• Lauchs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    I don’t think it’s at his expense? The idea is that the deceased and his widow were in love and would value each other more than money:

    ‘This is so nice, and I appreciate it, but I’d much rather have my husband.’

    whereas he claims that some people in the audience would be thrilled to trade their spouses for money.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Trump is using the widows response to her husbands death to deliver a joke. Trying to make the whole thing funny.
      How is that joke not at their expense, when it’s built on their situation?

      • Lauchs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        “Ha, these two were deeply in love and had a marriage stronger than money! What losers!” Fairly hard to make the claim the joke is at their expense.

        This might be a language thing though? The phrase at their expense tends to mean that whomever is the butt of the joke. In this case, the four audience marriages are the butt of the joke as they are not as in love as the deceased.

        I don’t know if you’re old enough to have spoken at funerals. There are jokes you tell while doing so, usually framed like this wherein you’re praising the deceased (usually a common memory, like their cooking) and comparing yourself or the crowd unfavourably.

        Now, I’m not sure it was appropriate or wise for trump to try this at a fundraiser but it seems disingenuous to say he was making fun of the deceased, which is how most English readers would interpret the headline.