Social instability lies ahead, researcher says

January 4, 2017 by Peter Turchin

Cliodynamics is a new "transdisciplinary discipline" that treats history as just another science. Ten years ago I started applying its tools to the society I live in: the United States. What I discovered alarmed me.

My research showed that about 40 seemingly disparate (but, according to cliodynamics, related) social indicators experienced turning points during the 1970s. Historically, such developments have served as leading indicators of political turmoil. My model indicated that social instability and political violence would peak in the 2020s (see Political Instability May be a Contributor in the Coming Decade).

The presidential election which we have experienced, unfortunately, confirms this forecast. We seem to be well on track for the 2020s instability peak. And although the election is over, the deep structural forces that brought us the current political crisis have not gone away. If anything, the negative trends seem to be accelerating.

My model tracks a number of factors. Some reflect the developments that have been noticed and extensively discussed: growing income and wealth inequality, stagnating and even declining well-being of most Americans, growing political fragmentation and governmental dysfunction (see Return of the Oppressed). But most social scientists and political commentators tend to focus on a particular slice of the problem. It's not broadly appreciated that these developments are all interconnected. Our society is a system in which different parts affect each other, often in unexpected ways.

Furthermore, there is another important development that has been missed by most commentators: the key role of "elite overproduction" in driving waves of political violence, both in historical societies and in our own (see Blame Rich, Overeducated Elites as Our Society Frays). As I wrote three years ago, "Increasing inequality leads not only to the growth of top fortunes; it also results in greater numbers of wealth-holders. The '1 percent' becomes '2 percent.' Or even more. … from 1983 to 2010 the number of American households worth at least $10 million grew to 350,000 from 66,000. Rich Americans tend to be more politically active than the rest of the population. … In technical terms, such a situation is known as 'elite overproduction.' … Elite overproduction generally leads to more intra-elite competition that gradually undermines the spirit of cooperation, which is followed by ideological polarization and fragmentation of the political class. This happens because the more contenders there are, the more of them end up on the losing side. A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable, has been denied access to elite positions."

This was written when Donald Trump was known only as a real estate mogul and reality show host; well before this characterized by an unprecedented collapse of social norms governing civilized discourse – "epic ugliness," in the words of the New York Times columnist Frank Bruni.

The victory of Donald Trump changes nothing in this equation. The "social pump" creating new aspirants for political offices continues to operate at full strength. In addition to politically ambitious multi-millionaires, the second important source of such aspirants is U.S. law schools, which every year churn out twice as many law graduates as there are job openings for them – about 25,000 "surplus" lawyers, many of whom are in debt. It is emblematic that the 2016 election pitted a billionaire against a lawyer.

Another visible sign of increasing intra-elite competition and political polarization is the fragmentation of political parties. The Republican Party is in the process of splitting up into three factions: Traditional Republicans, Tea Party Republicans, and Trump Populists. These divisions run so deep that many Republicans refused to endorse Trump, and some even voted for Clinton. Similar disintegrative forces have also been at work within the Democratic Party, with a major fault line dividing Bernie Sanders' Democratic Socialists from the Establishment Democrats of Obama and Clinton.

So far in this analysis I have emphasized elite overproduction. There are two reasons for it. First, as I mentioned before, other factors are much better understood, and have been discussed, by and political commentators. Secondly, cliodynamic research on past societies demonstrates that elite overproduction is by far the most important of the three main historical drivers of social instability and (see Secular Cycles for this analysis).

But the other two factors in the model, popular immiseration (the stagnation and decline of living standards) and declining fiscal health of the state (resulting from falling state revenues and rising expenses) are also important contributors.

From what I have seen so far, it seems unlikely that the Trump administration will succeed in reversing these negative trends. And some of the proposed policies will likely make them worse. For example, drastically reducing taxes on wealthy Americans will hardly strengthen the fiscal health of the state.

Thus I see no reason to revise the forecast I made three years ago: "We should expect many years of political turmoil, peaking in the 2020s."

But this is a science-based forecast, not a "prophecy". It's based on solid social science, the workings of which I have left "under the hood" in this article intended for a general audience. But the science is there. If you are interested in looking under the hood, see my recently published book, Ages of Discord.

Because it's a scientific theory, we also need to understand the limitations of what it can forecast. Cliodynamics is about broad social trends and deep structural causes of these developments. It did not predict that Donald Trump would become the American President in 2016. But it did predict rising social and political instability. And, unless something is done, instability will continue to rise.

So what's to be done? I find myself in the shoes of Hari Seldon, a fictional character in Isaac Asimov's Foundation, whose science of history (which he called psychohistory) predicted the decline and fall of his own society. Should we follow Seldon's lead and establish a Cliodynamic Foundation somewhere in the remote deserts of Australia?

This would be precisely the wrong thing to do. It didn't work even in Isaac Asimov's fictional universe. The problem with secretive cabals is that they quickly become self-serving, and then mire themselves in internecine conflict. Asimov came up with the Second Foundation to watch over the First. But who watches the watchers? In the end it all came down to a uniquely powerful and uniquely benevolent super-robot, R. Daneel Olivaw.

No, the only way forward is through an open discussion of problems and potential solutions, and broad-based collective action to implement them. It's messy and slow, but that's how lasting positive change usually comes about.

Another important consideration is that in Foundation, Seldon's equations told him that it would be impossible to stop the decline of the Galactic Empire – Trantor must fall. In real life, thankfully, things are different. And this is another way in which the forecasts of cliodynamics differ from prophecies of doom. They give us tools not only to understand the problem, but also potentially to fix it.

But to do it, we need to develop much better science. What we need is a nonpolitical, indeed a fiercely non-partisan center/institute/think tank that would develop and refine a better scientific understanding of how we got into this mess; and then translate that science into policy to help us get out of it.

Our society, like all previous complex societies, is on a rollercoaster. Impersonal social forces bring us to the top; then comes the inevitable plunge. But the descent is not inevitable. Ours is the first society that can perceive how those forces operate, even if dimly. This means that we can avoid the worst – perhaps by switching to a less harrowing track, perhaps by redesigning the rollercoaster altogether.

Explore further: Make America tweet again

Related Stories

Make America tweet again

November 2, 2016

We know how Donald Trump feels about everyone through Twitter, but how do Twitter users feel about Donald Trump?

Support for democracy linked to income inequality

November 17, 2016

Voter satisfaction with democracy may have less to do with who actually wins an election and more to do with income inequality, or the gap between rich and poor, indicates a new study by Michigan State University political ...

Fake Tweets, real consequences for the election

November 4, 2016

Software robots masquerading as humans are influencing the political discourse on social media as never before and could threaten the very integrity of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, said Emilio Ferrara, a computer ...

Recommended for you

Plague likely a Stone Age arrival to central Europe

November 22, 2017

A team of researchers led by scientists at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History has sequenced the first six European genomes of the plague-causing bacterium Yersinia pestis dating from the Late Neolithic ...

How to cut your lawn for grasshoppers

November 22, 2017

Picture a grasshopper landing randomly on a lawn of fixed area. If it then jumps a certain distance in a random direction, what shape should the lawn be to maximise the chance that the grasshopper stays on the lawn after ...

Ancient barley took high road to China

November 21, 2017

First domesticated 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, wheat and barley took vastly different routes to China, with barley switching from a winter to both a winter and summer crop during a thousand-year ...

70 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rderkis
2 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2017
The only thing he missed, probably because of his own bias.is -
What if by some miracle, because of his own driving ego, Trump becomes the greatest president we ever had?
I realize that to change the mind of a lot of people that believed the media, that would be well nigh impossible, but it could happen.
He has already achieved a lot and he is not even THE PRESIDENT yet. I have a friend who was bitterly opposed to Thump but is giving him credit for his 401K being higher than its ever been. He is :-)
gkam
3 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2017
I think he is more likely to put us into the biggest war we have ever had.

Then, the Third Republican Great Depression.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2017
What we need is a nonpolitical, indeed a fiercely non-partisan center/institute/think tank

Well, remote Australian desert it is, then.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2017
" I have a friend who was bitterly opposed to Thump but is giving him credit for his 401K being higher than its ever been. He is :-)"
----------------------------------

How shallow. He wants to have the same kind of economy we had under Harding and Hoover. Where did that lead?
rderkis
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2017
I think he is more likely to put us into the biggest war we have ever had.
.


Sure that is what world class negotiators do. Even after writing a book that was on the best seller list about negotiating.
A sure sign of his war mongering ways is that he want to open talks with all the countries including North Korea.
And please make up your mind if he wants to bomb Russia or Russia is his friend
Don't all the inconsistencies in the stories tell you anything?.
Use your own head, instead of listening to the media.
rderkis
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2017
How shallow. He wants to have the same kind of economy we had under Harding and Hoover. Where did that lead?


Money talks! Probably with enough money it even talks to you. :-)
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2017
I guess you forgot the First Modern Republican Economic Meltdown. We called it the Great Depression. We had panics and bank runs before, usually after a period of happy times of Laissez Faire economics and great accumulation of wealth by the few.

It's coming again with Trump. His "wealth" is not his, but owned by others. He will do to us what he did to his casinos.
rderkis
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2017
i
I guess you forgot the First Modern Republican Economic Meltdown. We called it the Great Depression.


You confuse me with your logic. First you call a world class negotiator a war monger. Then you called a man who smiled because his 401K went up shallow. (Because money is not important)

Now you bring up the Great Depression which was all about "money" after you just expressed disdain for someone who expressed interest in money.

Next you will tell us how much Trump hates immigrants and wants to deport them all.
Does that include his wife and kids he is so proud of?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2017
What we need is a nonpolitical, indeed a fiercely non-partisan center/institute/think tank

Well, remote Australian desert it is, then.
You reacted exactly the same way I did.

But I think his point is that it's *public*, not hidden somewhere.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2017
To comment on the article, I'd say this is a major problem, but one with how people think, not with the world around us as distinguished from human society, as global warming is. (Not saying global warming is divorced from human society, just distinguishable.) I could have picked other examples: nuclear weapons, pollution, a solar flare, an alien incursion.

Consider this: the coal miners who all voted for Trump are about to have to endure insurance companies refusing to pay for their treatment for black lung disease. You get what you pay for. Think they'll be happy with that? Looks like continued impoverishment for them. Gee, that was in the article, wasn't it? The other choice is for the government to pay for it; gee, that would be continued plundering of the public chest. And for this too, I could choose other examples.

It's time to pick another way to think; everyone has to be involved. I don't know how to do that.
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2017
This article seems to parallel the work of Martin Armstrong https://www.armst...om/blog/
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2017
But I think his point is that it's *public*, not hidden somewhere.

Agreed. I was just commenting that I think the chances of setting up a non-partisan think tank in the US anywhere near the public eye are those of a snowball in hell. As soon as it gets any kind of media coverage it'll be branded as partisan for the 'other side' by one side or another (probably by both).

People in the US seem to have lost the ability to realize that just because something isn't completely, ideologically, in line what they think that it therefore doesn't necessarily have to be part of the opposite organization.

I guess it's the result of living in a society that only knows two political parties. Black-and-white thinking seems unavoidable in such an environment.

It's time to pick another way to think; everyone has to be involved. I don't know how to do that.

Or get someone impartial from the outside. When the ability to think has been lost it can be imported.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2017
"My model tracks a number of factors. Some reflect the developments that have been noticed and extensively discussed"

-Perhaps his model should include concerted media efforts to exacerbate tensions in order to save the Democrat party from extinction, starting with the trayvon Martin debacle and including many fables of thugs and morons getting themselves killed by cops, and righteous neighborhood destruction by hoards of gang bangers and paid insurgents.

Pyrrhic defeat.

"But this is a science-based forecast, not a "prophecy". It's based on solid social science"

-Yeah, applied science. IOW, the effort to modify behavior, not explain it.

But as it was a spectacular failure for the loser party, why do losers like the propagandist above continue to use it?

Nothing scientific about that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2017
People in the US seem to have lost the ability to realize that just because something isn't completely, ideologically, in line what they think that it therefore doesn't necessarily have to be part of the opposite organization
People in eurodisneyworld need to realize 1) that US citizens don't give a shit what they think and 2) that the info they have been given is hopelessly biased and one-sided.

Hopelessly biased and one-sided. Fox over here had 3 separate networks on Sirius, 2 of which have since been removed, which daily offered a counterpoint to CNN, MSNBC, and the others.

I'm not saying that Fox was any less biased but it gave the opportunity to switch between sides and compare. And in doing so it was obvious how fictional the pro-democrat side was.

And the extreme opinions of euro posters here only confirms the understanding that they have been lied to in massive ways. What else? They have been forced to digest a refugee tsunami without complaint.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2017
Peter Turchin is an apparent darling of American communists
http://houstoncom...-unfold/

-which I suspect euros may find less disturbing than we might.
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2017
"And some of the proposed policies will likely make them worse. For example, drastically reducing taxes on wealthy Americans will hardly strengthen the fiscal health of the state."

That is not 100% true since there is something called the Laffer curve which states that there is an ideal tax rate that generates the most income for the state. If you reduce taxes on corporations and they move here in order to take advantage of the lower taxes more jobs are created and taxes increase.
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2017
In the past 8 years the attempt to divide the population into groups has been revolting. This is a classic divide and conquer strategy. Also the author does not address the government elite. Our central government is way too strong and because of this the people feel that things are out of their control.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2017
" there is something called the Laffer curve "
-------------------------------------------

Yes, and something called the Reagan Debt. It almost tripled the entire 200 year-old National Debt all by itself.

The Laffer Curve is the joke on us which started hiding deficits in the National Debt, which the Republicans still do.

Paid for your Bush Wars?
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2017
Sorry, conservatives, but Trump will not take you to the Promised Land.

He will take you to bankruptcy.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2017
It's coming!

How long will the American People and the Republicans take the nonsense from Putin's Puppy in the White House? What happens when they take our medical insurance away?

Will the Trump wars be nuclear?
anthony_papagallo
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2017
America has become a continent sized ghetto filled with drug abuse, collapsing infrastructure, pernicious daily gun violence, the highest rates of unwanted teenage pregnancies, illiteracy and abortions in the developed world, (source: the U.N) a vice ridden pornography addicted poisoned with genetically modified food, morbidly obese population, exploited by predatory police forces and ripped off through an assortment of rackets from Pharma, Real Estate, Banking and Military,

Our great nation has never been more divided along socio economic lines but especially where Government for the people is concerned, our internal and external policies breed nothing but divisiveness and death, while the rest of the world grows to have a pathological hatred of us, this is not the America John Adams imagined and it is most definitely not the America our grand parents died defending.

And on that basis you really don't need to be a scientist to see we are heading for disaster.
rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2017
Sorry, conservatives, but Trump will not take you to the Promised Land.

He will take you to bankruptcy.

I have a question for you. If he goes/does bad I will change my mind about him in a instant. If your wrong and he does great things will you change your mind or will you just keep rationalizing? Example people's 401K goes up, will you just find somthing wrong with that or shrug it off as not important?

I had a boss who hated Catholics. So when mother Teresa got sick and was hospitalized he criticized her for not going to a hospital she founded. I am not Catholic but I have to respect someone who archived so much more than me.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2017
What is the definition of "going bad"?

The pursuit of money using his office?

The wreckage of fifty years of diplomacy in less than one?

What happens when Pootie and Trump have their inevitable falling out? What happens when the two ego-narcissists get mad at each other like Hitler and Stalin?

Will the Trump Wars be nuclear?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2017
We cannot expect social stability with an incoming president who is emotionally unstable.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2017
RIP USA

- "Baited with a Tweet"

rderkis
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2017
gkam
Has the media really scared you or are you just trying to get us all terrified so you get your way?
Do you really believe we are going to have a great depression followed by nuclear war. Then world temperatures over 200 degrees Fahrenheit , all due to Trump?
If so I suggest you keep your tin foil hat on at all times?
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2017
No, Trump scares me. He is ignorant of how government works, assuming he is going to rule like Henry the Eighth. He is impulsive, emotionally-vulnerable to baiting, and assumes we can use our nuclear weapons.

We could have the war first.

MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2017
"No, Trump scares me. He is ignorant of how government works,......."

As the chosen leader of our country he has every right and even the duty to change the way that " Government Works". A vote for Hillary was a vote of confidence for the results of the past eight years. Well, some of us were not to happy with what has happened in that period of time.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2017
Yeah, you wanted more of the 800,000 family incomes we were losing every month under Bush.

Then, we have his wars. Paid for them yet?
rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2017
Yea, I am scared to. :-) Even of the dark! I guess that's my feminine side :-)
The MAN side of me is scared of vary little. I do get worried sometimes and occasionally vary worried, but scared (NO WAY)? I am no little child that gets scared about things that might or might not be. I will leave that to the women and children.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2017
@antialias
People in the US seem to have lost the ability to realize that just because something isn't completely, ideologically, in line what they think that it therefore doesn't necessarily have to be part of the opposite organization.
Speak for yourself. I might as well say that citizens of your country are all fools.

Stereotyping is prejudice. Knock it off.
barakn
4 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2017
Can we get a moderator to remove this misogynist trash from rderkis?
rderkis
not rated yet Jan 07, 2017
OK, barakn, if you have to have it your way or censorship, I agree with everything you say :-). And you are scaring me silly!
rderkis
not rated yet Jan 07, 2017
Ok
soaprules
5 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2017
These comments....

Anyway rderkis, quite a silly comment that's not a way to negate someones years of research. On a science website, somehow your anecdotal examples becomes the means of substance for calling his decade(s) of research bias? Nice.

The media does suck, but there is a unilateral suck; Both parties propaganda talking points are horrible. Anyway, it will be interesting to see Trump become a tool and backtrack on(Some) of his campaigning promises that were politically transcendental to the 2-party talking point.
Trump is a wildcard, he campaigned on populism but there is nothing in his life and career that shows him to be different prior to the election besides his charisma and flippy-floppiness on positions in the past.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2017
Emotional instability breeds political and economic instability.

We are really in for it!
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2017
What is the definition of "going bad"?
........giving you a 5 Star upvote.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2017
Emotional instability breeds...

...gkam...as shown by his repeated moronic and ignorant posts.

gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2017
You Baggers did it to us, and now we will see your smarts. Personally, I think it will be like "WMD!" again, with the goobers being fooled, suckered, like they were by Putin this time,Cheney and Bush before that.

Will the Trump Wars be nuclear?
rderkis
3 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2017
gkam, perhaps anyone as scared as you are, has lost all objectivity. I think the star-wars movie said it best "fear breeds ..."

I was not trying to be mean in that other/above post. I was trying to point out that the word scared is way overused. It's like that phrase that is over used by the media. "You are not going to believe what ...Stay tuned."
It might be anecdotal but I can recall every time I was scared. Vietnam, crawling down into those black tunnels. 130 mph laying flat out on a Kawasaki Z900, when I went into a high speed wobble.
Even during the Cuban missile crises I was never scared but I was vary worried.
Perhaps a person that has never experienced true fear would confuse worry with fear.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2017
Yeah, derkis, we all did stupid stuff,many of us on motorcycles. But YOU did those stupid things, they were not done to you.

Big Difference.

If you had wiped out, it would be just another idiot biker. What Trump can do is beyond our ability to affect, and he is damn dangerous.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2017
Speak for yourself. I might as well say that citizens of your country are all fools.

I just see a majority voting for Trump. What other conclusion can I come to?

And yes: we have the same fools over here, never fear. Populism and stupidity aren't US prerogatives. It's just that the world becomes a lot more unsafe when the US elects someone like Trump rather than, e.g. if some island votes for a Brexit.
rderkis
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2017
If you had wiped out, it would be just another idiot biker. What Trump can do is beyond our ability to affect, and he is damn dangerous.

Still does not even come close to scaring me (real fear). But worry, yes.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2017
This is not about you, it is about my grandkids.

Be brave for yourself. Be smart for your grandkids.

barakn
5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2017
OK, barakn, if you have to have it your way or censorship, I agree with everything you say :-). And you are scaring me silly! -rderkis

Ah, yes, free speech. The last refuge of the hero. And of the troll.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2017
Speak for yourself. I might as well say that citizens of your country are all fools.
I just see a majority voting for Trump. What other conclusion can I come to?
Actually it appears a majority of citizens didn't vote for Trump. Clinton got over 3 million more votes. But don't let me spoil your sterotyping and the implicit racism that indicates.

And yes: we have the same fools over here, never fear. Populism and stupidity aren't US prerogatives. It's just that the world becomes a lot more unsafe when the US elects someone like Trump rather than, e.g. if some island votes for a Brexit.
Not at all sure I agree that a permanent member of the UN Security Council should be characterized as "some island."
barakn
5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2017
Yea, I am scared to. :-) Even of the dark! I guess that's my feminine side :-) The MAN side of me is scared of vary little. -rderkis
Sounds like grandpa at someone's holiday dinner. "He means no harm by it, he grew up in a different age," says Grandma a little defensively. There's uncomfortable silence at the table for a few minutes until Grandpa's forehead dips into his mashed potatoes and he starts snoring loudly.
rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2017
Quote -- Actually it appears a majority of citizens didn't vote for Trump. -- End Quote
Yep, Trump expressed he did not like the way the rules were set up at the start. But he beat all his opponents by playing their game way smarter then they did. :-)
As for being scared of Trump, he has given just cause. After all he is not even in office yet and the stock market shot up with his win. (Makes me mad!)
On top of that corporations are starting to cancel their plans to move over seas. (That scares me to!)

Many more scares like that, we might just become the greatest country on earth again. :-)
gkam
Jan 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
howhot3
5 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2017
Certainly there are a lot of Trump fanboys out there but you folks are not the majority of Americans. That is just a simple fact like it or not. Add in to that the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt that Russia has played in our election it becomes perfectly understandable that reasonable people would express concern about that. The buffoonery that our next president has shown in his mastery of the complex cause one to raise a spock like eyebrow of concern.

In my college days, I took futuristics, an application of logic to predict future events from current circumstances. I think the author is correct is his assessment. The elite are not sharing exemplified by republican disdain of labor and the lack of positive actions toward urban centers of poverty.

Basically if the Elite take all of the marbles and leave you with none, what is the point of playing the game (and thus turmoil in 2020).

rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2017
Boy, the Russians must be dumb! If they wanted to influence our election you would think they could come up with a better way then just releasing a bunch of private emails that were real emails from those individuals.

Now I am not near as smart as a Russian think tank but I would at the vary LEAST thrown in some vary damming fake or doctored emails. That would be released just days before the election. I would also have come up with several false evidence/news storys that portrayed Clinton as selling out to the Russians or some other adversary.

There are many ways they could have falsely discredited Hillary. On top of that they could have portrayed Trump as being the man that Putin least wanted to win.

Why was the release of only private un-doctored emails all that was used?
howhot3
5 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2017
Or @rderkis if the Russian gov had found an advantage with Hillary, the tables could absolutely have been turned and it would be Madam President. Basically this was election was all about social media and propaganda disseminated by social media. Unfortunately the press was just in for the ride and manipulated into spreading fake news as everyone now acknowledges. Way too many people in specific electorally significant states were suckered into email con. Find one piece of email that knocked your socks off that doesn't sound phoney. Post a link, I would like to be an informed voter.

There is so much so wrong with this election that I'm taken aback. All of the usual norms are out the window, like where are Trumps tax reports. Will the Trump cabinet picks ever be vetted by the FBI to make sure they are not russian spies? What about conflict of interests, etc. These are serious issues that are just being glossed over.

rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2017
propaganda disseminated by social media.
where are Trumps tax reports

Propaganda disseminated by the social media is primarily what got Trump elected. I did not like the press trying to manipulate me in such obvious ways. A lot of others felt the same way and it started becoming even more obvious with Megan Kelly.
The emails themselves played no part in my voting choice.

However the fact she used a private email server for classified information did. She could easily have been directly responsible for some of our troops deaths.

And where are your tax returns howhot3? Please post them here, unless your trying to hide some illegal activitys.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2017
Actually it appears a majority of citizens didn't vote for Trump.

Had a similar incident in germany. 33% voted for Adolf Hitler. He never got a majority. But it was enough. It doesn't matter if the majority of people are good guys. If they don't go to vote then that's it.
Angry people are more motivated and so will turn out more likely than complacent citizens. Voting - as weird as it sounds - favors radicals. (Not saying voting is bad, but that the idea of voting itself skews any vote towards the extremes)

Not at all sure I agree that a permanent member of the UN Security Council should be characterized as "some island."

They aren't in a position to influence globbal matters. Neither militarily, nor politically, not economically. So even if they start going weird it doesn't matter (much) to the rest of the world. The US electing Ronald McDonald is something else.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2017
Actually it appears a majority of citizens didn't vote for Trump.
Had a similar incident in germany. 33% voted for Adolf Hitler.
33% of eligible voters? 33% of potentially eligible voters? 33% of the population? This is meaningless without quantification of your statistics.

Not at all sure I agree that a permanent member of the UN Security Council should be characterized as "some island."
They aren't in a position to influence globbal matters.
On the UN Security Council, as Permanent Members?

Really?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2017
Had a similar incident in germany. 33% voted for Adolf Hitler. He never got a majority. But it was enough. It doesn't matter if the majority of people are good guys. If they don't go to vote then that's it
One more Pimmelkopf compares trump to hitler.

Hitler got elected because the majority of the people fell for a bunch of lies. The dems tried the same thing and it didn't work. If Weimar had had wiki leaks back then perhaps history would have been different.

Stalin would probably have swept europe, taken Britain, and we would all be starving now. Except for the middle class who would be dead. And nuclear waste would be the top few feet of soil over large regions.

That's the trouble with hitlerisms - they always lead you in uncomfortable directions.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2017
@howhot, I see little difference between Trump and Reagan. Discuss.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
"That's the trouble with hitlerisms - they always lead you in uncomfortable directions."
-----------------------------

They lead us to Fascists, don't they?

Fascism is a terrible political disease, don't you agree?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2017
"That's the trouble with hitlerisms - they always lead you in uncomfortable directions."
-----------------------------

They lead us to Fascists, don't they?

Fascism is a terrible political disease, don't you agree?
Psychopathy is a terrible disease dont you agree? Psychopaths will pretend to be sincere about most any cause just to fuck with people.

You guys are an enormous waste of time and space. I think most all normal people will agree on that.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2017
Fascism is a disease of partial people, folk with something missing, besides Humanity. Not having a clue, they need someone to "lead" them, just like all pawns in the games of others.

"WMD!" they scream, and the goobers panic. A decade later, they have yet to pay for their Bush Wars of brutal War Crimes and Halliburton/Blackwater Profit.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2017
33% of eligible voters? 33% of potentially eligible voters? 33% of the population?

33% of those who went to vote. The point is: a lot of people who were angry went to vote while a lot of people who were complacent didn't.
I think there must be a way of making people see that voting is important - if only to keep the radicals in check. Maybe a compulsory vote? And an equal vote for all? That way, at least, there'd be a true representation of the people's will.

On the UN Security Council, as Permanent Members?

With Russia and the US blocking each other the UN security council isn't doing any work, anyways. What Britain does is pretty irrelevant (they always do what the US does, in any case)
rderkis
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2017
if only to keep the radicals in check.


To be honest all of us on here sound like radicals.
It's ether the person I want or the end of the world.
The sky is falling. THE SKY IS FALLING!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 11, 2017
@antialias, I find it disappointing that you elect to engage in stereotyping rather than discuss the issue at hand.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2017
Hitler got elected because the majority of the people fell for a bunch of lies.

In the light of the (probable) manipulation by the Russians and Trumps constant lying (when did he ever back up any of his statements? And many of his statements were shown to be either fabrications of creative half-truths. At best one can say he's completely clueless about, well, anything).
I fail to see the difference between what hitler did and what Trump did in order to win the vote.

I see little difference between Trump and Reagan

I'll have a go here: Neither do I. Reagan was pushed by the Industrials whereas Trump is pushed by a foreign power. Both are figureheads. Reagan brought the US piss-on (erm...'trickle down') economics. Where that has lead you can see for yourself.

The issue with Trump is the same that it was with Hitler: He'll bite the hand that fed him (i.e. he's got a finger on the button with massive narcicissm and temper problems). Reagan was controllable.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2017
difference between what hitler did and what Trump did in order to win the vote
And if you had been privy to a balanced and equitable supply of info from both sides, what you would be saying is 'I fail to see the difference between what hitler did and succeeded, and what the dems did and failed.'

But 1) your opinions are prejudiced and 2) the info you've been given is biased. For instance
And many of his statements were shown to be either fabrications of creative half-truths
What the Russian hacks DID do was expose a wide range of Hillary fabrications and half-truths. The press assisted her in covering all this up and trying to respin it as trump/Putin collusion.

It didn't work. US citizens know the Russians don't need encouragement to hack anybody. They found dirt because there was dirt to find.

Trump is only assisting the press and the dems in destroying themselves. He can tweet the people directly. We don't need talking heads to misinterpret for us any more.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2017
"We don't need talking heads to misinterpret for us any more."
-------------------------------------

You and Trump or you and Putin?

It always has to be some brute-force, simple-thinking, emotionally-driven act of hate for that side of politics.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2017
Well, seeing how easy it was for crooks and cowardly draft-dodgers like Bush and Cheney to panic the American Goobers into mass killings and other self-defeating actions, Pootie did it, too!

And look who fell for it! The same fools who got suckered by the screams of "WMD!".

Have they PAID for those mass killings yet?
Zzzzzzzz
1 / 5 (1) Jan 12, 2017
There is simply no defense for being a Trump voter. No "rationale" makes voting for a felony sexual predator OK. No "rationale" makes voting for a low life slimeball bully OK. No "rationale" makes voting for a racist bigot OK. No "rationale" makes voting for a lying sack of shit OK. No "rationale" makes voting for a manifestly and patently unfit and incompetent psycho OK.

Cliodynamics may be able to describe the involved phenomena and resulting effects, but there is simply no defense available to the criminally negligent psychotics who actually voted for Trump.
rderkis
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2017
Zzzzzzzz I think your handle says it all. BTW You sound an awful lot like a bully to me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2017
There is simply no defense for being a Trump voter. No "rationale" makes voting for a felony sexual predator
-Or his wife...
https://www.youtu...ocr2DTic

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.