By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Norris2k on 18 November 2016
Edit Thread
JWeinCom said:
Norris2k said:

He's overracting. Still, Drumpf will not take a salary, you need a sick bias as a journalist to make a news on the fact that it's bad... not just bad, bad for Democracy. It does not make any sense because JFK already did it, because you can't prevent bribery with just 400.000$ a year when a campain alone is worth hundred of millions of dollars, and when billion dollar worth companies can spend anytime 250.000$ for a single speech. Just talking about Democracy, and founding Fathers, and bribery in this case is already getting crazy. Journalism has really gone low and shameless, and that's one of the reason why Drumpf could win, because a lot of people just can't stand mainstream media, can't trust them, and will see bias and lies in it even if there were none based on such crappy news. I can tell you, I learned English by reading the New York Times every days, and it was a great newspaper IMO. Nowadays I check the website to know what is the trendy bullshit in mainstream media. And that's an important issue, because if they don't do their job, any crazy guy on youtube is good enough.

JFK didn't refuse the salary.  He accepted it and donated it to charity, which is what the article they're quoting suggested Trump should do. 

The article is explaining why the constitution requires him to take a salary, and why he should.  They're not claiming that it is going to be the death of democracy, or evil, or anything like that.  There are examples of the media doing shameless things (including the members of the media who worked on Trump's campaign), but this was not one of them.

You have to think about what matters. Nowadays you can get 250.000$ for a single speech in the next avenue, all president are very wealthy, giving 400.000$ is an archaism. And nowaday accepting a salary and giving it to charity is just creating more debt.

It's not the story of the year, but invoquing the Constitution and founding fathers for such a thing is what undermine the meaning of it. The point of any Constitution is to give fundamental principles the laws will be based on, it's not about making a silly point for a short term political agenda. If Trump really breaks the constitution at some point on something meaningful (could happen, right ?) then what, an article again about the Constitution ?