IndridCold@lemmy.ca to politics @lemmy.world · 1 day agoTrump, 79, Claims It’s ‘Illegal’ for Late-Night Host to Mock Himwww.thedailybeast.comexternal-linkmessage-square84fedilinkarrow-up1621arrow-down18file-text
arrow-up1613arrow-down1external-linkTrump, 79, Claims It’s ‘Illegal’ for Late-Night Host to Mock Himwww.thedailybeast.comIndridCold@lemmy.ca to politics @lemmy.world · 1 day agomessage-square84fedilinkfile-text
https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Fdonald-trump-claims-its-illegal-for-late-night-host-seth-meyers-to-mock-him%2F
minus-squarexxce2AAb@feddit.dklinkfedilinkarrow-up79·1 day agoPft. Yeah, because Trump is known for caring so, so much about what’s legal. /s
minus-squareDarkCloud@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up58arrow-down1·1 day agoHis legal understanding is “and they just let you do it, because you’re famous”… And for the most part he’s been correct.
minus-squarexxce2AAb@feddit.dklinkfedilinkarrow-up15·1 day agoCan’t really argue against that. Don’t want to either.
minus-squarerunning_ragged@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up28·1 day agoHe does care about the law, just in the conservative way. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit
minus-squarexxce2AAb@feddit.dklinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down2·1 day agoI don’t disagree with you, but I see no reason to amend my statement.
minus-squareViking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up13·1 day agoClassic case of both of you being right so yeah 🤷🏻
minus-squareripcord@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down1·17 hours agoWhy would you think anyone felt you should amend your statement
Pft. Yeah, because Trump is known for caring so, so much about what’s legal. /s
His legal understanding is “and they just let you do it, because you’re famous”… And for the most part he’s been correct.
Can’t really argue against that. Don’t want to either.
He does care about the law, just in the conservative way.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
I don’t disagree with you, but I see no reason to amend my statement.
Classic case of both of you being right so yeah 🤷🏻
Why would you think anyone felt you should amend your statement