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.

The article more or less just state that we the people pay the president to do a job, its not the amount that really matters as much.  Bribery is less of the issue then the President respecting that the people pay his salary and thus he is beholden to the People. The President does not have a choice in the matter of not taking the money so he should take the money and do whatever he wants from that point.  Trying to deflect what the original intention by throwing the debt into the picture isn't relevant.  

As for twisting words or meaning, feelings are also not relevant.  People always feel something but it doesn’t make it true or fact.  You have to show specific examples to prove your feelings or its wortless.  The problem i see is that if there is anything that is not positive about Trump supporters feel the press or whatever is twisting information.  Information is used however you see it but blindly dismissing information because it does not follow your opinion of course makes you blind.

This is all fine and dandy, but I need my John Oliver video to teach me why this a bad thing.

Just remember that those yanks eventually kicked the confeds asses.

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.

Sure, at least for the video, it is the usual fake shocked bullshit from Trump side. For the OP, I don't know, he sees the video, shows it, that's a discussion, you can tell him "hey wait, no one is screaming bloody murder, read the article !".

As for the salary, yeah I believe it's antiquated, or at least not so relevant, so what I read in these articles is exagerated talk about  "The Constitution ! The Founding Father ! George Washington ! It is a contract between the People and the President". And I think this constant flow of negative articles, a lot being stretched, exagerated or biased from mainstream media focused on one candidate (mostly against Trump) really diluted and undermined the important information, and ultimately failed. And it allowed a massive and even more biased, negative opinions, and lies on the internet (mostly against Clinton). So, we have again a stretched negative article, and a guy on the internet getting crazy, and getting 400.000 views.

That's exactly what this thread is about, that's the main point for me. The problem is not just the crazy guy on the internet, the problem is also the media, and the people justifying anything they say. I can tell you, I was interested in the election, and I read the NYT, and it was so bad, and so biased, and so stretched that I went on youtube, searched about Clinton and Trump, and what I got first page in search results is Alex Jones and even crazier things. And some didn't even seem much more biased than mainstream media. That's a real story, I did not vote, I'm not american, I don't have a political agenda.

Trump is the new Nintendo. He will be heavily panned for going against the status quo and no matter what he does it will be seen in a bad light by the "elite".