Norris2k said:
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. |
You could argue that the rule requiring a president to take a salary is antiquated, but I think we're on agreement on the main point. That being that the article in question is being entirely misrepresented by the video and by the OP to fit an agenda.







