Former President Trump Thread

I wonder if this is going to be a thing now: when someone on one side of the debate says something "incorrect" or "too much", just say they aren't real but just a Russian. Like there's already the "they're just a troll" defense.
I tried to make that a thing here months ago, but it never caught on, and I got bored of it.


Don't worry, though: I'm still doing the alternate Earth thing.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Once again Trump attacks the free press. "The Summit with Russia was a great success, except with the real enemy of the people, the Fake News Media. " The summit was criticized by numerous Republicans, and Trump is blaming all of that on "fake news". How is this in any way acceptable?
 

Dave

Staff member
It's not, but it doesn't matter because they won't do anything but wring their hands and do what he wants anyway.
 
And still, none of Trump's supporters will see this as a problem - probably up to and including the point when Russia starts landing troops on our shorelines.
 
I'd just like to say that, as a professional interpreter, revealing what was said in a closed-door meeting we were at is considered against our professional ethics. Sort of like how doctors aren't supposed to reveal the details of their patients.

Having said that, though, I do acknowledge that sometimes doctors are subpoenaed to testify about their patients, so I'm not saying that it's absolutely wrong for the interpreter to be subpoenaed. I'm just noting we're generally expected to keep confidentiality.

This has been Bhamv's pointless aside of the day, we now bring you back to your regular scheduled programming.

EDIT: Also, another interesting thing about interpreters that might not be common knowledge: Our work is heavily dependent on our short-term memory, in that we'll hear a segment of speech, immediately translate it, and then move on to the next segment of speech. Our long-term memories are often not engaged during interpretation sessions. This means that, after we interpret something, we often cannot remember what we'd just interpreted. I often come out of meetings and conferences with no idea what it was about. So even if you do subpoena the interpreter, there's a good chance he won't be able to remember enough to give useful information. This (probably) isn't him being deliberately obstructive, it's just a quirk of our line of work.
 
Last edited:
B

BErt

Tounge in cheek question (i think. I hope.) but did we actually see the interpreters come back out of the room after their meeting? :hide:
 
Our work is heavily dependent on our short-term memory, in that we'll hear a segment of speech, immediately translate it, and then move on to the next segment of speech. Our long-term memories are often not engaged during interpretation sessions. This means that, after we interpret something, we often cannot remember what we'd just interpreted.
I'm one of those people who can listen to a phone call and repeat exactly what I hear to those around me in real time, or repeat back to you what you are saying exactly as you say it (similar to speech jamming). However, I almost never remember what I've just repeated, even though the words are fresh out of my mouth. Handy for when everyone in the group needs to hear what's going on and the phone doesn't have a speakerphone option, but inconvenient because then someone else will have to repeat back to me what I've just said once I'm done.

--Patrick
 
I'm one of those people who can listen to a phone call and repeat exactly what I hear to those around me in real time, or repeat back to you what you are saying exactly as you say it (similar to speech jamming). However, I almost never remember what I've just repeated, even though the words are fresh out of my mouth. Handy for when everyone in the group needs to hear what's going on and the phone doesn't have a speakerphone option, but inconvenient because then someone else will have to repeat back to me what I've just said once I'm done.

--Patrick
That's actually an interpretation training exercise known as shadowing. :D
 
I'd just like to say that, as a professional interpreter, revealing what was said in a closed-door meeting we were at is considered against our professional ethics. Sort of like how doctors aren't supposed to reveal the details of their patients.

Having said that, though, I do acknowledge that sometimes doctors are subpoenaed to testify about their patients, so I'm not saying that it's absolutely wrong for the interpreter to be subpoenaed. I'm just noting we're generally expected to keep confidentiality.

This has been Bhamv's pointless aside of the day, we now bring you back to your regular scheduled programming.

EDIT: Also, another interesting thing about interpreters that might not be common knowledge: Our work is heavily dependent on our short-term memory, in that we'll hear a segment of speech, immediately translate it, and then move on to the next segment of speech. Our long-term memories are often not engaged during interpretation sessions. This means that, after we interpret something, we often cannot remember what we'd just interpreted. I often come out of meetings and conferences with no idea what it was about. So even if you do subpoena the interpreter, there's a good chance he won't be able to remember enough to give useful information. This (probably) isn't him being deliberately obstructive, it's just a quirk of our line of work.
But if, during your translating, you had to translate something shocking, such as "sure you can have Alaska" would that stand out enough for you to notice?
 
But if, during your translating, you had to translate something shocking, such as "sure you can have Alaska" would that stand out enough for you to notice?
Possibly. It's hard to say for sure, and would probably vary on a case-by-case basis.

This reminds me of a practice session one of our instructors had for us once. We interpreted a speech on human trafficking. The speaker said, "And on this slide you can see the brothel where girls as young as ten or eleven would be forced to service up to thirty men a day." And the photo in the slide was, I shit you not, just a hole in the ground. I remember all of us in that class just sort of stopping and staring agape at the Powerpoint slide.

The point of that exercise, however, was to train us to not lose our composure when we encounter something shocking or surprising during our work. An interpreter is basically supposed to be a black box, where one language goes in and another language comes out. So it's actually possible for an interpreter to faithfully translate "you can have Alaska" and not find it notable enough to remember.
 
Well you never know when someone will contest whether or not you actually made the payment you may or may not have actually made.

—Patrick
 
Betting the guy with the nuclear football would beat him with it rather than open it.
It's a shame that, for at least this moment in time, Trump didn't get to buy the Buffalo Bills back when, because then I could make so many jokes about that nuclear football.
 

Dave

Staff member
Had he been able to buy the Bills, he wouldn't be president, he wouldn't have such a grudge against the NFL, and we'd all be a lot happier. Yes, even the republicans would be happier. They'd have Hillary and that would make them all salivate with glee. Not because they like her but because it would have banded them all together in their mutual hatred of all things women.
 

Dave

Staff member
Would you rather have:

(a) Trump as the owner of your favorite NFL team, who could HARDLY have had a worse run of it
(b) Trump as President while your favorite team went 33-31 since then

Personally, I think you'd be happier with a than b.
 
It matters when you go 17 years without it. Especially since I didn't even pay attention to the team back then so this was literally my first time.

Incidentally, this isn't the first time I've had this argument and I actually would have him as the owner if it kept him from being president. Just don't forget how I'd suffer. Especially when he dies and one of his spawn would own the team.
 
Top