Bill Trinen is the top-dog Japanese interpreter for Nintendo of America, as in he's the guy who handles interpreting Miyamoto. He doesn't have any real "power" which is why he's allowed to make those types of Tweets in the first place.
Edit: To make this post a little more thread-relevant, has anyone revealed what was talked about in the gaggle that started this whole thing?
I didn't realize it was available for viewing already. Man. That ad is not in the spirit of "please give us business." It's very much a political attack ad and I don't think Trump ever saw it before commenting on its existence.
Heh, meanwhile it got a few of my friends to subscribe right after viewing it, so it seems to be one more thing working for them despite the usual suspects' claims...
“I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy. That we need the media to hold people like me to account,” Bush told Matt Lauer, anchor of NBC’s “Today” show. “I mean, power can be very addictive and it can be corrosive, and it's important for the media to call to account people who abuse their power, whether it be here or elsewhere.”
“One of the things I spent a lot time doing was trying to convince a person like Vladimir Putin, for example, to accept the notion of an independent press,” Bush said. “And it's kind of hard to, you know, tell others to have an independent, free press when we're not willing to have one ourselves.”
On the other hand:
Despite his unwillingness to support Trump at the ballot box, Bush said Trump should be given a chance to act on his stated desire to bring the country together. The former president said his Republican successor faces a tougher media environment than he ever did.
“I think you have to take the man for his word that he wants to unify the country, and we’ll see whether he’s able to do so,” Bush said. “It's hard to unify the country with the news media being so split up. When I was president, you know, you mattered a lot more because there was like three of you and now there's all kinds of information being bombarded out and people can say things anonymously. It's just a different world.”
So while I'm tempted to like him, I'm not there yet.
Because they want to 'do the cyber better' or some shit. Also Trump still uses his personal phone, old and unsecure. Also I don't think they understand how leaks can happen.
Bush scores exactly the same amount of points for coming to the defense of the press with no actual action taken as McCain does when he makes noises of dissent but does nothing about it.
I think the thing about Spicer randomly taking phones is hilarious
what idiot would be leaking government information on their dang iphone.
Everyone watched the Wire, Sean, they know about burner phones they cost 30 bucks.
I'd bet almost every White House reporter carries a half dozen burner phones with pre-programmed numbers on them all the time and hand them out to staffers like candy. At least, I would.
Bush scores exactly the same amount of points for coming to the defense of the press with no actual action taken as McCain does when he makes noises of dissent but does nothing about it.
Zero.
What action can he take? He doesn't hold any office.
Because they want to 'do the cyber better' or some shit. Also Trump still uses his personal phone, old and unsecure. Also I don't think they understand how leaks can happen.
It's also illegal as fuck and circumvents laws about record keeping.
+6
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Bush scores exactly the same amount of points for coming to the defense of the press with no actual action taken as McCain does when he makes noises of dissent but does nothing about it.
Zero.
What action can he take? He doesn't hold any office.
Past presidents can use their clout to help garner support for things and help movements gain momentum. At minimum.
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Bush scores exactly the same amount of points for coming to the defense of the press with no actual action taken as McCain does when he makes noises of dissent but does nothing about it.
Zero.
What action can he take? He doesn't hold any office.
Past presidents can use their clout to help garner support for things and help movements gain momentum. At minimum.
...That would be talking to people. Which he just did.
Yea, like if only we had a very public scandal about failing to keep your government communications properly archived per protocol where even the complete lack of evidence of doing so was the basis for months of investigation and dozens of news stories.
Bush scores exactly the same amount of points for coming to the defense of the press with no actual action taken as McCain does when he makes noises of dissent but does nothing about it.
Zero.
What action can he take? He doesn't hold any office.
Past presidents can use their clout to help garner support for things and help movements gain momentum. At minimum.
...That would be talking to people. Which he just did.
Wake me up when he gets off his ass and starts going to protests. Or anything other than, "I disagree with him but give him a chance".
+4
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Bush scores exactly the same amount of points for coming to the defense of the press with no actual action taken as McCain does when he makes noises of dissent but does nothing about it.
Zero.
What action can he take? He doesn't hold any office.
Past presidents can use their clout to help garner support for things and help movements gain momentum. At minimum.
...That would be talking to people. Which he just did.
You're reacting as if I was disagreeing with what I just said and what you just said.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Bush scores exactly the same amount of points for coming to the defense of the press with no actual action taken as McCain does when he makes noises of dissent but does nothing about it.
Zero.
What action can he take? He doesn't hold any office.
Past presidents can use their clout to help garner support for things and help movements gain momentum. At minimum.
...That would be talking to people. Which he just did.
You're reacting as if I was disagreeing with what I just said and what you just said.
I believe the NYT ad is also on the DC metro ad screens. My train went by too quickly to get a photo; if I see them again this week I'll catch some for you guys.
Bush scores exactly the same amount of points for coming to the defense of the press with no actual action taken as McCain does when he makes noises of dissent but does nothing about it.
Zero.
What action can he take? He doesn't hold any office.
:stansmith: : The action that will save America.
0
Options
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
These days I alternate between wishing hunter s Thompson was around to do what he does and being glad he never lived to this.
+4
Options
Psychotic OneThe Lord of No PantsParts UnknownRegistered Userregular
These days I alternate between wishing hunter s Thompson was around to do what he does and being glad he never lived to this.
I can't even begin to imagine what his response to all this would have been. I imagine it somewhere between cartoonish rage and swearing to trying to start a rebellion.
Bush scores exactly the same amount of points for coming to the defense of the press with no actual action taken as McCain does when he makes noises of dissent but does nothing about it.
Zero.
What action can he take? He doesn't hold any office.
These days I alternate between wishing hunter s Thompson was around to do what he does and being glad he never lived to this.
I can't even begin to imagine what his response to all this would have been. I imagine it somewhere between cartoonish rage and swearing to trying to start a rebellion.
He already lived through Nixon's election and wrote a bunch of stuff on that. We already know what he'd say for the most part. The only question is how he'd frame "you did it again america".
Yea, like if only we had a very public scandal about failing to keep your government communications properly archived per protocol where even the complete lack of evidence of doing so was the basis for months of investigation and dozens of news stories.
No, surely Republicans would never want to impugn the integrity of a sitting president.
Bush scores exactly the same amount of points for coming to the defense of the press with no actual action taken as McCain does when he makes noises of dissent but does nothing about it.
Zero.
I'll go with with a somewhat different zero. During the opening days of the Iraq war there were multiple incidents of targeting of journalists: the Palestine Hotel, which was housing lots/most foreign journalists, and the offices of Arab stations, resulting in the death of multiple journalists. Largely excused by his officials by saying those journalists should join the "embedded" journalists program. They were clearly interested in intimidating any journalists that did not want to report the war from behind American lines helpfully sometimes saying "we" identifying the press and viewer with the government and troops, all becoming one.
Bush would be a credible person to talk about press freedom if not for the small matter of his legacy.
Also, the press got a lot of it's recent unpopularity by selling the Iraq war. So it's worse than zero, since Bush's mere presence weakens even more the credibility of the press.
There are no attacks on the Constitutional Freedom of the Press happening, ergo nothing is on topic.
/thread?
It's entirely possible this will never come to a constitutional issue, but the constitution (any constitution) is too narrow a lense through which to view the issue of press freedom. We need our journalists to expose the truth of what the government is doing, but to do that they need more than the freedom to print. Journalists need people to with information to talk, because for journalism is not enough to have cynicism and a hunch that something is untoward is happening; journalists need credible sources. A president like Trump could simply go down the path of least resistance. Ruthlessly dig to find the leakers and whistleblowers and show no mercy when you find them, using all the tools provided by the DoJ and enforcement and intelligence agencies. You don't need to make an example of too many before a message is sent through the departments that it's just not worth it. That Politico story, which we all must admit is hella funny, could play out differently in a different department where a bit of surveillance or competence is used and someone goes to jail for years and suddenly nothing is heard from inside the State or Justice departments.
But the biggest danger is the unknown combined with bad intentions. To try to predict the future we're sometimes shackled to the past, and like most I lack the imagination to see what it is he will do. Until an outlet is suited out of existence no outlet has been sued out of existence, until a journalist is threatened with jail no journalists has been threatened with jail, and until Trump does what no before him has done it's hard to know what it is. And that's kind of a fuzzy argument, but it is dangerous to try to predict the future based on the past as if everything repeats itself infinitely. At a minimum, it's best to take Trump at his words that the press is his enemy and he will treat it as such.
His statements didn't harm press freedom, but they are serious words that mean no one should surprised if what follows does, and act accordingly.
+21
Options
RobonunIt's all fun and games until someone pisses off ChinaRegistered Userregular
I believe the NYT ad is also on the DC metro ad screens. My train went by too quickly to get a photo; if I see them again this week I'll catch some for you guys.
Speaking of DC, the Washington Post made their own statement by putting their new motto on the masthead: Democracy Dies in Darkness. I mentioned it in one of the other Trump threads but it goes better here.
+2
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Sean Spicer took the first step in actually retaliating against the press, having a bogus (fake news, like the actual definition) story planted to try and smear a journalist that reported on Spicer's "stop leaking things" meeting with his staff. I've gotta say, this is getting increasingly gross of the administration.
Watch for a rushed increase in two party consent wiretap laws. I know some places only require one side to consent (usually the one making the recording), but some places require both participants to consent (funnily, nearly all are "liberal" states, CA, CT, FL, IL, MD, MA, MT, NH, PA, WA). So if reporters started doing it, watch for that to be criminalized right quick.
Watch for a rushed increase in two party consent wiretap laws. I know some places only require one side to consent (usually the one making the recording), but some places require both participants to consent (funnily, nearly all are "liberal" states, CA, CT, FL, IL, MD, MA, MT, NH, PA, WA). So if reporters started doing it, watch for that to be criminalized right quick.
Meh, if it came to that, i'm sure you could add an app to your phone to automatically preface your calls with "this call may be monitored or recorded," since not hanging up when you hear that seems to count as consent enough.
Watch for a rushed increase in two party consent wiretap laws. I know some places only require one side to consent (usually the one making the recording), but some places require both participants to consent (funnily, nearly all are "liberal" states, CA, CT, FL, IL, MD, MA, MT, NH, PA, WA). So if reporters started doing it, watch for that to be criminalized right quick.
Meh, if it came to that, i'm sure you could add an app to your phone to automatically preface your calls with "this call may be monitored or recorded," since not hanging up when you hear that seems to count as consent enough.
Also many states have exemptions specifically for illegal activity- you can record anyone threatening you or asking you to do something illegal regardless.
Watch for a rushed increase in two party consent wiretap laws. I know some places only require one side to consent (usually the one making the recording), but some places require both participants to consent (funnily, nearly all are "liberal" states, CA, CT, FL, IL, MD, MA, MT, NH, PA, WA). So if reporters started doing it, watch for that to be criminalized right quick.
Meh, if it came to that, i'm sure you could add an app to your phone to automatically preface your calls with "this call may be monitored or recorded," since not hanging up when you hear that seems to count as consent enough.
I think you could explicitly state you don't consent to being recorded, then any recording is now illegal.
That would only work if the entirety of the journalism world stopped. The problem is, Infowars and Breitbart and other small places would jump on their chance to make it to the big time.
If the administration isn't going to play nice with the media, the media has no incentive to give them a platform to tell their side of things. In fact, I would argue they have a duty to not be a propaganda vehicle for Trump.
Sean Spicer took the first step in actually retaliating against the press, having a bogus (fake news, like the actual definition) story planted to try and smear a journalist that reported on Spicer's "stop leaking things" meeting with his staff. I've gotta say, this is getting increasingly gross of the administration.
Sean Spicer took the first step in actually retaliating against the press, having a bogus (fake news, like the actual definition) story planted to try and smear a journalist that reported on Spicer's "stop leaking things" meeting with his staff. I've gotta say, this is getting increasingly gross of the administration.
I'm confused, what's the FAKE NEWS on that story? The laughter?
The fake part is that the journalist was laughing about a Navy SEAL being killed. The real story is the journalist was laughing because Spicer had a staffer fake-cry at the mention of said Navy SEAL and it was obvious.
Edit - And yes it's a stupid petty thing, but that's how all these sorts of things start. Just wait until more inflammatory and libel / slanderous things start happening.
Sean Spicer took the first step in actually retaliating against the press, having a bogus (fake news, like the actual definition) story planted to try and smear a journalist that reported on Spicer's "stop leaking things" meeting with his staff. I've gotta say, this is getting increasingly gross of the administration.
On Monday, the Weekly Standard published an article by Lee Smith titled “Fake News, Exposed.” It alleged that Rumana Ahmed, a former National Security Council staffer and the author of an Atlantic essay about why she left the Trump administration, had misled readers about the nature of her position.
“Ahmed was a political appointee in the Obama White House. According to Trump White House officials, it was very late in her tenure in the Obama administration when she applied for a civil service position with administrative duties,” Smith wrote. “‘Burrowing,’ as it's commonly called, is the process through which political appointees move into career government status. She was granted her new status at the end of January, just as the Trump team was moving into the White House.”
In fact, Ahmed held a term appointment that was not set to expire until the summer of 2018. Ahmed’s employment documents, which were reviewed by The Atlantic, show that her position with the NSC, which began in June 2014, was a Schedule A excepted service term appointment. Her term was renewed for another two years in August 2016.
[...]
Sounds like they are going to conservative news outlets and feeding actual lies.
“Look, I'm sure some of you are in contact with the Russian Embassy,” Nunes told a group of journalists. “So be careful what you ask for here. ... Do you want us to conduct an investigation on you or other Americans because you were talking to the Russian Embassy? I just think we need to be careful.”
Posts
It was an on the record but off camera briefing. Transcript straight from the administration, as far as I can tell it is complete: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/24/press-gaggle-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2242017
Heh, meanwhile it got a few of my friends to subscribe right after viewing it, so it seems to be one more thing working for them despite the usual suspects' claims...
Politico: Bush breaks with Trump, calls media "indispensable to democracy"
On the other hand:
So while I'm tempted to like him, I'm not there yet.
In another story on that same page, apparently there's been a surge of interest and usage of encrypted chat apps, both inside the WH and other agencies. Wonder why.
what idiot would be leaking government information on their dang iphone.
Everyone watched the Wire, Sean, they know about burner phones they cost 30 bucks.
Zero.
I'd bet almost every White House reporter carries a half dozen burner phones with pre-programmed numbers on them all the time and hand them out to staffers like candy. At least, I would.
It's also illegal as fuck and circumvents laws about record keeping.
...That would be talking to people. Which he just did.
Wake me up when he gets off his ass and starts going to protests. Or anything other than, "I disagree with him but give him a chance".
I misread the emphasis. apologies.
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
:stansmith: : The action that will save America.
I can't even begin to imagine what his response to all this would have been. I imagine it somewhere between cartoonish rage and swearing to trying to start a rebellion.
This thread is not an open mic.
He already lived through Nixon's election and wrote a bunch of stuff on that. We already know what he'd say for the most part. The only question is how he'd frame "you did it again america".
No, surely Republicans would never want to impugn the integrity of a sitting president.
I'll go with with a somewhat different zero. During the opening days of the Iraq war there were multiple incidents of targeting of journalists: the Palestine Hotel, which was housing lots/most foreign journalists, and the offices of Arab stations, resulting in the death of multiple journalists. Largely excused by his officials by saying those journalists should join the "embedded" journalists program. They were clearly interested in intimidating any journalists that did not want to report the war from behind American lines helpfully sometimes saying "we" identifying the press and viewer with the government and troops, all becoming one.
Bush would be a credible person to talk about press freedom if not for the small matter of his legacy.
It's entirely possible this will never come to a constitutional issue, but the constitution (any constitution) is too narrow a lense through which to view the issue of press freedom. We need our journalists to expose the truth of what the government is doing, but to do that they need more than the freedom to print. Journalists need people to with information to talk, because for journalism is not enough to have cynicism and a hunch that something is untoward is happening; journalists need credible sources. A president like Trump could simply go down the path of least resistance. Ruthlessly dig to find the leakers and whistleblowers and show no mercy when you find them, using all the tools provided by the DoJ and enforcement and intelligence agencies. You don't need to make an example of too many before a message is sent through the departments that it's just not worth it. That Politico story, which we all must admit is hella funny, could play out differently in a different department where a bit of surveillance or competence is used and someone goes to jail for years and suddenly nothing is heard from inside the State or Justice departments.
But the biggest danger is the unknown combined with bad intentions. To try to predict the future we're sometimes shackled to the past, and like most I lack the imagination to see what it is he will do. Until an outlet is suited out of existence no outlet has been sued out of existence, until a journalist is threatened with jail no journalists has been threatened with jail, and until Trump does what no before him has done it's hard to know what it is. And that's kind of a fuzzy argument, but it is dangerous to try to predict the future based on the past as if everything repeats itself infinitely. At a minimum, it's best to take Trump at his words that the press is his enemy and he will treat it as such.
His statements didn't harm press freedom, but they are serious words that mean no one should surprised if what follows does, and act accordingly.
Speaking of DC, the Washington Post made their own statement by putting their new motto on the masthead: Democracy Dies in Darkness. I mentioned it in one of the other Trump threads but it goes better here.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/sean-spicer-threatened-to-smear-reporter-before-white-house-anonymously-planted-bogus-story-report/
Meh, if it came to that, i'm sure you could add an app to your phone to automatically preface your calls with "this call may be monitored or recorded," since not hanging up when you hear that seems to count as consent enough.
Also many states have exemptions specifically for illegal activity- you can record anyone threatening you or asking you to do something illegal regardless.
I think you could explicitly state you don't consent to being recorded, then any recording is now illegal.
Edit - And yes it's a stupid petty thing, but that's how all these sorts of things start. Just wait until more inflammatory and libel / slanderous things start happening.
It sounds like the WH did it again with Rumana Ahbed.
https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2017/02/rumana-ahmed-weekly-standard/518184/ Sounds like they are going to conservative news outlets and feeding actual lies.