The Capricious Non partisan Government Arbitrary Action thread.

AZ_ said:

Because as @Huber. would say, criminals will find a way to break the law.

Click to expand...

No, that's not what he said. He said criminals won't refrain from doing something simply because it is illegal. But we should still take measures to make it more difficult to commit a particular crime.

That's why you're asked for an ID before they'll let you cash a check. A criminal might have zero qualms with lying about their identify to cash your check. But if they don't have your ID at all, that's a different story.

King Stannis said:

The Dx has been discussed. Our resident experts agree.

As for other politicians, there are probably a small number of US Congressmen and governors that have genuine NPD.

Click to expand...

In a highly partisan atmosphere, the man who won the Presidency has been diagnosed with NPD by some of his political opponents on the internet.
And he happens to be the only politician in the county that they have ever diagnosed with this condition.
Sounds reasonable. LOL.

Interesting story here....

WASHINGTON (AP) — Raised voices could be heard through the thick door to the Oval Office as John Kelly — then secretary of Homeland Security — offered some tough talk to President Donald Trump.

Kelly, a whip-cracking retired general who was sworn in as White House chief of staff on Monday, had demanded to speak to the president alone after Trump complained loudly that the U.S. was admitting travelers from countries he viewed as high risk.

Kelly first tried to explain to Trump that the admissions were standard — some people had legitimate reasons to visit the country — but the president insisted that it was making him look bad, according to an administration official familiar with the exchange about a month ago.

Kelly then demanded that other advisers leave the room so he could speak to the president frankly. Trump refused at first, but agreed when Kelly insisted.

It was an early indication that Kelly, a decorated retired Marine general who served three tours in Iraq, is not afraid to stand up to his commander-in-chief....

https://apnews.com/290dfd4f9e364a29...uscle-his-first-day-on-the-job-at-White-House

There are a couple of interesting thing about this. The most obvious one is Kelly being willing to speak very directly to a pretty volatile President, while serving as his subordinate. I can say that Kelly actually pushed his own subordinates to speak frankly to him as well, and from what I heard, that never changed.

The more interesting thing about this is here is a guy who stood up to Trump on an issue with "raised voices" -- though having the presence of mind to close the door and have the talk in private -- yet Trump promoted him. That doesn't seem characteristic of what many expect of Trump. That raises the question of why that pairing has worked at all to this point (including Kelly's six months at DHS), because being challenged is not something someone with NPD generally tolerates, much less rewards.

One thing is that Kelly is pretty conservative himself, and so likely shares Trump's views on a lot of substantive issues. The conversations are less likely to be "I disagree with what you're trying to do", but more "I don't think this is the best way to accomplish what you want to accomplish." The latter is much easier to accept than the former, and is more likely to be something that is sustainable. I'm sure he would be upfront about major policy disagreements as well, but there aren't as likely to be a huge number of those. Not on issue where Kelly really feels a key principle is at stake, anyway.

Probably a secondary thing is Kelly's own personality -- he's extremely unflashy, and it is never "about him". It's always about the mission. He's got an UnNarcissistic Personality, which makes it unlikely that Trump will ever feel disrespected or condescended to even where there is disagreement. So I think there is a pretty good chance this pairing might actually work.

ETA: I'm not saying that I agree with the whole "NPD" thing, either. I'm simply saying that for those who do, there may be reasons why this works.

Loved this opinion article directed at the Progressives who embrace hate:

King Stannis said:

• Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment from others

• Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.

• Self-perception of being unique, superior and associated with high-status people and institutions

• Needing constant admiration from others

• Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others

• Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain

• Unwilling to empathize with others' feelings, wishes, or needs

• Intensely envious of others and the belief that others are equally envious of them

• Pompous and arrogant demeanor

Click to expand...

Most of these could be assigned to almost every movie star, TV Celeb, high level politician, sports star, top model, titan of industry, successful musician or TV preacher that ever lived.
Claiming one's political opponents have serious mental disorders is especially deplorable partisan rhetoric imo.

Whittaker said:

Most of these could be assigned to almost every movie star, TV Celeb, high level politician, sports star, top model, titan of industry, successful musician or TV preacher that ever lived.
Claiming one's political opponents have serious mental disorders is especially deplorable partisan rhetoric imo.

Click to expand...

So is generalizing Hollywood, but I digress.

But also, you're wrong. Well, except for those who have NPD, which odds would likely tell us there are a few.

Whittaker said:

Most of these could be assigned to almost every movie star, TV Celeb, high level politician, sports star, top model, titan of industry, successful musician or TV preacher that ever lived.
Claiming one's political opponents have serious mental disorders is especially deplorable partisan rhetoric imo.

Click to expand...

You really don't diagnose people without examining them personally. Professionals really don't do it for many reasons.

The Human Q-Tip said:

I don't think General Kelly would care. He's the guy who pushed for the relief of another senior officer knowing that it would create some very awkward social blowback among a relatively small ground officer corps. He'll just do what he thinks is right, and not worry about the consequences. He'll sleep just fine at night if Trump boots him.

My point is that it may be Trump who has boxed in himself. For many, this is being viewed as perhaps his last big chance to bring some order to his Administration.

Sure, he's got a core group of supporters who will stick with him no matter what. But in terms of other elected Republicans, most have stayed with him until now. If he fires Kelly or he quits, a large chunk of those Republicans are going to consider him unsalvageable.

In other words, if Kelly leaves, his problems are over. But Trump's are likely to get much worse.

Click to expand...

Speaking of GEN Kelly:

Mattis And Kelly Made A Secret Pact To Babysit Trump

You know you’re living in unusual times when the sanest person in the executive branch of the U.S. government is nicknamed “Chaos.”

That’s the primary takeaway from an Associated Press curtain-raiser on retired Marine Gen. John Kelly’s ascension to the rank of White House chief of staff. While the executive role traditionally considered gatekeeper to the commander-in-chief and the constitutional authority he wields, the AP hints at a different dynamic in the Oval Office:

[Secretary of Defense James] Mattis and Kelly also agreed in the earliest weeks of Trump’s presidency that one of them should remain in the United States at all times to keep tabs on the orders rapidly emerging from the White House, according to a person familiar with the discussions. The official insisted on anonymity in order to discuss the administration’s internal dynamics.

“Orders rapidly emerging from the White House” is a delightful euphemism for the president’s tendency to rule by decree tweet, a habit that has roiled a Department of Defense scrambling to interpret whether Trump’s unpredictable digital broadsides are, say, a signal of imminent attack on North Korea or something slightly more innocuous. Republican lawmakers who spoke to the AP are praying that Kelly, a retired four-star general known for his disciplinarian streak, will “forcefully clean the place up.”

Axing foul-mouthed White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci less than two weeks into the job is certainly a good start for Kelly in terms of ending the turmoil that’s plagued the executive branch since Trump’s inauguration, but the AP story indicates that Mattis and Kelly — who, it’s worth noting, recommended each other for Secretary of Defense in the weeks after Election Day — have been actively working to reign in Trump’s more quixotic impulses since his inaugural. Together with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford — another Marine general and reportedly one of Kelly’s closest friends — they form a troika of Marine Corps discipline around an Oval Office brimming with chaos.

This is far from, you know, a military coup: Trump’s prerogative has been to surround himself with the most generals since the end of World War II. And though observers of the imperial executive may cringe at the idea of an elected commander-in-chief vesting an unelected Cabinet official with constitutional decision-making authority as Trump did with Mattis and Afghan troop levels, a filter of generals seems like a more palatable option to realpolitik by tweet. That said, there’s one more element of the AP story that really stands out: the date. Aug. 1 marks 5,777 days since the start of the War in Afghanistan, but more importantly, it marks the 31st anniversary of the publication of The Baby-Sitters Club — and something tells me it’s Mattis’s secret favorite.


http://taskandpurpose.com/john-kelly-mattis-trump-babysit/

I wish Obama had seen fit to appoint anyone half as good as either of those two in the first place.

The Human Q-Tip said:

I wish Obama had seen fit to appoint anyone half as good as either of those two in the first place.

Click to expand...

Petraeus seemed like a good idea at the time.

Who knew he couldn't keep his dick or secrets in his pants?

Chief of staffs typically last a year and half.

it is disposable position.

it will be interesting to see who Trump appoints to replace Kelly at Homeland Security.

I am guessing someone not so soft on foreigners

Tornicade said:

Chief of staffs typically last a year and half.

it is disposable position.

it will be interesting to see who Trump appoints to replace Kelly at Homeland Security.

I am guessing someone not so soft on foreigners

Click to expand...

Perhaps another general.

King Stannis said:

Petraeus seemed like a good idea at the time.

Who knew he couldn't keep his dick or secrets in his pants?

Click to expand...

True enough, although Petraeus wasn't appointed until 2011.

I just think the "baby-sitters" spin is a cheap shot. The writer could just as accurately have characterized their actions wanting to ensure that one of the other were available in case the President sought and needed military advice. Same thing,except without the demeaning undertone.

Does the John Kelly era involve more Stephen Miller press briefings?

Because that's likely his first horrendous move as new Chief of Staff.

Music to @The Human Q-Tip's ear.

Kelly had taken a role as Trump's babysitter to try and stop him from basically being himself, it seems.

How long until Trump gets tired of the shadow this is casting on him?