Electors (R) TX, NOT Voting for Trump - Fox News

[oreo]

Texas Republican elector says he won't cast vote for Trump

One resigned, another isn't voting for Trump, because TX laws don't mandate but leave it free to Electors.

===========

AUSTIN, Texas – A Republican member of the Electoral College from Texas said Monday that he won't cast one of his state's 38 electoral votes for Donald Trump because "I am here to elect a president, not a king."

Dallas paramedic Chris Suprun previously indicated he would support Trump. But he now says the president-elect's postelection attacks on the First Amendment and the country's electoral process, as well as the billionaire businessman's continued promotion of his brand and business interests overseas, changed his mind.

Texas law doesn't mandate that electors vote according to the results of the state's presidential election, which Trump won by nine percentage points over Hillary Clinton. Suprun and the GOP's other electors signed pledges at the state Republican convention in Dallas this summer promising to vote for their party's nominee, but those aren't legally binding.

"I'm expecting backlash, but that has been par for the course this campaign. People are unhappy. They're angry. But I'm angry, too," said Suprun, who said that prior to changing his mind he had received hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls urging him not to support Trump.

Suprun said the Electoral College system "is fine as it currently exists." His problem is just with its winner.

"I was told if we elected Donald Trump he would transform his personality into being presidential. He isn't," Suprun said. "I wanted him to be presidential, but since the election he hasn't grown into our institution, he's attacked them. I am here to elect a president, not a king."

Another Texas Republican elector, Art Sisneros, resigned last week rather than vote for Trump. Electors will vote to replace Sisneros when they convene Dec. 19 in Austin and in state capitals across the country to vote for president.

Suprun said he was not resigning but also won't be voting for Hillary Clinton.

"I am not sure of who I will vote for, but would have to strongly consider someone like (Ohio Gov. John) Kasich who has both executive and legislative experience bringing people together," he said.

Suprun said he was waiting to see if other electors will revolt and rally behind a Trump alternative like Kasich.

"I'm looking for someone we can all unify behind," he said.
==================

Here's the guy I would still support for President:
voteforvern.com | take America back

I can attest he can work with prochoice progressive Democrats because I am one.
And he argues, but tolerates and includes my views where we stick to the Constitution.
He is biased toward prolife, but will allow for prochoice where it doesn't impose proabortion.

He is a veteran and supports the idea of Trump donating his salary to create
Jobs for Vets to reform the VA and other institutions that need massive overhaul!

One or two of these bozo's here and there is not surprising.

You just refuse to watch a 3 minute video from the former Labor Secretary of this nation. You don't give a rats ass that Trump tweeted out a world wide message that he was going to cancel Boeing's contract because their planes were too expensive, (because Trump was insulted) when the CEO of that company disagreed with him on a trade policy. Boeing is LOCATED in South Carolina.

Because of Trump's tweets, Boeing is going to have a much harder time getting new contracts, and keeping their jobs in South Carolina.

Robert Reich to Trump: Stop acting 'thin-skinned and vindictive' - CNNPolitics.com

Progressives like you love waste, fraud and abuse…

I am not a Progressive, I am a fiscal conservative independent, former Republican and have been on this board since 2007 with over 13,000 posts, and that's why I know a lot more than you do.

You have elected a man that cannot take any criticism at all. And before even being sworn in has attacked an American jobs producing company stationed in South Carolina with a world wide message tweet to "cancel the order your planes are too expensive." Why? Because the CEO of that company criticized him on a trade policy, so your dip shit President Elect decided to get even.

Robert Reich to Trump: Stop acting 'thin-skinned and vindictive' - CNNPolitics.com

...spend and spend frivolously?

BTW you can use that LAME DUCK sign for Donald Trump's entire Presidency. He will be the first Lame Duck President ever to get sworn into the Oval office.

 

[Rustic]

One or two of these bozo's here and there is not surprising.

You just refuse to watch a 3 minute video from the former Labor Secretary of this nation. You don't give a rats ass that Trump tweeted out a world wide message that he was going to cancel Boeing's contract because their planes were too expensive, (because Trump was insulted) when the CEO of that company disagreed with him on a trade policy. Boeing is LOCATED in South Carolina.

Because of Trump's tweets, Boeing is going to have a much harder time getting new contracts, and keeping their jobs in South Carolina.

Robert Reich to Trump: Stop acting 'thin-skinned and vindictive' - CNNPolitics.com

Progressives like you love waste, fraud and abuse…

I am not a Progressive, I am a fiscal conservative independent, former Republican and have been on this board since 2007 with over 13,000 posts, and that's why I know a lot more than you do.

You have elected a man that cannot take any criticism at all. And before even being sworn in has attacked an American jobs producing company stationed in South Carolina with a world wide message tweet to "cancel the order your planes are too expensive." Why? Because the CEO of that company criticized him on a trade policy, so your dip shit President Elect decided to get even.

Robert Reich to Trump: Stop acting 'thin-skinned and vindictive' - CNNPolitics.com

...spend and spend frivolously?

BTW you can use that LAME DUCK sign for Donald Trump's entire Presidency. He will be the first Lame Duck President ever to get sworn into the Oval office.

Sour grapes?

 

[emilynghiem]

Yo, what happen when they elected Obama?

"GTP"

Nothing. Nobody came up with this kind of objection. About either candidate.

"GFY"

That's because Republicans are simply a better class of people than are Democrats. They don't run around protesting and showing their collective asses the way the Democrats do.

No they just lie and attack and lie and undermine, spending taxpayers money on phone investigations, gerrymandering, suppressing minority votes, and lie, and thwart the Constitution.

Much more effective than simply demonstrating.





Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Dragonlady Yet they are STILL better at calling out and checking their own party against abuses
Than Democrats are who take the Fifth when it comes to violations among them!
If you think GOP is abusive, what about the Dems who can't speak out against their own,
Or they get silenced as Clinton undercut Sanders.

Doesn't that make Dems even worse?

What's worse than a President Elect who just settled a 25 million dollar settlement, and who was up for Fraud and Racketeering charges over Trump University. What's worse than a President Elect who recently had a cease and desist order put on his Foundation from the New York State attorney General's office--where they have a cancelled check in the amount of $258K dollars in charitable contributions, that were used to settle non related legal claims, and to purchase 2 full sized portraits of himself.

What's worse than a President Elect that just went out on attack of an American corporation, Boeing aircraft, because the CEO of that company disagreed with Trump over a trade policy. So the President Elect, vindictive as he is, put out a world-wide tweet, stating cancel the order, your planes are too expensive.

Trump unleashes tweet on Carrier union boss who blasted him

Dear oreo
What I would ask of Trump's ministerial counsel is to set up a team to advise and rebuke him when he steps or speaks out of line. As he claims to be Christian, I will help hold him to that. Unlike Obama who refused to listen when half the nation protested constantly that ACA mandates were unconstitutional and who demonized entire groups of people for beliefs, Trump addresses individuals and can be corrected the same way. On the immigration issue he listens to individual families and can be reached that way. Trump speaks for himself as an individual, this is both good or bad, but with the right counsel he can be held to do what is right.

He is a piece of work, of course, it comes with the territory. Quite a challenge, but if the people supporting him unite in agreement we can do this right

 

[the_human_being]

Yeah that guy wrote an editorial a couple of days ago.. His whole statement is here.

>> The United States was set up as a republic. Alexander Hamilton provided a blueprint for states’ votes. Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards. Given his own public statements, it isn’t clear how the Electoral College can ignore these issues, and so it should reject him.

.... Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again. <<​

Yo, what happen when they elected Obama?

"GTP"

Nothing. Nobody came up with this kind of objection. About either candidate.

"GFY"

That's because Republicans are simply a better class of people than are Democrats. They don't run around protesting and showing their collective asses the way the Democrats do.

No they just lie and attack and lie and undermine, spending taxpayers money on phone investigations, gerrymandering, suppressing minority votes, and lie, and thwart the Constitution.

Much more effective than simply demonstrating.





Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yes, you idiots do love to trash convenience stores, burn private property, block highways, etc.

 

[the_human_being]

As far as I know Texas requires electors to vote as the state did. They take a pledge to do so. Suprun is breaking his pledge to vote the will of the state.

And as it appears, he will be removed and replaced. So much for his little crusade.

Yeah it's not going to do anything, except it shows that Trumps approval rating is crumbling, right before our eyes, and he's not even sworn in yet. That usually happens (after they're sworn in) LOL. I don't believe that's ever happened before. Where electoral college participants started questioning their loyalty to the voters, & are in favor of going rogue to make a statement.

Holy shit this is funny.

What? Polls show Trump's support is crumbling? Just like Hillary's poll numbers showed her winning yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge?

Actually, Trump is gaining in popularity. His numbers are on the uptick.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
that's what most electors that do not want to cast their vote for Trump, ARE AFRAID OF.......ending up dead....

Trying to steal a legal election has consequences.

 

[Uncensored2008]

From a Texas relative: The Texas Republican Party has stated that if Suprun persists in his plan to not vote for Trump, they are going to replace him.

They should replace him now, he is not fit to be an elector.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Texas Republican elector says he won't cast vote for Trump

One resigned, another isn't voting for Trump, because TX laws don't mandate but leave it free to Electors.

===========

AUSTIN, Texas – A Republican member of the Electoral College from Texas said Monday that he won't cast one of his state's 38 electoral votes for Donald Trump because "I am here to elect a president, not a king."

Dallas paramedic Chris Suprun previously indicated he would support Trump. But he now says the president-elect's postelection attacks on the First Amendment and the country's electoral process, as well as the billionaire businessman's continued promotion of his brand and business interests overseas, changed his mind.

Texas law doesn't mandate that electors vote according to the results of the state's presidential election, which Trump won by nine percentage points over Hillary Clinton. Suprun and the GOP's other electors signed pledges at the state Republican convention in Dallas this summer promising to vote for their party's nominee, but those aren't legally binding.

"I'm expecting backlash, but that has been par for the course this campaign. People are unhappy. They're angry. But I'm angry, too," said Suprun, who said that prior to changing his mind he had received hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls urging him not to support Trump.

Suprun said the Electoral College system "is fine as it currently exists." His problem is just with its winner.

"I was told if we elected Donald Trump he would transform his personality into being presidential. He isn't," Suprun said. "I wanted him to be presidential, but since the election he hasn't grown into our institution, he's attacked them. I am here to elect a president, not a king."

Another Texas Republican elector, Art Sisneros, resigned last week rather than vote for Trump. Electors will vote to replace Sisneros when they convene Dec. 19 in Austin and in state capitals across the country to vote for president.

Suprun said he was not resigning but also won't be voting for Hillary Clinton.

"I am not sure of who I will vote for, but would have to strongly consider someone like (Ohio Gov. John) Kasich who has both executive and legislative experience bringing people together," he said.

Suprun said he was waiting to see if other electors will revolt and rally behind a Trump alternative like Kasich.

"I'm looking for someone we can all unify behind," he said.

Yo, is Hillary trying to payoff these electors? She has the money from the Clinton Foundation to start buying them off?

"GTP"
View attachment 101119

I doubt Hillary could change any Republican elector's mind about supporting Trump--LOL. This one is on Trump.

I think a lot of Republicans & others that voted for Trump thought that others would be able to control him, or convince him to change his ways, and that has proved unsuccessful. In the last 3 weeks he has gone completely bizerk with his tweety fingers & mouth and has done a complete 180 degree turn against solid conservative principles.

1. Threatening American corporations with a 35% penalty tax.
2. Tariffs
3. Tweeting out a world wide message against an American corporation (Boeing) to cancel a contract with them, citing their planes are too expensive.
4. Tonight tweeting out another attack on an American citizen, who happens to be a union leader for steel workers, who politely stated that Trump was wrong on the amount of jobs that were saved in Indiana.
5. Today, going on the Today show, to complain about Saturday Night Live.

No President does these kinds of things.

This is not a conservative, or an emotionally stable President--this is insanity. Clearly Trump is not qualified to be President. But of course you knew that before you voted for him.

I don't blame them at all for questioning their electoral college votes.

December 20th is going to a bitter day for you, nearly as bad as November 9th, Comrade.

 

[1stRambo]

As far as I know Texas requires electors to vote as the state did. They take a pledge to do so. Suprun is breaking his pledge to vote the will of the state.

Dear tinydancer according to this article, Texas does not mandate that. There are other states that fine Electors or replace them if they don't vote as the state voted.

It makes sense to me that the POINT of human Electors voting IS to check against some extreme case of fraud. If it were automatic we wouldn't need people, we'd just have a point system where the minute the candidate wins a majority of the state vote, the minute it's confirmed, then "automatically" the number of Electoral votes or points gets added to their score. We wouldn't need humans to vote. The point of that is to allow one more check.

So in case something goes wrong like in other countries how an oppressive dictator forces everyone to vote for them or die, if corruption that bad were to skew the votes by force, for example, the Electors could still check against that abuse.

No they signed a pledge to vote the will of the State. And I find it absolutely appalling that this elector has the arrogance to break his pledge.

He's a lying piece of garbage. Like Kasich. The person he is voting for.

And to think that electors can and should go against the will of the people is outrageous. Faithless to be sure.

Is the will of the people in any way like the popular vote? Sorry, can't have it both ways, trailer trash.

Yo, get use to it, this is the way of the U.S.A. of electing a President, not the way the Socialist Democrats wish they could have it! The Popular Vote Hillary Clinton won, is nothing more than Entitlement Votes, take a look at how many people are on Entitlements, and you will see why Hillary got the Popular Vote! Nothing will change, there is a reason the U.S.A. has a Constitution! If you Idiots don`t like the Constitution? Get the Hell Out!!! If the Founding Fathers were as Dumb as the Socialist Democrats of today, you would have your way, the Entitlement folks would vote for Socialist Democrats every Election, but sorry, they were BRIGHT MEN!!! """LOVE IT"""

"GTP"

 

[Pogo]

Yeah that guy wrote an editorial a couple of days ago.. His whole statement is here.

>> The United States was set up as a republic. Alexander Hamilton provided a blueprint for states’ votes. Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards. Given his own public statements, it isn’t clear how the Electoral College can ignore these issues, and so it should reject him.

.... Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again. <<​

Yo, what happen when they elected Obama?

"GTP"

Nothing. Nobody came up with this kind of objection. About either candidate.

"GFY"

That's because Republicans are simply a better class of people than are Democrats. They don't run around protesting and showing their collective asses the way the Democrats do.

Didn't even read the post in your haste to post a hasty generalization, Dimmo.

What we just said was that no elector in '08 or '12 came up with such an objection to ANY candidate winning electoral votes -- which means Romney, McCain and O'bama twice --- on the basis of 'completely unfit to be President', as these guys in Texas have just assessed about Donald Rump.

That's got nothing to do with "Democrats", "Republcans" or blanket generalizations attributing entire personality types to political parties, which is in itself a postulation that can only be described as "moronic". What it does have to do with is an outstanding negative assessment of one man personally --- who has never been a Democrat or Republican anyway.

 

[Pogo]

Dear Chris Suprun

I would like to support the efforts of you and other Electors in voting your conscience

to represent diverse interests and parties that deserve equal representation.



Would you please invite all other such Electors to form a group online

such as at www.usmessageboard.com to coordinate a national effort?



From there, we can connect with dissenters on the left through KPFT public radio

and also moderates and Constitutionalists on the right through radio as well

(Michael Berry is a Cruz supporter and close friend of his, Chris Blayney is on

Salem Communications and is a moderate open to new ideas to expand his radio show

www.chrisxradio.com)



chrisxradio - Afternoon Drive with Chris Blayney
www.chrisxradio.com
Chris X got his start at CBS Radio in Houston back in 1999. Soon he was co-hosting ‘Streettalk’ weekday afternoons on 650-AM. In a short amount of time ...





Thank you,

Emily Nghiem

713-820-5130

Please see msg below I tried to send to Never Forget but it failed to send.



I am a Democrat and Constitutionalist who voted for Trump, but my preferred picks

were Ted Cruz and my friend Vern Wuensche I believe is more unifying.



I believe we are heading for a system of separating internal from external

govt, domestic social policies vs. foreign and international economics and security,

and we need a parliamentary system similar to the Senate

for representing people and States by PARTY.





Here is my top choice for President
www.voteforvern.com







US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
www.usmessageboard.com
USMessageBoard.com is the premiere United States Political Forum with many areas of discussions including Current Events, Politics, US Affairs, Congress, Stock Market ...



Electors (R) TX, NOT Voting for Trump - Fox News


Electors (R) TX, NOT Voting for Trump - Fox News
www.usmessageboard.com
Dear Pogo and depotoo I think youare still saying the same thing. It's u p to States to decide elector policies and consequences if any. Here is...



From: Nghiem Emily <[email protected]>
Subject: USMB Chris Suprun



Hi Chris and Never Forget volunteers:
I would like to donate this song to your nonprofit for fundraising purposes.

http://heroesinheaven.us/

The song is written by Austin Christian musician and pianist Kris Chomout
and the original lyrics are sung by
Chris Blayney who is a radio host broadcasting out of Houston. www.chrisxradio.com

I also invite you to post on USMB and organize Electors who want to divide and apportion votes by District or other ways to represent the diverse interests of citizens and parties.

Electors (R) TX, NOT Voting for Trump - Fox News

Thank you please contact me if interested!
Emily Nghiem 7138205130
Democratic Precinct 30
www.freedmenstown.com
www.ethics-commission.net
www.earnedamnesty.org

Here is my top choice for President
www.voteforvern.com

Emily I gotta say, credit where due ---- nobody around here works harder than you do. You have a real dedication and that's admirable.

 

[kaz]

As far as I know Texas requires electors to vote as the state did. They take a pledge to do so. Suprun is breaking his pledge to vote the will of the state.

He did pledge, but Texas has no law requiring they vote. He specifically agreed to vote for Trump as well. I have no problem with him changing his mind, but he should resign, not break his word

 

[kaz]

Texas Republican elector says he won't cast vote for Trump

One resigned, another isn't voting for Trump, because TX laws don't mandate but leave it free to Electors.

===========

AUSTIN, Texas – A Republican member of the Electoral College from Texas said Monday that he won't cast one of his state's 38 electoral votes for Donald Trump because "I am here to elect a president, not a king."

Dallas paramedic Chris Suprun previously indicated he would support Trump. But he now says the president-elect's postelection attacks on the First Amendment and the country's electoral process, as well as the billionaire businessman's continued promotion of his brand and business interests overseas, changed his mind.

Texas law doesn't mandate that electors vote according to the results of the state's presidential election, which Trump won by nine percentage points over Hillary Clinton. Suprun and the GOP's other electors signed pledges at the state Republican convention in Dallas this summer promising to vote for their party's nominee, but those aren't legally binding.

"I'm expecting backlash, but that has been par for the course this campaign. People are unhappy. They're angry. But I'm angry, too," said Suprun, who said that prior to changing his mind he had received hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls urging him not to support Trump.

Suprun said the Electoral College system "is fine as it currently exists." His problem is just with its winner.

"I was told if we elected Donald Trump he would transform his personality into being presidential. He isn't," Suprun said. "I wanted him to be presidential, but since the election he hasn't grown into our institution, he's attacked them. I am here to elect a president, not a king."

Another Texas Republican elector, Art Sisneros, resigned last week rather than vote for Trump. Electors will vote to replace Sisneros when they convene Dec. 19 in Austin and in state capitals across the country to vote for president.

Suprun said he was not resigning but also won't be voting for Hillary Clinton.

"I am not sure of who I will vote for, but would have to strongly consider someone like (Ohio Gov. John) Kasich who has both executive and legislative experience bringing people together," he said.

Suprun said he was waiting to see if other electors will revolt and rally behind a Trump alternative like Kasich.

"I'm looking for someone we can all unify behind," he said.
==================

Here's the guy I would still support for President:
voteforvern.com | take America back

I can attest he can work with prochoice progressive Democrats because I am one.
And he argues, but tolerates and includes my views where we stick to the Constitution.
He is biased toward prolife, but will allow for prochoice where it doesn't impose proabortion.

He is a veteran and supports the idea of Trump donating his salary to create
Jobs for Vets to reform the VA and other institutions that need massive overhaul!

Why did you use plural in a thread about one elector?

 

[1stRambo]

Yeah that guy wrote an editorial a couple of days ago.. His whole statement is here.

>> The United States was set up as a republic. Alexander Hamilton provided a blueprint for states’ votes. Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards. Given his own public statements, it isn’t clear how the Electoral College can ignore these issues, and so it should reject him.

.... Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again. <<​

Yo, what happen when they elected Obama?

"GTP"

Nothing. Nobody came up with this kind of objection. About either candidate.

"GFY"

That's because Republicans are simply a better class of people than are Democrats. They don't run around protesting and showing their collective asses the way the Democrats do.

Didn't even read the post in your haste to post a hasty generalization, Dimmo.

What we just said was that no elector in '08 or '12 came up with such an objection to ANY candidate winning electoral votes -- which means Romney, McCain and O'bama twice --- on the basis of 'completely unfit to be President', as these guys in Texas have just assessed about Donald Rump.

That's got nothing to do with "Democrats", "Republcans" or blanket generalizations attributing entire personality types to political parties, which is in itself a postulation that can only be described as "moronic". What it does have to do with is an outstanding negative assessment of one man personally --- who has never been a Democrat or Republican anyway.

Yo, Dunce, who has been talking about wanting to change the Constitution Electoral College? Every """Socialist Democrat""" in Washington, so stick it!!!

"GTP"

 

[Pogo]

As far as I know Texas requires electors to vote as the state did. They take a pledge to do so. Suprun is breaking his pledge to vote the will of the state.

Yes I think that's correct, because the other elector Sisneros (sp?) said that he made that pledge and cannot follow through with it so he will resign as an elector so that he doesn't have to do either -- betray his country or betray his pledge.

But that brings up an interesting point that Sisneros didn't consider, which is that the pledge itself is illegitimate and, if necessary, easily shot down in Court. No state laws against faithless electing have ever been enforced but if they were all an attorney would have to do is point out that such a pledge requires an elector to take no consideration at all, that they simply rubber-stamp a predestined formula --- which is clearly not what the Founders had in mind. The EC was supposed to be a veto power in case the masses had been deceived by a fraud, a con artist or an agent of foreign interests (like say, Russia).

Well, that's exactly what these guys are doing ---- they're considering all that, as the founders intended. They did their homework about what their role is.

If a state dictates how its electors must vote, then they remove their deliberative power and in effect circumvent the Constitution. The electors then become wholly nonfunctional, submitting exactly the same decision as could have been deduced from a simple math calculation. Obviously that's not how it's supposed to work.

I believe I heard of one in Washington (state) who refuses to vote for Clinton as well. Given the negative numbers of both candidates it's surprising there aren't many more electors who have stood up to just say no. And perhaps by December 19 --- there will be.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah that guy wrote an editorial a couple of days ago.. His whole statement is here.

>> The United States was set up as a republic. Alexander Hamilton provided a blueprint for states’ votes. Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards. Given his own public statements, it isn’t clear how the Electoral College can ignore these issues, and so it should reject him.

.... Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again. <<​

Yo, what happen when they elected Obama?

"GTP"

Nothing. Nobody came up with this kind of objection. About either candidate.

"GFY"

That's because Republicans are simply a better class of people than are Democrats. They don't run around protesting and showing their collective asses the way the Democrats do.

Didn't even read the post in your haste to post a hasty generalization, Dimmo.

What we just said was that no elector in '08 or '12 came up with such an objection to ANY candidate winning electoral votes -- which means Romney, McCain and O'bama twice --- on the basis of 'completely unfit to be President', as these guys in Texas have just assessed about Donald Rump.

That's got nothing to do with "Democrats", "Republcans" or blanket generalizations attributing entire personality types to political parties, which is in itself a postulation that can only be described as "moronic". What it does have to do with is an outstanding negative assessment of one man personally --- who has never been a Democrat or Republican anyway.

Yo, Dunce, who has been talking about wanting to change the Constitution Electoral College? Every """Socialist Democrat""" in Washington, so stick it!!!

"GTP"

You are sorely in need of exotic medications. "Yo".

"GFY"

 

[kaz]

As far as I know Texas requires electors to vote as the state did. They take a pledge to do so. Suprun is breaking his pledge to vote the will of the state.

Yes I think that's correct, because the other elector Sisneros (sp?) said that he made that pledge and cannot follow through with it so he will resign as an elector so that he doesn't have to do either -- betray his country or betray his pledge.

But that brings up an interesting point that Sisneros didn't consider, which is that the pledge itself is illegitimate and, if necessary, easily shot down in Court. No state laws against faithless electing have ever been enforced but if they were all an attorney would have to do is point out that such a pledge requires an elector to take no consideration at all, that they simply rubber-stamp a predestined formula --- which is clearly not what the Founders had in mind. The EC was supposed to be a veto power in case the masses had been deceived by a fraud, a con artist or an agent of foreign interests (like say, Russia).

Well, that's exactly what these guys are doing ---- they're considering all that, as the founders intended. They did their homework about what their role is.

If a state dictates how its electors must vote, then they remove their deliberative power and in effect circumvent the Constitution. The electors then become wholly nonfunctional, submitting exactly the same decision as could have been deduced from a simple math calculation. Obviously that's not how it's supposed to work.

I believe I heard of one in Washington (state) who refuses to vote for Clinton as well. Given the negative numbers of both candidates it's surprising there aren't many more electors who have stood up to just say no. And perhaps by December 19 --- there will be.

Actually the Constitution says how it picks selectors is up to the States. So you're arguing the Constitution is Unconstitutional? Now that's wacko ...

 

[Pogo]

From a Texas relative: The Texas Republican Party has stated that if Suprun persists in his plan to not vote for Trump, they are going to replace him.

They should replace him now, he is not fit to be an elector.

Go find out what an elector actually does. Then waddle back here and essplain how the elector is "unfit".

WHAT??? Not everyone is a robot?? Who knew.

 

[Pogo]

As far as I know Texas requires electors to vote as the state did. They take a pledge to do so. Suprun is breaking his pledge to vote the will of the state.

Yes I think that's correct, because the other elector Sisneros (sp?) said that he made that pledge and cannot follow through with it so he will resign as an elector so that he doesn't have to do either -- betray his country or betray his pledge.

But that brings up an interesting point that Sisneros didn't consider, which is that the pledge itself is illegitimate and, if necessary, easily shot down in Court. No state laws against faithless electing have ever been enforced but if they were all an attorney would have to do is point out that such a pledge requires an elector to take no consideration at all, that they simply rubber-stamp a predestined formula --- which is clearly not what the Founders had in mind. The EC was supposed to be a veto power in case the masses had been deceived by a fraud, a con artist or an agent of foreign interests (like say, Russia).

Well, that's exactly what these guys are doing ---- they're considering all that, as the founders intended. They did their homework about what their role is.

If a state dictates how its electors must vote, then they remove their deliberative power and in effect circumvent the Constitution. The electors then become wholly nonfunctional, submitting exactly the same decision as could have been deduced from a simple math calculation. Obviously that's not how it's supposed to work.

I believe I heard of one in Washington (state) who refuses to vote for Clinton as well. Given the negative numbers of both candidates it's surprising there aren't many more electors who have stood up to just say no. And perhaps by December 19 --- there will be.

Actually the Constitution says how it picks selectors is up to the States. So you're arguing the Constitution is Unconstitutional? Now that's wacko ...

No shit. I've been pointing that out for weeks. Attempt to shift my point noted with amusement.

What I just ruminated on was the FUNCTION OF the Electoral College as outlined by those who founded it. Clearly there is a human function in it, else we would not need human intervention to parrot what is easily added up in numbers. And that function is consideration of whether the state's choice is legitimately qualified for the office. Because "we" don't elect the President -- the EC does. And they *do* have that discretion. If Texas or any other state were to declare they didn't have that discretion, then they would be acting against the Constitution, which is maybe why no state law against faithless electing has ever been enforced --- it would fail.

And it's interesting to see you in this thread, since the last time this came up you were denying that these guys existed. Oopsie.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Go find out what an elector actually does. Then waddle back here and essplain how the elector is "unfit".

WHAT??? Not everyone is a robot?? Who knew.

What does an elector DO Huffer?

They swear an oath.

You're a democrat, honor is a concept you simply cannot understand.