't complicit in the affair. So what you had were "high moralists" who were pissy because Clinton was getting some on the side.

    5. Re:Impeachment != removal from office by skids · · Score: 1

      They tried pinning that tail on Donald

      That donkey already had that tail. They just tried to get people to realize it.

    6. Re:Impeachment != removal from office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      swing and a miss, he wasn't accused by Lewinsky of assault, there were a few other women

    7. Re:Impeachment != removal from office by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      But.... if that happened today: Impressionable intern coerced into sexual relations by the head of a major organization, he's be immediately drawn/quartered/fired.
      I've always been extremely uncomfortable how historically Bill has been viewed as a guy who "was getting some on the side", while Lewinsky became synonymous with ditzy golddigger who was the primary motivation.

       

    8. Re:Impeachment != removal from office by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The problem is, the whole Bill Clinton thing kind of ruined it for Liberals/Democrats. They said it was all "part of a vast right wing conspiracy" when he lied to a Grand Jury about the sexual assault case he was being sued over. Sexual Assault was never going to be an issue after that.

      IF you don't like the result of Trump, because of sexual assault, you can actually thank Bill Clinton for paving that road ahead of Trump.

      (I didn't vote for Trump).

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Impeachment != removal from office by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Educate yourself. It was a sexual harassment suit by Paula Jones (whom Bill Clinton paid off to the tune of $850,000) that had him sworn under a Grand Jury. The Lewinsky affair was used to point to his horn-dog nature - that it was his modus operandi to harass and sexually use those under him. And he lied about that - in an effort to get the Grand Jury to not recommend for trial.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:Impeachment != removal from office by skids · · Score: 1

      I'm no fan of Big Dog's proclivities either, nor do I think the revelations about Trump should have mattered given they came so late that by then everyone should have had other reasons for disqualifying him. However, buying into those things being at all equivalent, especially since Hillary wasn't the candidate, not bill, showing how weak minded the electorate is.

      Oh wait, new standards are now in play. I can be non-PC now since that's OK for a president. Trump voters were retarded to buy into that.

    11. Re:Impeachment != removal from office by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Gingrich who accused Clinton of having poor morals was also getting some on the side while his wife as in the hospital dying of cancer.
      The irony is that the disgraced Gingrich might actually show up in Trump's cabinet... That would be a confirmation hearing worth watching.

  24. His own party hates him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... you expect the Republican-controlled House & Senate to impeach a president of their own party? Good luck with that.

    Yes, they largely hate Trump too and would welcome career establishment politician Pence into the office.

    1. Re:His own party hates him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee that would be so great too, wouldn't it? Sure, let's have an out-and-out Dominionist as POTUS. ISIS won't have to attack us anymore, he'd drag us back 1000 years all by himself -- right up to starting the Apocalypse himself, as per Prophecy.

  25. Can we speed up emmigration? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Can we speed up emmigration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      As a Canadian I will happily welcome Elon Musk:

      * http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/04/donald-trumps-character-reflects-poorly-on-united-states-says-elon-musk.html

      Ditto for Snoop Dogg:

      * https://twitter.com/SnoopDogg/status/796276895415500800

    2. Re:Can we speed up emmigration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Emigration is easy since you don't need permission. Canadian immigration law is what matters.

  26. Re:I believe those bullets went right over your he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was that the sound of the Trump Train passing by?

  27. Build the wall!! by quantaman · · Score: 1

    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 hope is that Trump's utter incompetence prevents him from actually breaking anything and nothing of significance in the world happens that requires leadership beyond that of a 70 year old toddler surrounded by enabling sycophants.

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Build the wall!! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You do realize, don't you, that Hillary Clinton is 69 years old and in worse health than Trump? That she is surrounded by sycophants far more vile than those around Trump? That Clinton's closest historical match is Lucrezia Borgia?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Build the wall!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhhh, the precious snowflake millenial tears are so delicious!

  28. Not interesting by sjbe · · Score: 2, 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.

    1. Re:Not interesting by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Not interesting by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Cool, so perjury and sexual assault aren't high crimes and misdemeanors.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:Not interesting by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Only if they're actually committed.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Not interesting by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Perjury, we know it happened. President Clinton admitted it. Sexual assault? Well, he did pay Paula Jones $850,000 which most would consider at least strong smoke, if not indication of fire...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:Not interesting by skids · · Score: 0

      And this differs from Democrats how?

      Democrats usually play to the level where the Republicans have lowered the bar, because they'd get clobbered otherwise.

      The difference is who is lowering the bar.

    6. Re:Not interesting by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Bill Clinton committed the same crime that Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart were sentenced to prison time for committing. Stop pretending like he didn't do anything wrong.

    7. Re:Not interesting by Bartles · · Score: 1

      So he was disbarred for a crime he didn't commit. Got it.

    8. Re:Not interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's different because they did it first!

      Enjoy your America.

    9. Re:Not interesting by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The perjury was not what I would consider high crimes and misdemeanors. This is normally prosecuted for when there's another crime to go with it. This perjury was not done to obstruct justice, but sheer embarrassment to have to confess to an affair in public rather than privately. As for sexual assault there is zero evidence uncovered or presented and was not a part of the impeachment.

  29. Calm down and don't buy the FUD by elrous0 · · 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.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Point #1 is 100% true, and hilarious (and depressing) when you think about it. Trump is a blue state NYC boy. The only thing that is depressing is that there are THAT many out there that believe his schtick.

    2. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      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, healthcare, environmental policies, etc. "Experience" can have many definitions and people will still have leanings even with 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.

      Trudeau has yet to show any significant issue, so calling him a "dumb himbo" is really just showing your own biases. Those "repressive anti-free-speech laws" aren't very popular and aren't all that different from what many conservatives want to implement in the US. Finally, separatists, a problem? There hasn't been a majority separatist government in well over a decade. To keep raising that particular specter is completely baseless and farcical.

    3. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by sundarvenkata · · Score: 1

      >>>Trump is a left-of-center conservative who until recently was actually a Democrat. He's not Hitler. How reminiscent of the derision that Hitler took: www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/books/hitler-ascent-volker-ullrich.html

    4. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen the GOP over the last 16 years? He IS Hitler, and they are Goebbels, Himmler, Göring, and Strasser.

      See, the secret to Hilter was that he was his era's Bush. He was not the power at the head of the Reich. He was merely the figurehead for these other sick fucks to do their worst.

      You should not be afraid of Trump. You should be afraid of who he enables. Christie. Giuliani. Huckabee. They want to stop gays from marrying, make sure the white man is on top, and make sure the state religion is their own. And now they have the means to do it.

      Eight years from now, I will await your apology somewhere far, far away.

    5. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by mlw4428 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > 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?

    6. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you could listen to what he actually pledged to do: reinstitute torture, "crack down" on journalists, discriminate based upon religious preference, and be more liberal in the application of nuclear weapons to foreign conflicts. WHAT. FUCKING. GUY. HAVE. YOU. BEEN. LISTENING.TO?

    7. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      So all of the history he has as an individual is imidiately discarded by running for president. That does not follow.

      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.

      That isn't all you have to go off of. He is a public figure and has been for many years.

      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, healthcare, environmental policies, etc. "Experience" can have many definitions and people will still have leanings even with experience.

      The problem with this statement is that you are discounting thier expereince because you do not like thier views - additionally you are assuming facts not in evidence.

      In other words - Nice Try

    8. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 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?

      You do realize that when an american business goes bankrupt the CEO is listed as the 'Debtor in possession' and can generally get the entire company for a really cheap price, right?

    9. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      He's not Hitler. He's not going to eat your babies.

      What?! That bastard said he was and he would! It's the reason I voted for him!

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    10. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that Trudeau apologized for calling honor killings "barbaric" isn't exactly a good sign.

    11. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There hasn't been a majority separatist government in well over a decade

      Wow, isn't that a long time frame! English-French friction in Canada is over 250 years old.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    12. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Christie. Giuliani. Huckabee. They want to ... make sure the white man is on top.

      Citation needed in their own words.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    13. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by Raenex · · Score: 1

      no real plan or policies aside from building a wall

      That was just for the rubes. Notice how he talked about rebuilding infrastructure and not a wall in his victory speech? Notice how he went from saying he was going to put Hillary in jail to thanking her for her service?

      Do you really think he's going to build a wall and demand Mexico pay for it?

      Now I hope he takes border control seriously, but expect a completely different President Trump from candidate Trump.

      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.

      Clinton was on public record for more military intervention in Syria, at the risk of direct confrontation with Russia, because I guess Libya worked out so well. Trump was on record for the opposite. Clinton wanted to treat cyber attacks "like any other attack", with the threat of military response, another poke at Russia because of the leaks. Who seems more dangerous here for starting a nuclear war?

      Republican-leaning people, most likely, who can still do significant damage in many areas such as social policies, healthcare, environmental policies, etc. "Experience" can have many definitions and people will still have leanings even with experience.

      Because things have worked out so well under Democrats? There are deep problems that neither party seems capable of solving.

      Those "repressive anti-free-speech laws" aren't very popular and aren't all that different from what many conservatives want to implement in the US.

      The useful idiots on the "progressive" left want to make it a crime to say anything politically incorrect that "harms" their "oppressed", protected classes, while spouting venom at straight, white males. They believe in compulsory speech, requiring you to use a bunch of made-up pronouns at the whim of a tiny fraction of the population with identity issues. They want "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings".

      It's not the 90s anymore. The left has become the bigger threat to free speech.

    14. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Believed his schtick or thought that Clinton was shittier shit? Why look at the failings of the democrats when it is so much easier to bemoan, demean, and insult the side you hate? Yea, easier to call the other side of the aisle names than trying to understand their positions and concerns.

    15. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by quantaman · · Score: 2

      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 span was too short for Trump to do an interview. Roger Ailes abandoned the campaign because Trump's focus during debate prep was so bad. He repeatedly went on self-destructive multi-day tirades during the campaign. His own campaign didn't trust him with his Twitter account in the closing days of the campaign.

      Even Glenn Beck called him unhinged, Glenn Beck.

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

      Dubious, he surrounds himself with sycophants, even if they give good advice it will be tough for them to stick around if they actually contradict him.

      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.

      I live there, it's not perfect but it's pretty damn nice. Trudeau presents like a lightweight but he hasn't really done anything dumb policy-wise, I think he just presents less Bro-ish than the typical politician. The Quebec separatism is really a thing of the past and the hate-speech laws tend to be more smoke than fire.

      And other than the occasional Rob Ford our politicians tend to be decidedly competent and sane. A lot of us wouldn't even dream of moving to the US and your gong-show of a political system is a big reason why.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    16. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Quite frankly, Trump being president was the least of my worries. We got a Republican Senate, House, and eventually Supreme Court with it. A party that constantly shits on social programs, civil rights, health care, education, science, and environmentalism now has control over the entire federal government.

      This shit is a nightmare. I would have gladly taken Trump if it meant we had more Dems in the fed to balance it out, but now the keys to the country have been given to the Republican party and they now have the power to enforce the insane parts of their platform. I honestly fear for anyone that has a job in the federal government, relies on financial aid or social security, or has kids in public schools or works in public schools since we now have a party in power that consistently fights against funding these things and obstructs them whenever possible.

    17. Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in return, if it doesn't happen, will you turn in the pearls you're so valiantly clutching?

  30. The 1994 "second amendment solution" by perpenso · · Score: 1

    "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 remember the "second amendment solution" of 1994 very well.

    The NRA's power is not campaign contributions, its delivering motivated single issue voters to the polls. And with margins so close in the swing states the NRA delivered the message to Democrats again.

  31. Conservative Doublethink by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    >Trump is gonna start a nuclear war!

    Christ, I would be very happy to have these idiots out of my country.

    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. "

    Trump: " Then why are we are making them? Why do we make them? "

    And then there was this:

    Moderator: " Can you tell the Middle East we’re not using nuclear weapons? "

    Trump: " I would never say that. "

    ------------

    ...now, you may find all of that reassuring somehow. I do not. IMHO, telling the middle east that he is willing to nuke them is extremely inflammatory to the argument that they should nuke us first.

    IOW, if I seriously inform you that I will consider actually shooting you, the downside of you shooting me first has reduced considerably. That's what Trump has done. If it was statesmanship, it would be of the very poorest sort. Of course, it wasn't. It was the absurd remarks of an incompetent reality TV show star. They remain that until / if he is inaugurated as president of the country. At that point... they become much, much worse.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Conservative Doublethink by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      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."

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    2. Re:Conservative Doublethink by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Do you have some other quote where he actually talks about nuking somebody?

      Sure do.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Conservative Doublethink by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    4. Re:Conservative Doublethink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You never rule using your military when questioned. Its game theory 101. Democrats, including Obama have responded in the EXACT SAME WAY to these questions. Why are you not scared of a nuclear war under Obama? (Because you are an idiot.)

      Trump is right: Why the fuck do we have nukes if we never, ever plan on using them? The answer is simple. By having them and telling people we might use them we make sure we can't be dominated by that power. It doesn't mean we are going to nuke anyone. The whole point is actually the opposite. Mutually assured destruction bring peace, not war. If we tell someone that under no circumstance would we actually use a nuke... well that is the same as not having them.

    5. Re:Conservative Doublethink by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      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 assure you, it is tremendous. He's an idiot in the most bigly way -- you can't even imagine how bigly he is an idiot. By the way, he desires to grab your pussy, should you have one. And that's perfectly okay. Because he's just a boy, and boys are like that, see?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    6. Re:Conservative Doublethink by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Trump is right: Why the fuck do we have nukes if we never, ever plan on using them?

      You are truly an idiot.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    7. Re:Conservative Doublethink by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Okay, guess we're in agreement then :)

      To be fair, that moderator question was phrased in a rather bullshit way IMO.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    8. Re:Conservative Doublethink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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 assure you, it is tremendous. He's an idiot in the most bigly way -- you can't even imagine how bigly he is an idiot. By the way, he desires to grab your pussy, should you have one. And that's perfectly okay. Because he's just a boy, and boys are like that, see?

      but he was elected because he is not a stateman. The fact that he does not have the stock answers does not make him an idiot. In fact, perhaps in some small way the world should fear us. After all some of them did in fact try to fly a 747 into the white house.

    9. Re:Conservative Doublethink by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Okay, guess we're in agreement then :)

      Wait, what?

      [looks around suspiciously, worried about MITM attack] ... this... this is Slashdot, right?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    10. Re:Conservative Doublethink by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      The fact that he does not have the stock answers does not make him an idiot.

      Oh, agreed. What makes him an idiot is that he is stupid, xenophobic, misogynist, racist, crass, sexist, of both limited vocabulary and limited verbal complexity. It's truly difficult to consistently reach such depths of character and function when you are intelligent. I'm sure it can be done, but generally speaking, the intelligent don't go around "grabbing pussy", asking questions about why we have nuclear weapons (if you don't know, you're too ignorant to lead, frankly), they don't impugn a judge's integrity because they're "Mexican", etc., etc., etc. Because, you know, they're intelligent.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  32. "... As SOROS simmers/stews in RaGe" lol! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: LMAO @ U Soros (puppetmaster behind Clinton w/ banker SLIME! Mainstream media mass mind manipulation games are OVER (& the results prove it...)).

    * All those misanthropic ass-kissers of theirs profiting? Are LIVING IN FEAR, lol...

    (Rightfully so & about time! Folks have had QUITE ENOUGH of easily seen thru "mass-media manipulation" games... too bad those morons will have to realize it doesn't WORK anymore (due to the internet itself - they can't OWN & CONTROL every single outlet of information...)).

    President WHO, losers?

    APK

    P.S.=> By the way? Yes, I am LAUGHING @ the "cronies & sychophants" of "SOROS" the wannabe God also (who LITERALLY said he was God himself & that he wants to destroy the USA (fucker even LED HIS OWN JEW PEOPLE INTO HITLER'S CAMP'S FOR PETE'S SAKE (talk turncoat traitor) - he was out to do the SAME to the USA & got nuked for it, lol)... apk

    1. Re:"... As SOROS simmers/stews in RaGe" lol! by Gornkleschnitzer · · Score: 1

      So... does Trump use the hostfile?

  33. "it was her turn" by perpenso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The election was lost long before the voting, the DNC should not have attempted a coronation.

    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].

    1. Re:"it was her turn" by iamgnat · · Score: 2

      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 that there is indeed a ruling class in this country and we are just supposed to suck it up. It's clear the Reps also think that way too, but they were at least smart enough to not make it as obvious and even dropped Jeb when they realized that nepotism and dynasties weren't going to fly.

      I'm not pleased that we got Trump, but I am estatic we didn't get HRC. Hopefully in the next 4 years either her health will have declined to make another run impossible or the Dems will have wised up and kicked her ass to the curb.

    2. Re:"it was her turn" by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The same attitude happened when she was running against Obama. There were a lot of accusations that Obama was getting in the way of Hillary's turn, despite the fact that Obama was a huge favorite and seen as much more electable.

      This is nothing new though. Both parties grew up on the party machine system where smoke filled back rooms decide who gets to be on the ballots. The DNC machine was still working this time around, whereas the RNC machine sputtered to a halt. It was "supposed" to be Jeb's turn by all accounts.

  34. Re:Dear Americans by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

    Dear Canada,

    2016 isn't over yet. Are you sure you don't want to join us?

    Love,
    Britain & The United State of America

  35. Maybe, just May Be... by nomad63 · · Score: 1

    ... 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 what the voters have said, by rejecting Clinton before thinking about the worst outcome. This is not an approval of Trump. This is a rage against the last 8 years of ripping the country apart and what it stood for during the Obama administration and Ms Clinton, did not say anything different than keeping the status quo. American people, especially the ones outside the Silicon Valley echo chamber are fed up with this bullshit. May be trying a new approach is what was needed. After all, you have to endure it for no more than 4 years. We have endured do-nothing Obama administration for 8 years. We can do 4 if Trump turns out to be the worst pres ever. Anyone remember Jimmy Carter ??

    --

    __________
    The more I know people, the more I love animals
  36. Re:Dear Americans by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

    The United States of America*

  37. See Ya... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go ahead and move to Canada, all the better for the rest of us.

  38. Get real by sjbe · · Score: 2, 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. He gave up his law license (a meaningless gesture) to make contempt of court charges go away. No Bill Clinton is probably not a decent human being. But let's not pretend that his impeachment proceedings were anything but an act of political opportunism buy other corrupt power seeking politicians.

    1. Re:Get real by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      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. And that is a felony. Which typically is considered as a violation of high crimes and misdemeanors.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  39. Impeachement, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems to me the extreme right wing has exactly what they want. If Trump is as loose a canon as he appeared to be during the election, it's only a matter of time before in a few months, they find an excuse to impeach him. This would put extreme right-wing nobody Pence in charge of the White House with a lap-dog congress. Then you'll have the most bizarre debate. For the Tea-baggers, a win-win situation. The Democrats would have to decide which is worse - Trump or Pence? The more moderate Republicans like McCain would have to decide whether they will stick up for antagonistic Trump or go with extremist Pence. Decisions, decisions... may we live in interesting times.

  40. Re:Dear Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everyone i've spoken to is hoping he makes good on his promise of what you would call the northern wall

  41. Also a spike in 'tentacle porn' searches by sootman · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  42. "...were also very popular, toot" by entropy01 · · Score: 1

    I think there's a misspelling. It should say, "...were also very popular, bwwwwppppt!"

  43. Planos by Disparo+Digital · · Score: 1

    e mail marketing Turbine suas vendas com e-mail marketing e potencialize suas oportunidades de negócio!

  44. Google searches post-2016 election- an analysis by wellwhatever · · Score: 1

    1) "how to impeach a president", - this is vindictive no-platforming

    2) "how to move to Canada", - this is regressive safe-placing

    3) "nuclear shelter", -this is hysterical false-accusing

    4) "President Trump 2016 ", - this is what you get when have an elite which thinks they can dismiss the lived experiences of large parts the population decade over decade

  45. Immigration is correct by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Assuming the Americans googling "canada immigration" (though they actually meant emigration)

    No they actually meant immigrate. They want to emigrate from the US to Canada. However Canada is only concerned with those who want to immigrate here regardless of where they emigrated from. Hence we have an immigration service which is what they wanted to search for. Searching for 'canada emigration' would return pages about how to leave Canada which would not be helpful since they haven't even arrived here yet.

    1. Re:Immigration is correct by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      > Searching for 'canada emigration' would return pages about how to leave Canada which would not be helpful since they haven't even arrived here yet.

      its probably in your own best interest to have that already printed out for them when they get there though :-)

  46. Presidential Impeachment by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 1

    The "presidential impeachment" surge may be boosted somewhat by the vote of no confidence that's happening tomorrow in South Africa in the hopes of finally getting president Zuma impeached.

  47. Hypocrisy by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    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...

    So if you were allowed to leave and return why shouldn't others? That's a tad hypocritical don't you think?

  48. Nuclear War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuclear war is only a possibility if Trump doesn't do the bidding of America's Zionist masters.

  49. Maybe, maybe not. 5 million not counted yet by raymorris · · Score: 2

    > 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 represents the actual percentage preference - many more people in Texas would have come out to vote for Trump if it were a popular vote election, but they knew voting was pointless because Trump was already guaranteed to win Texas. Similarly the other way in California - Clinton would have received more votes from Californians if this election was about the popular vote. So the results don't tell us who has more supporters, not at all. The election tells us only which candidate had the supporters proportioned well amongst the swing states. That was Trump.

    1. Re:Maybe, maybe not. 5 million not counted yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, maybe not. 5 million voted haven't been counted yet. Right now, she's up by about 100k.

      Where do you get this idea that there are 5 million votes that haven't been counted yet? There are some outstanding votes, but I have my doubts about it being 2 million left, let alone 5 million. He's down around 200,000 now, though, BTW. It's not moved that much since you posted, but I don't see that many votes outstanding.

      We can't even say that the popular vote represents the actual percentage preference - many more people in Texas would have come out to vote for Trump if it were a popular vote election, but they knew voting was pointless because Trump was already guaranteed to win Texas. Similarly the other way in California - Clinton would have received more votes from Californians if this election was about the popular vote. So the results don't tell us who has more supporters, not at all.

      Good, make sure you tell Paul Ryan that, he doesn't seem to be aware. He doesn't realize Trump has lost the popular vote.

      And if you were right at your 5 million number, it'd be so huge, I'd expect multiple states to still be in flippable range.

  50. Mr. Soros, is that you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahaha must be as only YOU could be SO stupid - like marrying a young woman @ what, 90? LMAO!

    * See subject you pitiful joke - accept & ACT your age, "Soros" (or should I say "GOD" as you claim to be him you deluded LOON!)

    All YOU are is a hedgefund managing CROOK currency speculator... & your cronies can't develop a better program than I have either, lmao!

    YOU ALSO LED YOUR OWN JEW PEOPLE INTO HITLER'S CAMPS I HEAR & YOU WANT TO DESTROY AMERICA? You failed, dried up OLD RAISIN, lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> You dolts are totally pitiful & the day you can TOTALLY PROVE ME WRONG on hosts? Is the day I quit posting about them (only thing is, LOSERS like "you & yours", off topic MINDLESS trolls, will NEVER ever manage it - & you know it)... apk

  51. Rats off a ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey. Americans. You hate Trump? Is he #literallyHitler? do you have a Tumbler account? are you a prolific Redditer? do you work for a cookie-cutter "startup"? do you demand to be called one of the thousand idiotic pronouns? is your hair rainbow colored? do you call yourself "progressive"?

    Well guess what.

    STAY THE FUCK OUT OF CANADA! WE DON'T WANT YOU!

  52. Toot! Toot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also too: Toot!

  53. Why Canada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What Mexico isn't good enough, Ya'll are racist.

  54. along with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Homosexuals and their pets", "Democrats without hope", and my fav "Suicide for Dummies"

  55. News at 11 by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Republican party leader says Republican victory means people want Republican policies.
    News at 11

    When you grow up, you may find that "your team", the Democrats, is just as full of shit as the Republicans, if not more so. Then you can start to look at how politics actually works in America.

    1. Re:News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republican party leader says Republican victory means people want Republican policies.
      News at 11

      Republican leader is a hypocrite and liar. And yet raymorris refuses to call them out. You can't even admit that Paul Ryan's conclusions are indeed false, can you?

      Even though you expressly stated otherwise. But you can't admit it. See I noticed, you didn't say that Paul Ryan's claim was bullshit.

      Here's what you could have said if you were accurate:

      Republican Party leader ignores the real results of the election to falsely proclaim a Republican mandate.
      News at 5

      But you're a partisan hack, who can't say it. You can't say it. You cannot type the words.

      When you grow up, you may find that "your team", the Democrats, is just as full of shit as the Republicans, if not more so. Then you can start to look at how politics actually works in America.

      And then raymorris follows indifference with recriminations. Look, I could maybe take you being cynical, so if you'd stopped with your first two lines, eh, ok. Not quite brave, you don't admit Paul Ryan was in error, you don't confirm your awareness of the clear divide in the country, but maybe you'd be able to swing it as cynicism. But now, you can't sell that.

      Because you don't stop there. You go further, and lambaste Democrats as more so, without an actual example, and then complain about ignorance on my part. The thing is, I pointed out actual bullshit from a Republican leader, that you could have repudiated yourself. Instead? Nope, just indifferent, and then compound it with unsupported accusations.

      Which, like it or not, demonstrates your inability to show your own integrity, because you haven't matured enough to realize the problem, here, is one of which I'm fully cognizant.

      Sorry, but I do know what a bunch of bullshit it is. Sure, politicians, you can they are all a bunch of hypocritical frauds and liars. That's why they need people to tell them the truth. Which is why I wanted you to inform Paul Ryan that he in error. But to be honest, I knew you wouldn't. Because, raymorris, what I know is how you work.

      You just don't have the integrity to call out Republican bullshit. And because of people like you, who lack moral fortitude, they get away with it. Over and over.

      Look, all you have to do, is communicate with Paul Ryan, or heck, even your own Congressional Representation, and inform them that this is a divided country, and they shouldn't assume they have a mandate. Just do it. Won't take 15 minutes. All you have to do is take your post from above, and paste it in. They have websites with contact-forms.

      I dare you. Just do it.

      Or live, knowing you didn't. Knowing that you couldn't even muster up the effort to report a set of facts that you know to be true, and your own conclusion. A trivial action, so minimal, but you can't work up the nerve to do it.

      That's on you, raymorris. On you. Own it. Own it. You know I have you pegged. Straight up. Because you can't even make the promise.

  56. Canada doesnt want all those libs.. (link inside) by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

    http://heatst.com/politics/can... thats so funny stuff there

  57. Trump is the greater evil by sjbe · · Score: 1

    People see Trump as the lesser evil than Clinton. Why is that hard to understand?

    Because I have a functional brain. Voting for Trump makes no logical sense unless you are a racist scared white male who is dumb enough to believe that Trump actually can deliver on the absurd and vague "promises" he has conveniently avoided detailing because he has no actual plans. Trump is a climate change denier, opposed to women's rights, racist, xenophobic, disrespectful, petty, and thoroughly unqualified for the job. He has no experience or interest in public service. He doesn't take anything seriously except for his Trump brand and ego.

    For me, personal misgivings aren't as important as professional misgivings.

    Seriously? You CLEARLY haven't bothered to look at the rap sheet on Trump if you actually believe his professional failures are somehow less odious than those of Clinton.

    I would rather a POTUS that the media and congress would hold accountable than not.

    Show me ONE example where Trump was held accountable for the horrific things that came out of his mouth. He said things routinely that would have ended the political career of almost anyone else. The media LOVE Trump because they love anyone who makes them money like he does. He's a reliable headline maker and they love him for it - even the bits of the media that hate what he represents.

    1. Re:Trump is the greater evil by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Half of the nation is not made up of brainless moronic racist zombies. There are plenty of rational reasons to vote for Trump in the general election. I don't think you understand what I am saying. Yes, Trump is an unknown politician that isn't a good option but in comparison to Clinton an unknown is better than a known bad corrupt politician. My wife, big on science, is sad that climate change policy will take a back seat but she thought that there are other issues more important . Encouraging the corrupt behavior we saw in the DNC, the media, and the Clinton campaign is disgraceful. Telling politicians that it is ok to lie, cheat, and conspire is not good for our Republic even if that means short term pain.

      Yes, I have looked at his 'rap sheet'. My point is that Clinton, a lifetime politician, has some professional concerns that are more troublesome to me than Trump 'grabbing by the pussy' or Trump University. If you think the media 'love' trump I don't know what to tell you because you are delusional and ill-informed. The Clinton campaign and DNC picked Trump as their pied piper and it back fired. That is the kind of professional misconduct from our government I cannot stand for and I will not promote that behavior with a vote. The DNC fucked themselves and they deserve it. The media was conspiring with the DNC and the Clinton campaign. That is a disgrace and is a detriment to our Republic. A buffoon is better than a crook that the media love.

  58. Slaves by sjbe · · Score: 1

    As surprising as this may be...there are quite a lot of conservative, and Christian or with Christian roots, women in America. They are pro-life, not because they want to have their reproductive system controlled by the government, but because they want to prevent other people from killing babies. That is how they see it, whether you spin it that way or not.

    Because they want to be a slave. I don't understand why but clearly they do. They are slave to their church and a slave to a theocratic government and a slave to the men in their life. If women want to be free they need the right to control their reproductive system. That includes contraception and abortion. It's not a coincidence that women who have the ability to control their reproductive rights end up being wealthier and more successful and more powerful in society. Women like the ones you describe are clearly content being subservient to men. I find that thoroughly baffling and disheartening but if they only did that for themselves I could live with it. But the problem is that they seem to feel the need to control the reproductive system of women who don't want to be slaves to men.

    I find it curious that the party which claims to be in favor of limited government throws that out the window when religion gets involved. They are fine with big government when it comes to keeping women in subservient societal roles. They are perfectly fine with the government telling women what to do with their bodies despite the fact that doing so thoroughly violates what they claim to be their philosophy about government. They are fine with the government getting involved with saying who can get married even though there is no reason for government to have ANY involvement in marriages. They are fine with the government spending endless dollars putting people in prison for recreational drug use or for immigrating to the US for work. The republicans are all about small government unless it violates their personal religion and/or racism and then they are all in on big government. It's hypocritical and reprehensible.

  59. Great, people think putting Pence in power is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    somehow desirable. You Fucked America.

  60. best love spell caster ochachikportemple@yahoo.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    places friends help me give thanks to Dr,Ochachikpor for my life. Is like God on earth i never believed that I will ever been a mother in my life wen i get marred for good 9 years i have not to show but with the help of Dr,Ochachikpor the great spell caster that make me to be come a woman today i will always give thanks because you are wonderful via ochachikportemple@yahoo.com if you need his help or Whatsapp +2348105673350