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.

Comments

Tech people

[110010001000]

Tech people (including me) need to get out of their bubble. What you see in Google is a very low percentage of people. It isn't representative of anything realistic.

Re:Tech people

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

Re:Tech people

[Rei]

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.

I believe those bullets went right over your head

[fyngyrz]

"Whoosh"

Re:Only two options

[aardvarkjoe]

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.

Calm down and don't buy the FUD

[elrous0]

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

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

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

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

Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD

[mlw4428]

> 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?

"it was her turn"

[perpenso]

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].

Get real

[sjbe]

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.