Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

More whining and excuses from sore loser HRC.

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

Probably end of the spectrum, PDD NOS. With DSM IV, autism collected most severe cases. And there was never the diagnosis of "social awkwardness".

BTW, Lovedogs, you might be totally right, and I might be 100% wrong. It is merely something that TV and large crowds pull out. TV is unmerciful to novices. Hillary merely opened herself to discussions of what went wrong with her new book. To me, it was surprising how she could not leave Trump in dust and bleeding during these TV debates. But come to think of it, no one could.

Because if even these episodes do not surprise his electorate...

 
Last edited:
Arkteia said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Of course mental issues and personality characteristics impact one's ability to serve as president, or any job for that matter. How could they not? And "psychologists believe"? I thought there were some professional ethical standards that forbid the psychoanalyzing of living public figures, first, and trying to apply modern mental health "diagnoses" to long dead people seems more than a little pointless. Unless of course, the point is to show that virtually everyone has a mental illness.

About The Great Cheeto - there is enough recorded and easily accessible info going way back now, about him for anyone to take the solely descriptive diagnosis of NPD, and take a stab at it. Anyone who has had a true narcissist in the family can see too many of the signs. (This topic was discussed at length back before the election) But whether you see it as an illness ala something beyond his control, or a personality quirk - whatever - TGC is utterly unsuited to be a president, which requires tact, ability to read people, and the ability to make the personal connections involving trust and empathy - which he lacks utterly, that are the primary tools for getting things done.

As for Lincoln, any psychologist who attempts to cast him as autistic (of any flavor) is woefully ignorant of his history. Deloris Kearns Goodwin, who wrote "Team of Rivals", admits that before diving into her research for the book, even she had this idea that Lincoln must have been a depressed individual, showing how just looking at the surface is dangerous. She discovered from her research into the copious letters and written accounts of his contemporaries, that he was not only actually naturally cheerful and funny (aside from the horrible burden of the war and personal loss, which would have crushed a less stalwart soul), he was also able to read people like nobody's business. His contemporaries - even his political rivals - were, in time, in awe of this ability. So my question would be, who psychologists, and what sources were they using, to come to their "diagnosis"? And again, he's long dead. What's the point? There is truly no man less mysterious than Lincoln, at last count there were some 15,000 books written about him, the claim being more books written about him than anyone in history, except Jesus. I can believe it.
 
We all have innate personality. My sons for example, one is very outgoing the other introverted, Mr introvert is MUCH MUCH MUCH better at public speaking Mr outgoing has inner demons. They both are in the same profession, I see Mr. Introvert as getting ahead much faster.. YET he speaks much less.

Hillary Clinton is a product of 1947. She had an extremely stern and stick father, prone to spanking.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/...ation-from-a-tough-combative-father.html?_r=1

You cannot judge her on her personality as she was taught to be strong, silent and get ahead. You have to view her from where she came from AND her innate personality.

She isn't autistic etc. She is reserved and found it to be a good way to be.

She isn't what Russian hackers and younger people think. But that is the way it goes.
 
monarch64 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What we see is arm-chair psychologizing and wishful thinking. Hillary Clinton isn't comfortable in front of the cameras or large crowds -- most people wouldn't be. She's also reserved and wary -- that's the natural response after more than 20 years of being attacked and investigated by the opposing party over every little thing you say or do. I think it's weird for someone to be under hostile scrutiny for that long and still remain open and happy-go-lucky.

Check out The NY Times' story on HRC and the women she met early in their political careers. Also interesting tidbit re Bill Clinton: https://nyti.ms/2iqiVSr
Clearly HRC is a strategizer and planner. She's not the big personality and never pretended to be (how's that for "being real"? But apparently she doesn't get credit for being that kind of "real").
 
My background is in experimental psychology, but I know it is a risky business to diagnosis anyone without doing a clinical interview. Especially long dead people. This is the first I have heard that psychologists believe Lincoln had "autism". I have read a lot about him, and while there is evidence that he suffered from a few depressive episodes (not that he didn't have reason to!) I really think any kind of autism or spectrum diagnosis of Lincoln is completely off-base, and is contrary to how he was as a person. He was supremely good at dealing with other people. He had insight into himself and into other people's thoughts and sentiments and were able to put those ideas and sentiments into words. He was very good at one at one talking to someone and either encouraging and motivating them, or putting them in their place. He does strike me as an extremely intelligent person, and people like that, may seem remote and have to work to speak at the common level (which he was also able to do). As far as Hillary having an autism diagnosis, reports are that she is warm in-person (though maybe not to those she sees as enemies : )). I had a boss who was from the same era, and her persona was the same, that she felt to compete in a man's world you have to be better and tougher than a man, and come off the same way. Younger generation of women feel they can be both competitive with men AND feminine at the same time (in both appearance, thought and speech) but that's not what those generation of highly successful females believed.
 
ksinger said:
Of course mental issues and personality characteristics impact one's ability to serve as president, or any job for that matter. How could they not? And "psychologists believe"? I thought there were some professional ethical standards that forbid the psychoanalyzing of living public figures, first, and trying to apply modern mental health "diagnoses" to long dead people seems more than a little pointless. Unless of course, the point is to show that virtually everyone has a mental illness.

About The Great Cheeto - there is enough recorded and easily accessible info going way back now, about him for anyone to take the solely descriptive diagnosis of NPD, and take a stab at it. Anyone who has had a true narcissist in the family can see too many of the signs. (This topic was discussed at length back before the election) But whether you see it as an illness ala something beyond his control, or a personality quirk - whatever - TGC is utterly unsuited to be a president, which requires tact, ability to read people, and the ability to make the personal connections involving trust and empathy - which he lacks utterly, that are the primary tools for getting things done.

As for Lincoln, any psychologist who attempts to cast him as autistic (of any flavor) is woefully ignorant of his history. Deloris Kearns Goodwin, who wrote "Team of Rivals", admits that before diving into her research for the book, even she had this idea that Lincoln must have been a depressed individual, showing how just looking at the surface is dangerous. She discovered from her research into the copious letters and written accounts of his contemporaries, that he was not only actually naturally cheerful and funny (aside from the horrible burden of the war and personal loss, which would have crushed a less stalwart soul), he was also able to read people like nobody's business. His contemporaries - even his political rivals - were, in time, in awe of this ability. So my question would be, who psychologists, and what sources were they using, to come to their "diagnosis"? And again, he's long dead. What's the point? There is truly no man less mysterious than Lincoln, at last count there were some 15,000 books written about him, the claim being more books written about him than anyone in history, except Jesus. I can believe it.
Click to expand...

The Goldwater rule, I think, applies to presidential candidates. Maybe to the presidents. But Hillary is neither. And she wrote a book, about what went wrong. So she opened herself to all speculations. All I can say, I am shocked at how many people disliked her. And I am trying to find my answers.

I agree that it is unfair that there is so little information about Trump - even his "perfect health" letter sounds bogey. And at the same time, the info about Hillary's health is open - well, almost.

About Trump's NPD - I think it is just beginning to scratch anything. What shocked me about Trump, Ivana, Melania and all his family was the amount of lawsuits they initiated. Even this is not normal. And I believe "unfit to rule" is a good term.

I have read at least two books about Lincoln, both in the 90es. I probably should read something new.
 
partgypsy said:
My background is in experimental psychology, but I know it is a risky business to diagnosis anyone without doing a clinical interview. Especially long dead people. This is the first I have heard that psychologists believe Lincoln had "autism". I have read a lot about him, and while there is evidence that he suffered from a few depressive episodes (not that he didn't have reason to!) I really think any kind of autism or spectrum diagnosis of Lincoln is completely off-base, and is contrary to how he was as a person. He was supremely good at dealing with other people. He had insight into himself and into other people's thoughts and sentiments and were able to put those ideas and sentiments into words. He was very good at one at one talking to someone and either encouraging and motivating them, or putting them in their place. He does strike me as an extremely intelligent person, and people like that, may seem remote and have to work to speak at the common level (which he was also able to do). As far as Hillary having an autism diagnosis, reports are that she is warm in-person (though maybe not to those she sees as enemies : )). I had a boss who was from the same era, and her persona was the same, that she felt to compete in a man's world you have to be better and tougher than a man, and come off the same way. Younger generation of women feel they can be both competitive with men AND feminine at the same time (in both appearance, thought and speech) but that's not what those generation of highly successful females believed.
Click to expand...

Not commenting on Lincoln, but in the old generation there were extremely charming female leaders, for example, Geraldine Ferraro. With great on-screen personas.
 
Arkteia said:
Not commenting on Lincoln, but in the old generation there were extremely charming female leaders, for example, Geraldine Ferraro. With great on-screen personas.
Click to expand...
I should say, not all female leaders are like that. But there does to be that "strain" in the have to be tougher, better than a man to be taken seriously, in the baby boomer type generation. Wasn't necessarily true before or afterwards. I also really admire Elizabeth Warren in that she can be tough, but also has a warm gracious appeal. Hillary comes off more as a technocrat, good at her job, but not exactly warm in that same way.
 
Hi,

I think candidates first and foremost must be likable. They don't have to share the same personality traits or demeanor to win the election; some can be more outgoing, others less outgoing. People liked several things about DJT. He took an issue of illegal immigrants and made it the center of his candidacy along with foreigners taking US jobs abroad.(again to foreigners). He attacked the media, which has been criticized by many people as not being accurate and too liberal. And he disparaged the liberal left for their "political correctness", and vowed to change the ability of the right to say what they want, that is freedom of speech for all. All in all those ideas hit a chord with many Americans.

Hillary has become jaded and defensive from years of attack for big and small things. She was not a good candidate. She already had lost to Obama. Actually Hillary has been damaged by Washington, IMO, and frankly I cannot see why she wanted or needed to put herself forward to take more abuse. I have made this point before, but Bill Clinton is the person I see that caused her the election. If Bill hadn't made his miscalculation to greet the AG, Comey would not have made his speech and the Ag would have made the decisions, as required by protocol. Thus no Jim Comey mess.

I like Janet Yellen, the Federal Reserve chairman.. Likable, careful. thoughtful and respected. I'll take the more reserved Janet Yellen over Elizabeth Warren , who is likable , but more of a socialist than I would like. We have women out there that are better candidates. And I do believe men will vote for them if they are good candidates. I don't cry over Hillary. I did my part.

Annette
 
@smitcompton nice to see you here again.

I am not sure I agree about what cost Clinton the election, as I have said Nate Silver said Comey. I think Clinton was highly qualified as the had been a secretary of state and a senator, and very political. Yellen has never run for a political office (that I can remember), she's older than Clinton, I don't see her as a starter, she's an economist, brilliant, she reminds me of Clinton as she is very quiet and reserved. (another boomer woman). Elizabeth Warren is okay, but I like Kamela Harris.
 
I've been debating whether to say this here, on Pricescope. But impulse has won out and here I am.

I think HRC lost because she's not ****able. I think DJT won because he's a dude who once was, and kind of still is (mainly due to his fortune) ****able. I don't care if anyone agrees with me, but I think in the very basic, simplest terms of humanity, this is what's what. And...sad, but true.
 
monarch64 said:
I've been debating whether to say this here, on Pricescope. But impulse has won out and here I am.

I think HRC lost because she's not ****able. I think DJT won because he's a dude who once was, and kind of still is (mainly due to his fortune) ****able. I don't care if anyone agrees with me, but I think in the very basic, simplest terms of humanity, this is what's what. And...sad, but true.
Click to expand...

98% agree, but here is my question. An older woman like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has some spark in her, and very obvious intelligence... not ****able per your definition, but still a bright, lively personality... would she have a chance?
 
partgypsy said:
I should say, not all female leaders are like that. But there does to be that "strain" in the have to be tougher, better than a man to be taken seriously, in the baby boomer type generation. Wasn't necessarily true before or afterwards. I also really admire Elizabeth Warren in that she can be tough, but also has a warm gracious appeal. Hillary comes off more as a technocrat, good at her job, but not exactly warm in that same way.
Click to expand...

Warren is an amazing orator, Warren is passionate, Warren is very honest with own taxes, and Warren would have given a huge thrashing to Trump during the debates. I do not know if she would have won, but I would pay a lot to watch Warren-Trump debates. And it is very sad that Elizabeth Warren did not attempt to run in 2016.

P.S. I wrote it all and remembered one moment. One of my family members saying during the GOPs primaries that it would be better if Trump were nominated because he was a joke and had no chance against Hillary.

How blind we all were...
 
Here's an interesting article from The Guardian:
Why Hillary Clinton was right about white women – and their husbands
Some excerpts:
...Last week, Clinton, who has had a lifetime to contemplate the women’s vote, copped to having a theory. “[Women] will be under tremendous pressure – and I’m talking principally about white women. They will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl’,” she said in an interview as part of a tour promoting her new memoir of the 2016 campaign.

People might scoff at the idea that women vote based on what husbands and fathers tell them to do. And tens of millions of dollars in political messaging has been spent based on the assumption that women will vote collectively on equal pay, abortion, and other salient issues regarding women’s autonomy.

But social science backs up Clinton’s anecdotal hunch. “We think she was right in her analysis about women getting pressure from men in their lives, specifically [straight] white women,” said Kelsy Kretschmer, an assistant professor at Oregon State University and a co-author of a recent study examining women’s voting patterns...​


...The key distinction, according to Kretschmer’s research, is that single women tend to cast votes with the fate of all women in mind, while women married to men vote on behalf of their husbands and families (the study was based on a poll of straight women conducted in 2012, before same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide, and draws no conclusions about marriages where neither partner is a man)...


...“Racial groups have really strong collective identity bonds, so it wasn’t surprising that when they had a black candidate to vote for, they experienced really high turnout,” said Kretschmer. “For women, one of the interesting things is they consistently lack social identity bonds.”...
​
 
Ha. I have one guy friend in particular who needs to read this. Thanks!
 
monarch64 said:
I've been debating whether to say this here, on Pricescope. But impulse has won out and here I am.

I think HRC lost because she's not ****able. I think DJT won because he's a dude who once was, and kind of still is (mainly due to his fortune) ****able. I don't care if anyone agrees with me, but I think in the very basic, simplest terms of humanity, this is what's what. And...sad, but true.
Click to expand...


Ewww. No I can't agree if the word in asterisks starts with an F. I have standards. ;)2
 
Let's hope we won't hear "Elizabeth Warren was a terrible candidate" anytime soon, but, rest assured, the right wing are working on it. From The Cut:
Elizabeth Warren Is Getting Hillary-ed
The elite, ambitious candidate, saying one thing on the stump but another to wealthy donors, willing to cede big dreams for incremental, pragmatic fixes … You recognize her, right? Of course you do. She’s Massachusetts Senator and progressive firebrand Elizabeth Warren, who in the past few weeks has co-sponsored Bernie Sanders’s new Medicare for All bill, introduced a bill to preempt state right-to-work laws, prepared to take on leaders of Wells Fargo and Equifax on the Senate floor … and been hit with a blast of right-wing messaging and mainstream news coverage that feels positively uncanny.

The playbook that the right is running against Warren — seeding early criticism designed to weaken her from the left — is pretty ballsy, given that Warren has been a standard-bearer, the crusading, righteous politician who by many measures activated the American left in the years before Bernie Sanders mounted his presidential campaign. Warren is the candidate who many cited in 2016 as the anti-Clinton: the outspoken, uncompromisingly progressive woman they would have supported unreservedly had she only run. Yet now, as many hope and speculate that she might run in 2020, the right is investing in a story line about Warren that is practically indistinguishable from the one they peddled for years about Clinton. And even in these early days, some of that narrative is finding its way into mainstream coverage of Warren, and in lefty reactions to it.

It’s a literal investment, one that may mean that conservatives see Warren as among the most dangerous of their future presidential opposition. Last week, Politico reported on efforts by the right to obstruct plenty of potential Trump 2020 challengers, many of them up for reelection in 2018, including Ohio senator Sherrod Brown, New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar. But most notable was the $150,000 sunk by conservative hedge-fund billionaire and Breitbart benefactor Robert Mercer into a super-PAC called Massachusetts First, built specifically to target Warren ... [read more here]

The bolded is probably why HRC got the treatment for 20 years. Some of us fell for it.
 
Let's have a rematch b/t Trump and HRC in 2020..:mrgreen2:
 
I would like to see either a third party or the Dems clean up their act. I am not blind to the faults of the current political system and parties.
 
Trump must have done something wrong again. DF is posting shit about Hillary Clinton. :lol::lol::lol:
 
soxfan said:
Trump must have done something wrong again. DF is posting shit about Hillary Clinton. :lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...
HRC and the rest of the gang will be in a shit load of trouble after McCabe spill the beans to save his own hide.
 
hahaha! that was awesome and the truth! I mean seriously it's going on 2 years since Clinton ran. Who cares? she lost the electoral college, history will judge this whole catastrophe known as the Trump regime.

soxfan said:
Trump must have done something wrong again. DF is posting shit about Hillary Clinton. :lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...
 
HillaryCard.jpg
 
Last edited:
I guess Trunp won with a ‘whole lotta help’ too.
 
News said, he is still working there. He did nothing wrong. He took no actions.

Annet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top