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:

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 Drumpf really breaks the constitution at some point on something meaningful (could happen, right ?) then what, an article again about the Constitution ?

In the next avenue yes, but you're not going to be able to earn that money while you're actually president.  If your argument is that the 400,000 dollars is insignificant to the candidate, then it's even more insignificant in terms of the national debt.

It's not undermining the meaning of it, this is the exact purpose of that part of the constitution. I don't think this is really a big deal, but the response, an article, is perfectly proportional to the action.  If he breaks it in a more  meaningful way, then congress should begin proceedings for impeachment.

I'm not telling 400.000$ is insignificant to the candidate, I'm clearly telling it's not a significant measure against bribery in modern days. And I'm not telling that this money is significant regarding the current level of debt, I'm telling that if you give to charity out of the debt, you'd better just not take the money. But I get the same feeling from you than when I read such articles, it's all about twisting words and meanings.