Donald, Mr. Trump if you're nasty!

You are just attacking Trump to shift focus away from what he was responding to in the interview.

It is absolutely political, because you wouldn't be saying anything about it if a Democrat had called someone nasty after being asked about their behavior in an interview.

E.g. if Hillary Clinton was president and she described Trump's campaign behavior as 'nasty,' you wouldn't see it as anything but an accurate description of his behavior.

No, I would not. I hold a president to standards above a Howard Stern impressionalism. You don't.

First of all, if it's wrong to use the word, "nasty," to describe mean-spirited behavior; then it is as wrong for Howard Stern as for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else. If anything, the president is supposed to be a role model, so if using the word, "nasty" in this way is not behavior to be modeled for others to follow, then it is not ok for others any more than it is for the president.

What you are implying is that some people should be immune from ethics and proper behavior because of their position, and that in turn implies that all people aren't created equal in the eyes of God.

Second, I don't think it's wrong or bad to describe mean-spirited behavior as 'nasty.' I would find it offensive if the president called Markle or anyone else 'nasty' in the sense of being filthy, ugly, etc. That would be a rude aesthetic judgement and base insult, and I would say that it is rude to say that about a person in reference to them generally. Now if he watched a video of Markle getting drunk and vomiting or something disgusting like that and he said, "ew, that's nasty" using the first meaning of the word, I would say that's ok because she probably would regard her own drunken vomiting as 'nasty' in retrospect as well. Wouldn't we all?

Oh, come on! That's not how this works!

If you're equating a professional shock jock to the Presidency of the United States as being EQUAL, then that's not how any of this works.

Equal has many meanings that conflict in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

What I'm saying is that if something is bad when the president says it, it's bad when Howard Stern says it. In fact, isn't that precisely the reason Howard Stern would say it? i.e. because it is bad?

I'm done.

There's no reason to be nasty about it.