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.
Deja vu. In the aftermath of Brexit, Brits had shown a lot of interest in making Google searches about Irish passport, meaning of EU, and why it all happened.
Tech people (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.
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!
Is tending upward as well.
From all those conservatives who left the country when Obama was elected .. twice /s
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
"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."
We already know why Trump supporters voted for Trump. We all listened.
The train kept a rollin all night long!!
Move to Australia.
http://www.workingin-australia.com/
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=clinton%20investigation,%22how%20to%20impeach%20a%20president%22,%22immigrate%20to%20Canada%22,%22nuclear%20shelter%22
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.
"Whoosh"
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
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.
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?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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. "
------------
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.
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].
Dear Canada,
2016 isn't over yet. Are you sure you don't want to join us?
Love,
Britain & The United State of America
... 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
The United States of America*
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
I think there's a misspelling. It should say, "...were also very popular, bwwwwppppt!"
e mail marketing Turbine suas vendas com e-mail marketing e potencialize suas oportunidades de negócio!
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Someone had to do it.
> 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.
So... does Trump use the hostfile?
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?
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?
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.
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.
Clearly Hillary Clinton is the worst Presidential candidate in your life time because she lost to Trump.
He was just slightly less dreadful than the candidate the Dems put forward.
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.
Mathematics is not confined to boolean logic systems. Neither is electoral politics.
Someone had to do it.
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?
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".
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.
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.
Someone had to do it.
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.
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.
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?
http://heatst.com/politics/can... thats so funny stuff there
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.
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.
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