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

[Derelict_Drvr]

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.

"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."
And:
"If a state dictates how its electors must vote, then they remove their deliberative power and in effect circumvent the Constitution."

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution gives states the rights to select their electors as they please, including a right to require party and candidate loyalty, and the concomitant authority to strip an elector of participation in the electoral college for failure to honor that pledge of loyalty to the party nominee.

Must I post again the link to:
Anti-Trump Forces are Wrong, Electors Have Absolutely No Legal Right To Vote Their ‘Conscience’?

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Hi kaz the article explains there was more than one TX Elector refusing to vote for Trump:
Another Texas Republican elector, Art Sisneros, resigned last week rather than vote for Trump.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Thanks Pogo
I agree the point is to have that human element
to serve as a final check.

Pogo this point is not something you can necessarily argue and prove to anyone.
Either they get it and think that way or they don't.

There are plenty of people who already get this point.

So just know I KNOW what you are talking about, and agree that human judgment
is an intended factor. If other people don't get it, no amount of arguing
is going to change their minds.

As for Mr. Trump, if he doesn't listen to his critics, and listen to the objections of dissenters,
if he doesn't respond to the negative feedback that is airing in public and in the media,
and if he doesn't listen to his own peers opposing and confronting him when he strays off course,
he is going to find himself impeached or resigning.

He cannot run the country by himself; it takes coordinated teamwork of experts.
And to serve the interests and include the representation of ALL AMERICANS
is going to take WORKING WITH ALL PARTIES which represent large groups of people.

Whatever help he is going to need, I will gladly work with members and leaders of
all parties, especially Christian and Constitutionalist Parties who might be able to compel him
to stay in line and listen!

This will be an interesting challenge, and from all the people speaking up and speaking out,
I think America is ready for self-govt through direct representation as well as elected representation.
I think we can do this, given our party organizations and access to internet and media.

People are already communicating and organizing on their own.
With the same effort it takes to voice opinions about Trump and his media campaigns,
all these people can be campaigning and organizing business plans and resources to reform govt directly!

We can all do what Trump is doing, just on his own, as an individual citizen.

We can all share equal "executive" power to carry out plans and platforms of our own parties,
"legislative" power to write up our own contracts and policies we want for
health care, schools, and worker owned coops and credit unions,
and "judicial" power to issue our own opinions and decisions we believe are right for us to do.

 

[Nia88]

These electors are just the first of many who will regret their vote for this pigheaded tyrant. You stupid people made a very serious mistake. Just listen to what the people at Carrier and their union leaders are now saying about Trump. Trump is a vile, vicious despot and you fuckers own him.

Trump is and always will be a con man. He's been screwing people over for years with his unkept promises and not paying people who have done jobs for him. But yet his voters think he's going to keep his promise to " Make America Great Again " Romney even said ( before he started kissing behind) Trump is taking his supporters as suckers.

 

[emilynghiem]

I hate to have to admit this but I think it is the right thing to do.
After all this time on the forum that I have been arguing with the liberals over their thinking that republicans were ok with disenfranchising voters, it looks like they were right and I was wrong. I defended the republicans because I honestly thought that the idea of taking away someones vote was just foolish. And as far as Voter ID disenfranchising people, I still maintain that it does not.
However, as far as the republicans not having a problem with other methods of taking away peoples votes, I evidently have been seriously mistaken. It would appear that this one electorate is more than willing to do just that. It also is interesting that the republican party is not stepping up and slapping his ignorant ass to the ground for doing it, so the party as a whole must be ok with it.
I do however also find it interesting that no liberals have stepped up and said anything, considering all of the arguing they have done about how a persons vote has to be allowed and counted, you would think they would be a bit concerned over this too.
And for the record, I would certainly be chastising an electorate that was obligated by his districts votes to vote for Hillary but refused and voted for Trump instead.
The fact that this is allowed is somewhat of an issue too. Why dont we just save time and money every four years and bypass the general elections and just go right to the electorates for their vote only. I see no difference.

Dear Maryland Patriot
I thought the opposition to him was going to use the given means and process which is to remove and replace him. You don't have to slap someone down when there is a check in place. It makes sense that Constitutionalist would respect his freedom to speak his opinion and exercise his rights to express his intent. They can let him speak his piece, argue back with him the same way (which I already heard on the radio, with point by point dissection that COULD count as rightwing slapdown which I guess you missed), and then decide if he needs to be removed or not which is separate from letting voice his intent in public.

As for representing Texas voters, enough of the population did vote for "other people besides Trump"; so either way, Trump winning all the Electoral votes still does not represent all the voters. It still technically leaves out almost half the participating voters who didn't support Trump for President. I know when Clinton got elected, I didn't recognize him either as representing me (nor did Obama who went against basic Constitutional principles so much I still believe he owes compensation for the costs of ACA that half the nation never authorized or agreed to pay).

If you are going to argue for all votes counting, we should look into dividing electoral votes proportionally.

And given how the Democrats need to reform the party anyway, why not revamp it into a working structure that can manage health care, education, and social service administration directly for members paying in and citizens who want those services.

There are enough Democratic voters in each state who wanted someone else to represent them, so why not go ahead and set that up directly, state by state and nationwide. With the same effort it takes to organize citizens to Protest govt, those same coalition efforts could head a national system of managing resources to support their own internal party platform and put it directly into action, with or without help from elected govt leaders.

 

[emilynghiem]

These electors are just the first of many who will regret their vote for this pigheaded tyrant. You stupid people made a very serious mistake. Just listen to what the people at Carrier and their union leaders are now saying about Trump. Trump is a vile, vicious despot and you fuckers own him.

Trump is and always will be a con man. He's been screwing people over for years with his unkept promises and not paying people who have done jobs for him. But yet his voters think he's going to keep his promise to " Make America Great Again " Romney even said ( before he started kissing behind) Trump is taking his supporters as suckers.

Nope Nia88
It's going to take all of America to make America grow to our fullest potential.

Trump is only one person tooting his horn and trumpeting the call.

It's up to each of us to take our vision and parts of the plan, organize partnerships and teams, and build better solutions ourselves.

Obama put out the call to be the change we want to see, but his followers made the mistake of waiting on him to lead or do everything and that's not how it works.

Now we have no choice but to do it ourselves, or clearly it won't get done!

Starting with parties, the individual leaders will all need to organize around issues of reform. And we as American citizens and taxpayers are going to get behind each idea or issue we want to address. That's how we can make this happen.

We all have different priorities, so we should each fund what is most critical to us. Together all parties can cover all the issues and we can get the work done.

Trump is in over his head. Nobody can redo all the business plans for govt without help from everyone affected to shift all the services, programs and govt staff to better systems.

Time to roll up the shirt sleeves and jump in to do the work.

We can sink, or swim, or learn to row in coordination with each other instead of fighting over who's in charge of the ship. We all have roles to play.
It's going to take every one of us exerting maximum effort.

This isn't a one man show.
America is we the people.
Workers, leaders, visionaries.
It's on us, and up to us to help each other to achieve the goals and dreams we share in common, regardless how diverse our contributions are to this end!

May Trump's stubborn bravado, in pushing forward with whatever ideas he's willing to try next, inspire others to bring out their ideas and not be afraid to dream big and push for greater. Sure we make missteps and can be stupidly misguided, but if we agree to correct each other, we don't have to stumble and fall but we can catch each other and commit to help each other to succeed instead of wanting each other to fail.

The success or failure of America to fix the problems we face with govt, educational and economic development is up to each of us.
Trump is only one person. Think how much more we could get done in teams or whole parties of people demanding change, organized by state and nationwide. Is it really that hard to envision?

If we can lobby in groups, how much more would it take to implement that lobbying into direct action and development, community by community. Especially if we disagree with Trump's policies or approach, what better way to challenge that than to go out and do BETTER?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

"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."
And:
"If a state dictates how its electors must vote, then they remove their deliberative power and in effect circumvent the Constitution."

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution gives states the rights to select their electors as they please, including a right to require party and candidate loyalty, and the concomitant authority to strip an elector of participation in the electoral college for failure to honor that pledge of loyalty to the party nominee.

Must I post again the link to:
Anti-Trump Forces are Wrong, Electors Have Absolutely No Legal Right To Vote Their ‘Conscience’?

Dear Derelict_Drvr and Pogo
You are both essentially right
1. The Elector has the "right" to vote and possibly face consequences for voting contrary to their pledge. Unless it's made a violation of civil or criminal law, that person has not broken a LAW that defines "rights" but has broken a pledge or promise and/or rules. For example, if rules of the Democratic Party nomination and delegate system are argued as violated by manipulative tactics, where someone refused to follow the rules, those aren't the same as breaking laws. You can either frame this as NOT having the right to breach a contract; or having the right to violate rules and contracts but facing the penalty for doing so, similar to the right to commit civil disobedience and break laws for political reasons with the agreement to pay the consequences of the violation.

2. The State process includes the right to remove replace or fine Electors for voting contrary, but this may or may not be required or applied
3. The Constitution leaves it to the States to set and enforce their own policies with Electors

4. So if you interpret the right to vote freely, even if it means getting replaced or fined by State rules, as the right to vote by conscience then that's where people are getting this. And if you interpret the rules set by States that fine or remove Electors who vote contrary to their pledges as "not having the right to vote otherwise" that's where people are getting that, in practice, NO these Electors don't get to vote because they get removed instead.

My question is how do you know how Electors are going to vote except if they say in advance? What do states do, wait until after the Electors vote, then replace the contrary ones and redo the vote?

If Electors are fined AFTER they have voted, how does that change the vote?
Wouldn't that mean those Electors did in fact vote their conscience (even if they got fined after the fact).
Does that vote get to be changed by replacing Electors and replacing the votes???

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Uncensored2008
I have to agree with you on this, with Democrats like Obama and Pelosi who pushed ACA mandates as LAW above Constitutional limits and beliefs of Opponents arguing for states rights. Apparently their mode of operations is to push to pass whatever they believe in, and as long as it goes through the given system and nobody stops them, then it counts as legitimate and constitutional until proven otherwise. Arguing in advance doesn't count. If they can do it and get away with it it must be lawful. Only courts issuing orders or judges issuing rulings count as law. Otherwise whatever they can manage to do or pass is therefore legal. When they do it. Not so much when other people push for their beliefs on policies. If the right does this, it's blamed on religion to argue for religious separation; but if the left pushes beliefs those are counted as secular or political beliefs, not religious, so creeds are not treated equally under law but are based on judging people by their affiliation whether their BELIEFS are allowed to be established by govt against beliefs of others.

This is not just politically biased but affects how we apply and enforce the First Amendment

 

[esthermoon]

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!

"I'm here to elect a President not a King"
Somebody should tell Mr. Suprun Kings are not elected lol
(there's a single exception to my knowledge and is Vatican )

 

[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.

"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."
And:
"If a state dictates how its electors must vote, then they remove their deliberative power and in effect circumvent the Constitution."

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution gives states the rights to select their electors as they please, including a right to require party and candidate loyalty, and the concomitant authority to strip an elector of participation in the electoral college for failure to honor that pledge of loyalty to the party nominee.

Must I post again the link to:
Anti-Trump Forces are Wrong, Electors Have Absolutely No Legal Right To Vote Their ‘Conscience’?

If such a link existed it would be embedded here.
This is a new approach though. Instead of making a point, just go "must I post a link to..." as if one's audience is supposed to accept an unsupported idea on intimidation alone.

 

[Kosh]

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!

It is moot point, even if Trump some how gets less than 270, the house will get to vote whop the president is.

Just goes to show that some can not handle elections results.

The far left drones at the best example of people that can handle results that goes against their religious beliefs.

All it does delay the inevitable!

 

[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.

"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."
And:
"If a state dictates how its electors must vote, then they remove their deliberative power and in effect circumvent the Constitution."

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution gives states the rights to select their electors as they please, including a right to require party and candidate loyalty, and the concomitant authority to strip an elector of participation in the electoral college for failure to honor that pledge of loyalty to the party nominee.

Must I post again the link to:
Anti-Trump Forces are Wrong, Electors Have Absolutely No Legal Right To Vote Their ‘Conscience’?

Dear Derelict_Drvr and Pogo
You are both essentially right
1. The Elector has the "right" to vote and possibly face consequences for voting contrary to their pledge. Unless it's made a violation of civil or criminal law, that person has not broken a LAW that defines "rights" but has broken a pledge or promise and/or rules. For example, if rules of the Democratic Party nomination and delegate system are argued as violated by manipulative tactics, where someone refused to follow the rules, those aren't the same as breaking laws. You can either frame this as NOT having the right to breach a contract; or having the right to violate rules and contracts but facing the penalty for doing so, similar to the right to commit civil disobedience and break laws for political reasons with the agreement to pay the consequences of the violation.

2. The State process includes the right to remove replace or fine Electors for voting contrary, but this may or may not be required or applied
3. The Constitution leaves it to the States to set and enforce their own policies with Electors

4. So if you interpret the right to vote freely, even if it means getting replaced or fined by State rules, as the right to vote by conscience then that's where people are getting this. And if you interpret the rules set by States that fine or remove Electors who vote contrary to their pledges as "not having the right to vote otherwise" that's where people are getting that, in practice, NO these Electors don't get to vote because they get removed instead.

My question is how do you know how Electors are going to vote except if they say in advance? What do states do, wait until after the Electors vote, then replace the contrary ones and redo the vote?

If Electors are fined AFTER they have voted, how does that change the vote?
Wouldn't that mean those Electors did in fact vote their conscience (even if they got fined after the fact).
Does that vote get to be changed by replacing Electors and replacing the votes???

Fun fact -- although many states (at least 26) have laws against "faitlhless electing" --- fines and such --- none have ever been enforced.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Dear Uncensored2008
I have to agree with you on this, with Democrats like Obama and Pelosi who pushed ACA mandates as LAW above Constitutional limits and beliefs of Opponents arguing for states rights. Apparently their mode of operations is to push to pass whatever they believe in, and as long as it goes through the given system and nobody stops them, then it counts as legitimate and constitutional until proven otherwise. Arguing in advance doesn't count. If they can do it and get away with it it must be lawful. Only courts issuing orders or judges issuing rulings count as law. Otherwise whatever they can manage to do or pass is therefore legal. When they do it. Not so much when other people push for their beliefs on policies. If the right does this, it's blamed on religion to argue for religious separation; but if the left pushes beliefs those are counted as secular or political beliefs, not religious, so creeds are not treated equally under law but are based on judging people by their affiliation whether their BELIEFS are allowed to be established by govt against beliefs of others.

This is not just politically biased but affects how we apply and enforce the First Amendment

Don't "agree" with this moron, he's just trolling. Number one he's got a blatant generalization fallacy there which purports to assign character traits to an entire political party membership, which is (again, still) moronic, and number two, I'm not a Democrat anyway. And he knows it.

 

[emilynghiem]

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!

"I'm here to elect a President not a King"
Somebody should tell Mr. Suprun Kings are not elected lol
(there's a single exception to my knowledge and is Vatican )

What's funny esthermoon
Is he's asking for someone to act as a unifying leader. How is that not just another type of King or Idol?
To have people leading govt without a King means we unite amongst ourselves!

In a way, Suprun is asking to align with other conservatives on a different plan or focus to make a statement.
On the other hand, if he wants either Trump to be a unifying leader or symbol, or someone else to magically do that, then he's asking to pick a King who can lead in that manner instead of relying on people to unite and lead the nation.

I think we will end up doing both, organizing behind leaders we choose to follow And Authorize to represent us in govt policy, while accepting responsibilities for doing more of the ground work ourselves so we claim equal ownership and rights. We need both public representatives and agreements on how to represent and implement our own policies directly.

 

[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.

"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."
And:
"If a state dictates how its electors must vote, then they remove their deliberative power and in effect circumvent the Constitution."

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution gives states the rights to select their electors as they please, including a right to require party and candidate loyalty, and the concomitant authority to strip an elector of participation in the electoral college for failure to honor that pledge of loyalty to the party nominee.

Must I post again the link to:
Anti-Trump Forces are Wrong, Electors Have Absolutely No Legal Right To Vote Their ‘Conscience’?

If such a link existed it would be embedded here.
This is a new approach though. Instead of making a point, just go "must I post a link to..." as if one's audience is supposed to accept an unsupported idea on intimidation alone.

What do you know about posting links to support your claims? You know shit about it in my experience

 

[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.

"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."
And:
"If a state dictates how its electors must vote, then they remove their deliberative power and in effect circumvent the Constitution."

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution gives states the rights to select their electors as they please, including a right to require party and candidate loyalty, and the concomitant authority to strip an elector of participation in the electoral college for failure to honor that pledge of loyalty to the party nominee.

Must I post again the link to:
Anti-Trump Forces are Wrong, Electors Have Absolutely No Legal Right To Vote Their ‘Conscience’?

If such a link existed it would be embedded here.
This is a new approach though. Instead of making a point, just go "must I post a link to..." as if one's audience is supposed to accept an unsupported idea on intimidation alone.

What do you know about posting links to support your claims? You know shit about it in my experience

Was that your post, Sprinkles?

Are you actually telling us that not only are you uncertain of your own gender and where you live, but you can't even recognize your own name?

And it's only three letters. Tsk tsk.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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!

Just trying to make a name for themselves, nothing but attention whores.

 

[Pogo]

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!

Just trying to make a name for themselves, nothing but attention whores.

At least they know how the Electrical College works. As opposed to most of the clueless wags here.

Such as this clownstick:

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.

I continue to sit and wait for an answer on that. Pothead ran away rather than defend his claim.

 

[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.

"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."
And:
"If a state dictates how its electors must vote, then they remove their deliberative power and in effect circumvent the Constitution."

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution gives states the rights to select their electors as they please, including a right to require party and candidate loyalty, and the concomitant authority to strip an elector of participation in the electoral college for failure to honor that pledge of loyalty to the party nominee.

Must I post again the link to:
Anti-Trump Forces are Wrong, Electors Have Absolutely No Legal Right To Vote Their ‘Conscience’?

If such a link existed it would be embedded here.
This is a new approach though. Instead of making a point, just go "must I post a link to..." as if one's audience is supposed to accept an unsupported idea on intimidation alone.

What do you know about posting links to support your claims? You know shit about it in my experience

Was that your post, Sprinkles?

Are you actually telling us that not only are you uncertain of your own gender and where you live, but you can't even recognize your own name?

And it's only three letters. Tsk tsk.

Your manhood needs to be validated by others? That's pretty sad

 

[Uncensored2008]

[


If such a link existed it would be embedded here.
This is a new approach though. Instead of making a point, just go "must I post a link to..." as if one's audience is supposed to accept an unsupported idea on intimidation alone.

This is just you childish Communists refusing to accept the results of the election.


"
Trump refuses to say he will accept election results; Clinton calls it 'horrifying'"

Trump refuses to say he will accept election results; Clinton calls it 'horrifying'

Fucking hypocritical piles of shit.