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

[megamind]

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

Re:Tech people

[110010001000]

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.

Re:Tech people

[Archangel Michael]

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.

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.

Re:Tech people

[ArmoredDragon]

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.

Impeachment?

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

Re:Impeachment?

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

"Is grabbing pussy legal now?"

[JoeyRox]

Is tending upward as well.

Re:"Is grabbing pussy legal now?"

[LynnwoodRooster]

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

There should be a lot of property freeing up

[OzPeter]

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

Impeachment != removal from office

[sjbe]

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.

Re:Impeachment != removal from office

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

Re:Impeachment != removal from office

[Archangel Michael]

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.

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.

Not interesting

[sjbe]

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.

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

[Nemyst]

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.

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?

Re:Calm down and don't buy the FUD

[quantaman]

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.

"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].

Re:"it was her turn"

[iamgnat]

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.

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.

Re:Only two options

[swillden]

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.

Also a spike in 'tentacle porn' searches

[sootman]

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

Maybe, maybe not. 5 million not counted yet

[raymorris]

> 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.

Re:Other options

[kaatochacha]

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?