More whining and excuses from sore loser HRC.

[Arkteia]

And yet @Arkteia just said "Not only women, btw, I know many men who were ready to vote for a woman, but somewhat more charming, less scary to them, and more modern". So, to which group should HRC have catered?

They should try to cater to all groups as future Presidents. (And not call people "the deplorables" - you plan to serve them). I believe that we should learn from all negative experiences, from Gore's elections, too, because it was so similar. So maybe, just maybe, the majority still buys the "guy next door" or "girl next door" factor, someone easy, someone who they could drink a couple of glasses of bear with. Or at least share a coffee. George Bush had that presence. He had nothing else going for him, but he looked easygoing and simple. The people bought it. Trump was speaking in a simple, very trusting, me-and-you way, "you and I understand what a bad thing Obamacare is". Be it a male or a female candidate, they should not try to lift their audience to own intellectual level, but to try to cater to what people want, or can, understand. (Carville's "It's economy, stupid" became the great catchphrase of Clinton's campaign. Good example. Another good example? Joe Biden eating ice-cream).

 

[arkieb1]

You say you don't agree with most of the terrible things being said about her, yet you completely bought and still buy into the effects of those terrible things. I mean if you don't agree or don't believe a lot of what's been said about her, then how did she become tainted enough that you thought her simply as a lesser of two evils (and I'm merely talking about your opinion here, not the rest of America which you seem to want to invoke). Did you actually look at Clinton as a candidate independent of the innuendos and suspicions?

No I looked at her as a candidate that didn't do a great job of refuting those innuendoes and suspicions in a successful manner. Did I personally believe all of them? No. But was she tainted by past baggage, her husband was a past president who wasn't a saint by any means so again yes we should be all wonderful non judgemental people not judging her by his actions or by anything else and maybe just maybe if she had of been a really down to earth eloquent speaker she might have been better able to stave off all of that.

Hate to break it to you, but there's no such person. The Republicans can investigate and smear Mother Teresa to make her look suspicious in less than a year.

True, but the Dems didn't smear Trump effectively because lets face it he was 100+ times worse than she was or is and she didn't successfully defend herself to enough of your voters.

Your definition of lesser of the two evils seems to be you think I am trying to say she was evil or is a bad person, my definition of lesser of the two evils was having someone more competent at defending themselves against any smear campaigns. Seriously for a woman who is as smart as you claim she did a pretty mediocre effort in those debates of putting the heat back on Trump for being a lying cheating arsehole. Her campaign managers did a pretty rubbish job of discrediting Trump and answering those smears against her....

 

[t-c]

No I looked at her as a candidate that didn't do a great job of refuting those innuendoes and suspicions in a successful manner. Did I personally believe all of them? No. But was she tainted by past baggage, her husband was a past president who wasn't a saint by any means so again yes we should be all wonderful non judgemental people not judging her by his actions or by anything else and maybe just maybe if she had of been a really down to earth eloquent speaker she might have been better able to stave off all of that.

You demand a faultless, stainless candidate but can't bring yourself to reserve judging HRC's character based on innuendos and accusations?

Your definition of lesser of the two evils seems to be you think I am trying to say she was evil or is a bad person, my definition of lesser of the two evils was having someone more competent at defending themselves against any smear campaigns.

I know language evolves, but we have to initially operate on common definitions, so you can't have just "[your] definition".

Definition of "lesser of two evils":

from Urban Dictionary:
when one is presented with 2 bad choices. the person chooses the one that has less of a consequence.​

from Cambridge Dictionary:
something that is bad, but not as bad as something else​

from McMillan Dictionary:
the less unpleasant or harmful of two possible choices​

 

[t-c]

Surely. But first - we are not speaking about being the President. It is a different thing. We are discussing winning the elections.

Actually, we're not talking about winning the elections. I was asking about your assertion that HRC "went so far specifically because she was a woman". I wanted to understand what you based that sexist belief on. See below if you need reminding.

I think she went so far specifically because she was a woman

And I wanted to you to further elaborate on this sexist attitude:

Not only women, btw, I know many men who were ready to vote for a woman, but somewhat more charming, less scary to them, and more modern.

Biology teaches us that estrogen is socially protective, this is why many not-so-social women adapt better, in schools and colleges. So I am more than positive that in a male version, Hillary would be called "another cold pizza" and that would be the end of it.

I studied biology and I never learned this. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is drivel, but sure, school me: give me links to the reputable, peer reviewed, well cited papers.

 

[Arkteia]

Actually, we're not talking about winning the elections. I was asking about your assertion that HRC "went so far specifically because she was a woman". I wanted to understand what you based that sexist belief on. See below if you need reminding.



And I wanted to you to further elaborate on this sexist attitude:




I studied biology and I never learned this. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is drivel, but sure, school me: give me links to the reputable, peer reviewed, well cited papers.

I'd be happy to, but that very paper names a condition, and I am not ready to post it openly. For one reason, while it is openly admitted for some politicians, it is not said about Hillary, only questioned. The fact that estrogen is socially protective was cited in one of SFARI.org publications.

Another thing - it is ludicrous to state that any opinion about Hillary is sexist. You are angry that she lost? I was devastated, crushed, and now I am angry with Hillary, for losing this campaign and leaving us with this... We all have the right to grieve differently. Too much was expected, and where is it all now? But as I am looking at TIME article, "Democrats are in their worst shape since 1929", I am trying to understand what needs to change. Blatant accusations of sexism serve to divide, but are useless, because they don't help us learn or implement changes. And if we don't change, we'll lose again.

I had to Google SFARI - I have that very article pinned someone on Pinterest, but I have tons on that board. I think it mentioned eating disorders, too. But the newest one mentions "female protection from autism", not estrogen and social protection. I shall find the very one I mentioned with time. https://www.sfari.org/funded-projec...n-and-regulation-to-evaluate-autism-sex-bias/

 

[t-c]

I'd be happy to, but that very paper names a condition, and I am not ready to post it openly. For one reason, while it is openly admitted for some politicians, it is not said about Hillary, only questioned. The fact that estrogen is socially protective was cited in one of SFARI.org publications.

Another thing - it is ludicrous to state that any opinion about Hillary is sexist. You are angry that she lost? I was devastated, crushed, and now I am angry with Hillary, for losing this campaign and leaving us with this... We all have the right to grieve differently. Too much was expected, and where is it all now? But as I am looking at TIME article, "Democrats are in their worst shape since 1929", I am trying to understand what needs to change. Blatant accusations of sexism serve to divide, but are useless, because they don't help us learn or implement changes. And if we don't change, we'll lose again.

You are basing your "biology teaches us..." generality on ONE paper?!

I do not call any opinion about Hillary sexist. I only call sexist opinions about Hillary sexist.

 

[Arkteia]

You are basing your "biology teaches us..." generality on ONE paper?!
.

I would call your approach "simplified sophism". You asked me for a paper in a peer-referenced journal, I provided it. I leave it up to you to answer if you have read it. Now you came up with, "only on ONE paper?" Look, here is another one, but tbh, how many papers from SFARI or SPECTRUM or gene libraries do I have to link on a diamond symposium to prove a point? LOL.

https://www.sfari.org/2016/11/30/ge...and-females-contribute-to-sex-bias-in-autism/

(BTW, I see the vulnerability of my position in something different, in making an assumption...but you know, after n-th book by Hillary the public figure people can make assumptions about a public figure).

This approach, when people accuse you of sexism, and then the burden of proof that you are not a sexist, lies with you...how does it tie up with American legal system, t-c? I thought US legal system was fair. But the phrase "i call sexist opinions about Hillary sexist" is, sorry, demagoguery. (Apologize again - but I am tired of people throwing empty words on social media, and mind you, in groups of like-minded people. This is what is killing us).

And in the meantime, I am not even stating a dissenting opinion, merely my own opinion. Which essentially is, Hillary lost because she ran a poor campaign, because the original assumptions - that the Blue Wall wold hold - was wrong, because by nature she is not a TV persona and did not have much TV exposure, but ran against a TV person who (while having no empathy) had enough TV experience to project something he never had, because Hillary is probably wonderful 1:1 but it did not spill into the rallies, and Trump's rallies were mega-shows, and in states that proved strategic, because she prepared a great plan for the country (including treatment of autism, and suicide prevention...i am ready to pull my hair out here) but was unable to deliver her economic platform during the debates in which she allowed the bully to barrage her with his nonsense, because she had her own vulnerabilities but also carried the burden of Bill's scandals, because the independents took away voices... Because of tons of reasons, but not because she was a woman. To prove it, Trump used the same bullying strategy against his candidates in the primaries, against men, and won! Before all fake news, before all accusations of Hillary, the electorate chose him. So it is not her gender, it is his connection with the public, his agenda that suddenly was "in".

To my mind, the only person who managed to successfully simplify the outcome of the elections was my friend, who said, "they voted for the change then (*with Obama*), and they voted for the change now".

 

[lovedogs]

I don't want to get in the middle of this, but I research autism and am very familiar with the SFARI papers and this isn't correct

"Biology teaches us that estrogen is socially protective, this is why many not-so-social women adapt better, in schools and colleges. So I am more than positive that in a male version, Hillary would be called "another cold pizza" and that would be the end of it."

It isn't that estrogen is "socially protective" in terms of adapting to social situations, it's that there are conditions like autism where the sex ratio is 4:1, so researchers are trying to understand potential "protective factors" that might be contributing to this.

 

[Arkteia]

I don't want to get in the middle of this, but I research autism and am very familiar with the SFARI papers and this isn't correct

"Biology teaches us that estrogen is socially protective, this is why many not-so-social women adapt better, in schools and colleges. So I am more than positive that in a male version, Hillary would be called "another cold pizza" and that would be the end of it."

It isn't that estrogen is "socially protective" in terms of adapting to social situations, it's that there are conditions like autism where the sex ratio is 4:1, so researchers are trying to understand potential "protective factors" that might be contributing to this.

Yes, Lovedogs, but this is my vulnerability. i tried to minimize the impact of what i really wanted to say. I have a certain opinion about Hillary, and i believe it is sadly relevant for the outcome, and would have not been relevant at all for the Presidency, but I just can not throw it into all this mix. Our elections are popularity contests, this is all. (And now we have to listen to the guy who can not remember Kim Jong-Un or Namibia). The truth is, the real sex ratio may be less than 3.5:1, moreover, women and men carry the same amount of genes that are now truly linked to autism, but somehow, in women they don't work the same way. And it is not "flying under the radar". (Things become even more interesting when some conditions, like Prader-Willi, look better when the chromosomal anomaly comes from mom as compared with dad...but this is far from the topic).

 

[Arkteia]

I don't think he was just the easiest option I think he was the option that was most likely to give the American people something new, unknown and different, and THAT had a massive appeal too. Look at the DFs posts he talks extensively about this idea that he couldn't deal with another x amount of years like Obama, so it's twofold - a change in government to see what differences that will make and we know when people are frightened or really worried economically they tend to revert back to wanting a government with really conservative core values. I'd argue the US has been longing for a total change in politics for a while now and how things in the white house get done, therefore people willingly voted for Trump to shake things up, not just because he was an easy option, more of a totally different option.

Trump made money on lending his name to businesses...it was his most successful enterprise, it says something about him. It is razzle-dazzle, big time, and I give it to him, he made American people buy his brand. He sucked everyone into it during his debates, do you remember all these "small hands" talks? To me it sounded like prime idiocy, but Trump managed to pull all his opponents (some of them very smart) to his level (the video of Trump wrestling on the floor during one of matches comes to mind, because this is where it all was, on the floor). Trump has zero knowledge, probably, poor memory, but he managed to pull anyone down to his level.

It is very interesting, I was reading about the idea of "The Apprentice". Trump initially refused to participate, saying that the show was "for the bottom-feeders". But later he, probably, learned to track the ratings, understood what his audience liked. The weekly show was how he became known to the US, but for him, I think, presidential learning curve was to track the ratings.

As to Obama, sorry, I don't know what he did wrong. He was a typical centrist, pretty corporate-driven, US President. Obamacare was a mess, initially, but then it started working. It would need many improvements, but it did not make us beggars.
Obama did a typical capitalistic thing, banks bailout. It was necessary. But the bank industry and CEOs owe him big, he did not send the bankers to jail, some even got higher on his watch.
So maybe we have to speak about the inevitable thing, the race? Maybe when people say that Obama presidency made them vote for Trump, it is all they mean? We are living in 21st century, but we are only 50 years from the end of segregation.

 

[lovedogs]

Yes, Lovedogs, but this is my vulnerability. i tried to minimize the impact of what i really wanted to say. I have a certain opinion about Hillary, and i believe it is sadly relevant for the outcome, and would have not been relevant at all for the Presidency, but I just can not throw it into all this mix. Our elections are popularity contests, this is all. (And now we have to listen to the guy who can not remember Kim Jong-Un or Namibia). The truth is, the real sex ratio may be less than 3.5:1, moreover, women and men carry the same amount of genes that are now truly linked to autism, but somehow, in women they don't work the same way. And it is not "flying under the radar". (Things become even more interesting when some conditions, like Prader-Willi, look better when the chromosomal anomaly comes from mom as compared with dad...but this is far from the topic).

I just don't see the relevance of genes for autism and sex ratios in autism to this conversation, or to any point about HRC.

 

[AGBF]

...and the reason I went into social work instead of psychology or medicine is that I didn't want to have to study chemicals and biology and the brain. But your research fascinates me if I only have to read about the work you are doing, ladies! Great thread.

Deb

 

[Arkteia]

I just don't see the relevance of genes for autism and sex ratios in autism to this conversation, or to any point about HRC.

And I don't have enough information to tie things up. And don't want to - to me the fact that we lost a potential President with an IQ of 141 (who I think would have been very honest in serving us) to ...some brand name is devastating. But I do feel that in a male version, Hillary would have looked as someone mildly on the spectrum and hence would not have made it into the presidential candidates. (I bought her new book, she may be right about many things, Bernie, Comey, but to me it looks like she does not understand that no one owed her the Presidency, and it is really surprising).

Again, my belief is that mental issues have nothing to do with ability to serve as a President. No proof, but psychologists believe that Lincoln had autism - and made a great President. Likewise, Winston Churchill had bipolar disorder, and was a stellar PM. This is why I don't even pay attention to all these news about Trump's narcissism. Maybe ability to work hard (or inability) is more important. But elections are a different issue. First, electoral college, then, televised debates and TV format... they don't favor serious folks.

 

[Arkteia]

...and the reason I went into social work instead of psychology or medicine is that I didn't want to have to study chemicals and biology and the brain. But your research fascinates me if I only have to read about the work you are doing, ladies! Great thread.

Deb

Molecular biologists are doing amazing things, Deb! They are learning how to substitute nucleotide bases in triplets, to change "bad" genes. It looked so close...but another problem, the tertiary structure of the DNA, two coils with links between them...so by changing some gene on chromosome XV you could end up affecting unrelated gene on the opposite chromosome I...we are still far away, but people working at it are gods to me.

 

[monarch64]

Arketeia, I think I understand the point you're trying to make. I am interpreting it as this: the presidential election is essentially a popularity contest. Clinton didn't do enough to razzle dazzle the masses by promising them free soda and candy in the cafeteria and recess period extensions; also she was a nerd. Trump made a bunch of b.s. promises to get elected and no one really cares about the actual fallout from the decision the American public made because she's a nerd and he is a way cool guy who might be an ******* but has a lot of money.

I believe this same formula has been used repeatedly in movies about teenagers. John Hughes made a fortune off of them in the 80s, and every other decade has had its share of the same plot.

Clinton needed a "cool" makeover. I'm with ya. And I'm ok with the fact that she didn't sell out in that way. She couldn't have, really. Her real problem was that she's always been a nerd, and she did that thing women do that sends them into popularity oblivion--she got old.

America is so gross in so many ways.

 

[t-c]

I would call your approach "simplified sophism". You asked me for a paper in a peer-referenced journal, I provided it. I leave it up to you to answer if you have read it. Now you came up with, "only on ONE paper?" Look, here is another one, but tbh, how many papers from SFARI or SPECTRUM or gene libraries do I have to link on a diamond symposium to prove a point? LOL.

First of all, when I quoted your post in my response that was posted at 7:39 pm, you only referred to a paper in SFARI and did not actually provide the link. You eventually did when you edited your post, originally timestamped at 7:09 pm, to add the 3rd paragraph at 7:40 pm. Second of all, I asked for "papers" -- that s at the end means more than one -- see my unedited post timestamped 7:04 pm.

That first link you provided is only a summary of a research project and not an actual paper. It only states what researchers hope to do, and does not present results of their experiments.

The second paper you link to (you can find the full paper at Pleitropic Mechanisms Indicated for Sex Differences in Autism) investigates genetic explanations for the higher occurrence of autism in males compare to females. You cannot extrapolate their findings to the normal spectrum and say "Biology teaches us that estrogen is socially protective, this is why many not-so-social women adapt better, in schools and colleges." Besides, the paper actually contradicts your point and says they see no correlation between estrogen and protection from, or androgen and susceptibility to autism.

We uncover no evidence for hormone-responsive genes being overrepresented in association signals.

and

...we assessed whether a hormone-driven mechanism might be evident in genetic set enrichment. We were unable to identify genetic support for an androgen-driven mechanism for ASD risk loci, represented by genes with expression levels influenced by androgens.

So you're going to link to more than this paper to prove your point.

This approach, when people accuse you of sexism, and then the burden of proof that you are not a sexist, lies with you...how does it tie up with American legal system, t-c? I thought US legal system was fair. But the phrase "i call sexist opinions about Hillary sexist" is, sorry, demagoguery. (Apologize again - but I am tired of people throwing empty words on social media, and mind you, in groups of like-minded people. This is what is killing us).

The US legal system is not fair -- that's long been known. But I, nevertheless, asked you to explain your opinion. You have typed many words, but not given support to your opinion.

Demagoguery? I think you'll need to give us your definition of that word, because my sentence does not meet the dictionary definition. This is why your opinion is sexist:

I think she went so far specifically because she was a woman

I don't know why I have to explain why this is sexist, but okay: you attribute her accomplishment (even if limited to the political) solely "specifically" because of her sex.

Not only women, btw, I know many men who were ready to vote for a woman, but somewhat more charming, less scary to them, and more modern

While this is not you stating your opinion per se, you seem to buy in to this thinking, which requires much more from women just so they can be seen as adequate.

So it seems to me, that if a woman wants to win male electorate, she either has to be attractive, or very witty, or a great orator, but she can not be boring.

​

Molecular biologists are doing amazing things, Deb! They are learning how to substitute nucleotide bases in triplets, to change "bad" genes. It looked so close...but another problem, the tertiary structure of the DNA, two coils with links between them...so by changing some gene on chromosome XV you could end up affecting unrelated gene on the opposite chromosome I...we are still far away, but people working at it are gods to me.

I used to be a cell and molecular biologist in my previous life. We've long been able to manipulate genes and now with CRISPR are able to target and edit DNA more precisely. The issue has been and will remain the fact that traits and diseases are complicated as they are rarely controlled by one gene or mutation, therefore editing them may result in no effect or worse, unexpected consequences.

 

[Arkteia]

I used to be a cell and molecular biologist in my previous life. We've long been able to manipulate genes and now with CRISPR are able to target and edit DNA more precisely. The issue has been and will remain the fact that traits and diseases are complicated as they are rarely controlled by one gene or mutation, therefore editing them may result in no effect or worse, unexpected consequences.

True, and we really do not know how known genes interact...but what about de novo mutations, for example, in certain forms of leukemia? This is where reversing the mutation would be a good idea.

 

[Arkteia]

Arketeia, I think I understand the point you're trying to make. I am interpreting it as this: the presidential election is essentially a popularity contest. Clinton didn't do enough to razzle dazzle the masses by promising them free soda and candy in the cafeteria and recess period extensions; also she was a nerd. Trump made a bunch of b.s. promises to get elected and no one really cares about the actual fallout from the decision the American public made because she's a nerd and he is a way cool guy who might be an ******* but has a lot of money.

I believe this same formula has been used repeatedly in movies about teenagers. John Hughes made a fortune off of them in the 80s, and every other decade has had its share of the same plot.

Clinton needed a "cool" makeover. I'm with ya. And I'm ok with the fact that she didn't sell out in that way. She couldn't have, really. Her real problem was that she's always been a nerd, and she did that thing women do that sends them into popularity oblivion--she got old.

America is so gross in so many ways.

The bold part. This. Exactly. To the younger voters, she probably looked too old and too proper. And also - Tim Kaine. (Some still voted for her - my son, who was originally Bernie supporter. But what Michael Moore said about "depressed voter" was probably right as well).

 

[Arkteia]

First of all, when I quoted your post in my response that was posted at 7:39 pm, you only referred to a paper in SFARI and did not actually provide the link. You eventually did when you edited your post, originally timestamped at 7:09 pm, to add the 3rd paragraph at 7:40 pm. Second of all, I asked for "papers" -- that s at the end means more than one -- see my unedited post timestamped 7:04 pm.

That first link you provided is only a summary of a research project and not an actual paper. It only states what researchers hope to do, and does not present results of their experiments.

The second paper you link to (you can find the full paper at Pleitropic Mechanisms Indicated for Sex Differences in Autism) investigates genetic explanations for the higher occurrence of autism in males compare to females. You cannot extrapolate their findings to the normal spectrum and say "Biology teaches us that estrogen is socially protective, this is why many not-so-social women adapt better, in schools and colleges." Besides, the paper actually contradicts your point and says they see no correlation between estrogen and protection from, or androgen and susceptibility to autism.

and
​

So you're going to link to more than this paper to prove your point.



The US legal system is not fair -- that's long been known. But I, nevertheless, asked you to explain your opinion. You have typed many words, but not given support to your opinion.

Demagoguery? I think you'll need to give us your definition of that word, because my sentence does not meet the dictionary definition. This is why your opinion is sexist:

I don't know why I have to explain why this is sexist, but okay: you attribute her accomplishment (even if limited to the political) solely "specifically" because of her sex.


While this is not you stating your opinion per se, you seem to buy in to this thinking, which requires much more from women just so they can be seen as adequate.

​

I used to be a cell and molecular biologist in my previous life. We've long been able to manipulate genes and now with CRISPR are able to target and edit DNA more precisely. The issue has been and will remain the fact that traits and diseases are complicated as they are rarely controlled by one gene or mutation, therefore editing them may result in no effect or worse, unexpected consequences.

OK, I shall try to find the article that specifically states that estrogen is protective from autism. It will take me a while, because that day I read a bunch of articles. But I shall try to do my best.

As to what I said, it is simple. If you want to win the election, you try to conform to what the public wants. There is nothing sexist in it. Hillary was more than fine for me. But since she now wrote a book that I am trying to finish, everyone is within his rights to explain what went wrong - for the future.

I have noticed that we both seem to assume. It is a common fallacy. I assume that Hillary has certain traits without ever seeing her, you assume what opinions I share. IRL, I simply love talking to younger people. I believe they have more interesting ideas and this world already belongs to them.

 

[t-c]

OK, I shall try to find the article that specifically states that estrogen is protective from autism. It will take me a while, because that day I read a bunch of articles. But I shall try to do my best.

As to what I said, it is simple. If you want to win the election, you try to conform to what the public wants. There is nothing sexist in it. Hillary was more than fine for me. But since she now wrote a book that I am trying to finish, everyone is within his rights to explain what went wrong - for the future.

I have noticed that we both seem to assume. It is a common fallacy. I assume that Hillary has certain traits without ever seeing her, you assume what opinions I share. IRL, I simply love talking to younger people. I believe they have more interesting ideas and this world already belongs to them.

You didn't say estrogen is protective from autism. You said "Biology teaches us that estrogen is socially protective, this is why many not-so-social women adapt better, in schools and colleges". Completely different. Like I said, you should not necessarily apply the findings in the autism spectrum to the normal state.

I have not assumed any of your opinions with one exception, which I was open about, but I include another quote from you to support my assumption.

True, and we really do not know how known genes interact...but what about de novo mutations, for example, in certain forms of leukemia? This is where reversing the mutation would be a good idea.

Exactly what de novo mutations and in what forms of leukemia are you talking about? Are there specific mutations you can list out that can be reversed which result in cures? I'm not up on leukemia research, but my guess is there are still a lot of work to be done in identifying what mutations or sets of mutations lead to the disease. But, again, if you can point to papers, I'm open to new information.

 

[arkieb1]

Arketeia, I think I understand the point you're trying to make. I am interpreting it as this: the presidential election is essentially a popularity contest. Clinton didn't do enough to razzle dazzle the masses by promising them free soda and candy in the cafeteria and recess period extensions; also she was a nerd. Trump made a bunch of b.s. promises to get elected and no one really cares about the actual fallout from the decision the American public made because she's a nerd and he is a way cool guy who might be an ******* but has a lot of money.

I believe this same formula has been used repeatedly in movies about teenagers. John Hughes made a fortune off of them in the 80s, and every other decade has had its share of the same plot.

Clinton needed a "cool" makeover. I'm with ya. And I'm ok with the fact that she didn't sell out in that way. She couldn't have, really. Her real problem was that she's always been a nerd, and she did that thing women do that sends them into popularity oblivion--she got old.

America is so gross in so many ways.

I think add to that she is seen as part of the political "establishment" and he is part of this fast moving glossy but no real substance behind him counterculture we seem to idolise via images we see on Instagram and the internet. And as I keep pointing out she and her team did a pretty rubbish job at cutting through the razzle dazzle and burying the man with enough dirt from his past yet in reverse he and his team used the media and social media to make the dulled masses see him as the cooler as you put it, the more down to earth, and more trustworthy (cough cough) option.....

 

[lovedogs]

And I don't have enough information to tie things up. And don't want to - to me the fact that we lost a potential President with an IQ of 141 (who I think would have been very honest in serving us) to ...some brand name is devastating. But I do feel that in a male version, Hillary would have looked as someone mildly on the spectrum and hence would not have made it into the presidential candidates. (I bought her new book, she may be right about many things, Bernie, Comey, but to me it looks like she does not understand that no one owed her the Presidency, and it is really surprising).

Again, my belief is that mental issues have nothing to do with ability to serve as a President. No proof, but psychologists believe that Lincoln had autism - and made a great President. Likewise, Winston Churchill had bipolar disorder, and was a stellar PM. This is why I don't even pay attention to all these news about Trump's narcissism. Maybe ability to work hard (or inability) is more important. But elections are a different issue. First, electoral college, then, televised debates and TV format... they don't favor serious folks.

I take HUGE exception to your statement that HRC would have looked like someone on the autism spectrum if she were a man. She looks nothing like someone with ASD--and I say that as someone who diagnoses ASD. If you want to make a point about HRC being not "cool" enough that's fine, but please don't try to use research on autism to prove a point that has nothing to do with autism.

 

[monarch64]

Yeah, I don't know enough about science and autism to even comment, but I did just rewatch her Between Two Ferns with Zach Galafranakis (sorry for botching that spelling) and it looks almost painful for her to play along with his quips. She can be tough to watch.

BUT I LOVE HERRRRR.

 

[Arkteia]

You didn't say estrogen is protective from autism. You said "Biology teaches us that estrogen is socially protective, this is why many not-so-social women adapt better, in schools and colleges". Completely different. Like I said, you should not necessarily apply the findings in the autism spectrum to the normal state.

I have not assumed any of your opinions with one exception, which I was open about

I was trying to avoid the word autism. Now it is our, right?

 

[Arkteia]

I take HUGE exception to your statement that HRC would have looked like someone on the autism spectrum if she were a man. She looks nothing like someone with ASD--and I say that as someone who diagnoses ASD. If you want to make a point about HRC being not "cool" enough that's fine, but please don't try to use research on autism to prove a point that has nothing to do with autism.

I don't know. I tried closing my eyes and listening to her. The cadence of the voice.
Then I thought, maybe I see the result of her fall, treatment... She is not young. And pulled out this interview. Hillary is younger here and the cadence is somewhat different, but one thing... She was always boring onscreen. The interview itself is more interesting than all debates because it shows her intelligence.

Mind you, I am not diagnosing anyone. There is a good term - Aspiegirl. It is not autism per se, probably gathers all women who fly under the radar. And it does not interfere with life, nor with histrionic abilities per se, but TV is a horrible tool. It is the spontaneity factor. I am just trying to prove a point, that she never had this "something" that propels people to presidency. Bill had it - enough for five people.

P.S. Being a planner, perhaps, works very well for a President. She was coming with a plan. To get there is another thing. And for 2020, whoever the Dems nominate, has to have both - TV presence and plans.

 

[monarch64]

Question based on total ignorance and a few dealings with women who declared themselves Aspies or high-functioning autistic: how is it possible for someone on the spectrum to make a career of politics with all the socializing and human interaction it entails? One Aspie told me she just doesn't understand humor. Maybe that's Clinton, dunno.

DJTs mental health/personality has been questioned here, too, so I can't get too frustrated about this being brought up about HRC.

 

[lovedogs]

Question based on total ignorance and a few dealings with women who declared themselves Aspies or high-functioning autistic: how is it possible for someone on the spectrum to make a career of politics with all the socializing and human interaction it entails? One Aspie told me she just doesn't understand humor. Maybe that's Clinton, dunno.

DJTs mental health/personality has been questioned here, too, so I can't get too frustrated about this being brought up about HRC.

It would be incredibly difficult for someone on the autism spectrum to have a career in politics. Because so much of the communication is nuanced and/or nonverbal. That's my issue with this entire conversation--its just not accurate. Socially awkward isn't autism.

 

[Arkteia]

Question based on total ignorance and a few dealings with women who declared themselves Aspies or high-functioning autistic: how is it possible for someone on the spectrum to make a career of politics with all the socializing and human interaction it entails? One Aspie told me she just doesn't understand humor. Maybe that's Clinton, dunno.

DJTs mental health/personality has been questioned here, too, so I can't get too frustrated about this being brought up about HRC.

Hillary did not start with the career in politics. She started as the lawyer. And perhaps her good memory, good speech, her logic and planning abilities worked well in courtroom. I suspect (not sure - I am not a lawyer) that modern law requires less of Ciceros and more perfectionistic pragmatics, but again, I am not a lawyer.

Hillary's husband was a politician, and man, can Bill speak! I almost cry listening to him. She entered the politics as the outstanding wife of this young, talented presidential candidates, a person of her own, with her own last name. She stayed in politics.

Hillary, by accounts of people close to her, is totally different in small groups, she has dry sense of humor, and she is empathic (something I have seen with most Aspies, empathy and strong sense of social justice - it does not project onto a big screen or gets lost in a big group, though). Children were always here big cause. And I can imagine that as the Senator who meets with constituents in small groups, she was perfect and was able to project these qualities.

But another passage I have read in this book, "Shattered", mentioned Hillary not being naturally intuitive about people. This leading to relying on old friends and not trusting other people, even within her campaign. That created a lot of rivalry within the campaign, between groups. And she perhaps relied on Mook too much. They had "optics", and the numbers, but lost the feeling.

(Humor helps in any job. I envy a colleague who has this mild, soft, natural humor, but one can survive without it, either. In any field).

About DJT- my problem is, ever since his divorce with Ivana I viewed him as a bombastic buffoon and never took seriously. Hillary I like, Hillary I followed, Hillary I paid attention too. This guy I could not stand. So i really don't know what to say.

But maybe, to see what is happening to him, we have to view his interviews dating back to 80es, 90es, even early 2000es, and watch with what he says now? And compare the notes?

 

[Arkteia]

It would be incredibly difficult for someone on the autism spectrum to have a career in politics. Because so much of the communication is nuanced and/or nonverbal. That's my issue with this entire conversation--its just not accurate. Socially awkward isn't autism.

Used to not be. When we had DSM IV. We had PDD NOS, Asperger's and autism. Now, owing to the creators of DSM V, it is all autism. I hope that in DSM VI it will all fall apart, into genetic syndromes, but now we are dealing with an incredibly heterogeneous group.

 

[lovedogs]

Used to not be. When we had DSM IV. We had PDD NOS, Asperger's and autism. Now, owing to the creators of DSM V, it is all autism. I hope that in DSM VI it will all fall apart, into genetic syndromes, but now we are dealing with an incredibly heterogeneous group.

What used not to be? I'm not clear on what you are referring to. Even with DSM IV social awkwardness isn't autism.