T Nation

Is Obama Clinically Psychotic?


I used to think Obama was just an egomaniac and a pathological liar. But examining his behaviour and personality I can’t help but to conclude that he is a fully fledged psychopath. He fits all the criteria to a tee.

Robert Hare’s psychopathology checklist:

Glib and superficial charm

Grandiose self worth

Pathological lying

Conning and manipulative

Lack of remorse or guilt

Parasitic lifestyle

Irresponsibility

Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Juvenile delinquency

Poor judgement and inability to learn from mistakes

Lack of any true insight; inability to see oneself as others do

Does anyone else agree with this? I’m not trying to be controversial. Psychopathy is actually pretty common. Especially in high power jobs.

I see what you’re getting at, why not annotate that list with examples?

The meaning behind Obama’s ‘ums’ and ‘uhs’:

'A recent paper from Cornell University found that psychopaths have a unique, discernible writing and speaking pattern.

Psychopaths (relative to their counterparts) included more rational cause-and-effect descriptors (e.g., ?because?, ?since?), focused on material needs (food, drink, money), and contained fewer references to social needs (family, religion/spirituality). Psychopaths? speech contained a higher frequency of disfluencies (?uh?, ?um?) indicating that describing such a powerful, ?emotional? event to another person was relatively difficult for them.

Further, psychopaths are more likely to use cause-and-effect words like ?because,? and are less likely to make mention of religion or family.’

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I see what you’re getting at, why not annotate that list with examples?[/quote]

Most of those points are things you observe and don’t lend themselves easily to written examples.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I see what you’re getting at, why not annotate that list with examples?[/quote]

Most of those points are things you observe and don’t lend themselves easily to written examples.[/quote]

I hear you, just thought it would help further the discussion.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

I think an analysis like this including examples/references/lnks would make for an interesting article, albeit long, to read.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The Obama Lie That Was So Bad the Washington Post Said, ‘On Just About Every Level, This Claim is Ridiculous’

He has to go extreme Push, the love for Democrats is not exactly flowing here.

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I see what you’re getting at, why not annotate that list with examples?[/quote]

Most of those points are things you observe and don’t lend themselves easily to written examples.[/quote]

I hear you, just thought it would help further the discussion.[/quote]

Just off the top of my head:

Obama was abandoned by his father as a child and later by his mother. Abandonment/abuse are common childhood backgrounds of psychopaths.

By his own admission he was so drug addled he doesn’t remember large sections of his high schooling.

In his first autobiography his ex-girlfriends are rewritten into a composite character and a fictitious anecdote is created. This in line with the psychopath’s lack of empathy and truthfulness and seeing others as merely means to fulfil their own desires/ambitions.

Obama’s narcissism is regularly on full display - “we are the change we’ve been waiting for.” “You didn’t build that” business. Obama is the saviour - he will bring about fundamental change.

Pathological lying - numerous examples.

Nothing is ever Obama’s fault. It was Bush. It’s intransigent Republicans. Obama will never compromise or negotiate.

Being psychotic and being a psychopat are two very different diagnoses.
It would take an incredible effort for a psychopath to pretend to care enough about people to get enough of a following to become president. I think the correct diagnosis is “Politician”.

[quote]espenl wrote:
Being psychotic and being a psychopat are two very different diagnoses.
It would take an incredible effort for a psychopath to pretend to care enough about people to get enough of a following to become president. I think the correct diagnosis is “Politician”.[/quote]

Nonsense. Psychopaths are masters at imitating emotions and manipulating others. The OSS psychological profile of Hitler came to the conclusion that he was a psychopath. Psychological profiles of Stalin and Nicolae Ceausescu have come to the same conclusion about them.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
Being psychotic and being a psychopat are two very different diagnoses.
It would take an incredible effort for a psychopath to pretend to care enough about people to get enough of a following to become president. I think the correct diagnosis is “Politician”.[/quote]

Nonsense. Psychopaths are masters at imitating emotions and manipulating others. The OSS psychological profile of Hitler came to the conclusion that he was a psychopath. Psychological profiles of Stalin and Nicolae Ceausescu have come to the same conclusion about them. [/quote]

So, Obama is like Hitler and Stalin? Got it.

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
Being psychotic and being a psychopat are two very different diagnoses.
It would take an incredible effort for a psychopath to pretend to care enough about people to get enough of a following to become president. I think the correct diagnosis is “Politician”.[/quote]

Nonsense. Psychopaths are masters at imitating emotions and manipulating others. The OSS psychological profile of Hitler came to the conclusion that he was a psychopath. Psychological profiles of Stalin and Nicolae Ceausescu have come to the same conclusion about them. [/quote]

So, Obama is like Hitler and Stalin? Got it.
[/quote]

Did I say that? Espenl made an erroneous assertion: that a psychopath could not pretend to care about others. I then gave examples of psychopaths who did fool populations into thinking they cared about them. This is clearly evident from my post so I can only assume you are deliberately twisting my words.

I’m sure that if you spent as much effort trying to prove Clinton or Bush were psychopaths you would find the same.

Your just obsessed with using your reasoning to justify your simple notions young padasith. Must study the ways of the darkside moar.

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I’m sure that if you spent as much effort trying to prove Clinton or Bush were psychopaths you would find the same.

Your just obsessed with using your reasoning to justify your simple notions young padasith. Must study the ways of the darkside moar. [/quote]

Not really. Although Clinton is a pervert.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I’m sure that if you spent as much effort trying to prove Clinton or Bush were psychopaths you would find the same.

Your just obsessed with using your reasoning to justify your simple notions young padasith. Must study the ways of the darkside moar. [/quote]

Not really. Although Clinton is a pervert.[/quote]

No, really. If you put in the same time and were as critical of Bush or Clinton you would say the same about them. You just cant because of your weird biases.

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I’m sure that if you spent as much effort trying to prove Clinton or Bush were psychopaths you would find the same.

Your just obsessed with using your reasoning to justify your simple notions young padasith. Must study the ways of the darkside moar. [/quote]

Not really. Although Clinton is a pervert.[/quote]

No, really. If you put in the same time and were as critical of Bush or Clinton you would say the same about them. You just cant because of your weird biases. [/quote]

For real. The Clintons had a trail of bodies leading to the gates of the white house and Bill looked straight into the camera on national television and said “I did not have sex with that woman” which later was proven to be probably the most bold faced lie in the history of television.

I think Bush actually and truly is a people person. I’d watched a bunch of his weekly press conferences from the rose garden and he really did seem to enjoy interacting with people, and had a great rapport with some of the reporters.

I’m not going to accuse Bush of being a pscyho. But it seems like he and his people fabricated stories about WMD’s in Iraq during a time when the nation was staggered by 9/11 and hungry to take action.

I’m not going to go so far as to say he did it to avenge the attempt on his father, but the reasons they gave us turned out to be fabrications. I have a strong bias against Bush, I blame him for some friends I lost. But I think he was as deceptive as any recent presidents.

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I’m sure that if you spent as much effort trying to prove Clinton or Bush were psychopaths you would find the same.

Your just obsessed with using your reasoning to justify your simple notions young padasith. Must study the ways of the darkside moar. [/quote]

Not really. Although Clinton is a pervert.[/quote]

No, really. If you put in the same time and were as critical of Bush or Clinton you would say the same about them. You just cant because of your weird biases. [/quote]

Clinton applauded the repeal of DOMA, the very legislation he signed into law. And Liberals clapped their soy-latte drinkin’ asses off.

He also signed the legislation to undo Glass-Steagall Act, which let those evil banks run wild.

Romney mentions binders of women, but Slick Willy gets blown by an intern in the Oral Office, yet the former gets persecuted for hating women.

There isn’t much anyone can do about someone’s bias, but there certainly is some there there.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
Being psychotic and being a psychopat are two very different diagnoses.
It would take an incredible effort for a psychopath to pretend to care enough about people to get enough of a following to become president. I think the correct diagnosis is “Politician”.[/quote]

Nonsense. Psychopaths are masters at imitating emotions and manipulating others. The OSS psychological profile of Hitler came to the conclusion that he was a psychopath. Psychological profiles of Stalin and Nicolae Ceausescu have come to the same conclusion about them. [/quote]

Are you referring to Murray’s or Langer’s report? Either way, the diagnosis for Hitler from them was grim, to say the least. And prescient. It’q quite the read.

Both Murray and Langer were well-respected pioneers of psychological profiling. Where are the detailed reports with similar diagnoses and from similarly-respected psychologists regarding Obama?

I suspect you haven’t read the report itself. Otherwise, you wouldn’t hide behind the chickenshit excuse that examples of Obama’s pathology don’t lend themselves well to written descriptions. They certainly did for Murray and Langer regarding Hitler. There’s all sorts of examples of Hitler’s behaviors and the psychosis that might have been underscored by such behavior.

Where is it with Obama? You must be well-versed in psychology if you feel confident in making a diagnosis without ever interviewing the subject or any of his associates. If you are that well-versed in psychology, then providing examples of Obama’s behavior that might explain specific aspects of his assumed pathology shouldn’t be an issue at all for you.

Or is it possible that you are simply talking out of your ass about a subject you know very little about? That would be a shame because I’d love to continue the discussion with you, since political psychological profiles happens to be an area of particular interest to me and is what I spent a large amount of time studying while earning my history and political science degrees.