TexasCHLforum.com

G.A. Heath wrote:This elector was not breaking his oath/pledge in doing what the founders intended. Instead what he did was break a pledge in an effort to enrich himself and/or his "charity" that is now getting a much closer look. This man has a history of behaviour indicates he is a less than honest person. My advice would be to think long and hard before holding this man up as a "Constitutionalist" or "Patriot" because he is more like a carpet bagger.

Naw, I wasn't endorsing Chris Suprun as anything, only defending what I believe should be all electors rights. I still think it's a neat idea to have a filter on the popular opinion which seems so frequently to be poorly informed or formed.

Seems that most of the faithless electors would be against Hillary Clinton. FYI, hate to be a buzz kill!

Just curious, but the fake news srory are you listening to?

dale blanker wrote: Try this: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-re ... l-college/
"As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

Let me get this straight. Electors from states that Trump won may vote for someone other than Trump and may use Hamilton as their justification to make sure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”. Presumably, Trump is not a man of “eminent degree”. Understanding this principle is a sign of superior intellect.

These same people have no problem with electors voting for Hillary. Presumably, she is a woman of “eminent degree”. Let’s review some facts.
Hillary:
• Lied about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia.
• Lied about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary.
• Lied about the gun industry being protected from any type of liability.
• Set up a personal E-mail server in violation of law, not to mention common sense.
• Lied about sending or receiving classified documents on her unsecured E-mail server.
• Withheld support during the Benghazi attack during which Americans were killed, including our ambassador and then lied about it being caused by a Youtube video
• Took money from Saudi Arabia, a country where a woman can go to prison for being raped, and then accused Trump of misogyny.

Trump was not my first, or even second choice. In a race between Hillary and anyone, I am going to vote for Hillary’s opponent unless her opponent is Satan. In that case, for the first time in the post-Regan era, there really would not be a lesser of two evils.

dale blanker wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:This elector was not breaking his oath/pledge in doing what the founders intended. Instead what he did was break a pledge in an effort to enrich himself and/or his "charity" that is now getting a much closer look. This man has a history of behaviour indicates he is a less than honest person. My advice would be to think long and hard before holding this man up as a "Constitutionalist" or "Patriot" because he is more like a carpet bagger.

Naw, I wasn't endorsing Chris Suprun as anything, only defending what I believe should be all electors rights. I still think it's a neat idea to have a filter on the popular opinion which seems so frequently to be poorly informed or formed.

Yes you were. What you "believe" and what is are two different things. He is an elector for the state of Texas. The citizens of the state chose Trump. Trump is qualified. He should have voted Trump based on his pledge. Nothing twisted in that logic except it doesn't align with your progressive liberal thoughts and beliefs.

If it wasn't this way, the east and west coasts would chose all of our presidents. This system spreads the decision more equitably among the citizens of the states.

Hillary also lied about wanting to destroy the coal industry to a coal workers face.

mojo84 wrote:

dale blanker wrote: Naw, I wasn't endorsing Chris Suprun as anything, only defending what I believe should be all electors rights. I still think it's a neat idea to have a filter on the popular opinion which seems so frequently to be poorly informed or formed.

He should have voted Trump based on his pledge. Nothing twisted in that logic except it doesn't align with your progressive liberal thoughts and beliefs.

Liberal? How can you get more conservative than promoting the intent of the founders of the U.S. Constitution?

If it wasn't this way, the east and west coasts would chose all of our presidents. This system spreads the decision more equitably among the citizens of the states.

Your idea of what's equalitable is twisted too. The popular vote for the larger states is obviously compromised somewhat with the Electoral College, but I appreciate the founder's intent and compromise to get constitution approved by giving the smaller states more say.

I fear that if we cannot be more focused, informed, and objective, our republic is at risk.

dale blanker wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

dale blanker wrote: Naw, I wasn't endorsing Chris Suprun as anything, only defending what I believe should be all electors rights. I still think it's a neat idea to have a filter on the popular opinion which seems so frequently to be poorly informed or formed.

He should have voted Trump based on his pledge. Nothing twisted in that logic except it doesn't align with your progressive liberal thoughts and beliefs.

Liberal? How can you get more conservative than promoting the intent of the founders of the U.S. Constitution?

If it wasn't this way, the east and west coasts would chose all of our presidents. This system spreads the decision more equitably among the citizens of the states.

Your idea of what's equalitable is twisted too. The popular vote for the larger states is obviously compromised somewhat with the Electoral College, but I appreciate the founder's intent and compromise to get constitution approved by giving the smaller states more say.

I fear that if we cannot be more focused, informed, and objective, our republic is at risk.

You deny being liberal, yet espouse liberal talking points. If you got your way the popular vote would have elected Hillary and beginning January 20th the 2nd Amendment would be under siege by HRC and a newly liberal leaning Supreme Court.

Has the requirement that the majority of states bind their electors to vote the way of the state majority of voters, under penalty of law, ever been challenged in court? Just curious.

G26ster wrote:Has the requirement that the majority of states bind their electors to vote the way of the state majority of voters, under penalty of law, ever been challenged in court? Just curious.

yes. Colorado electors challenged in Federal Court. they lost.

[/quote] I fear that if we cannot be more focused, informed, and objective, our republic is at risk.[/quote]

What the?????? Spoken like a true Liberal. Sounds like something BO or Clinton camp would say. I'm surprised you support firearms with quotes like that. HHHMMMMM.

dhoobler wrote:Trump was not my first, or even second choice. In a race between Hillary and anyone, I am going to vote for Hillary’s opponent unless her opponent is Satan.

Between those two, I'd vote for Satan... He's more likely to mess up the country less, and everyone knows what he's about so - for once - everyone would actually read every word of every bill before sending it to him and congress would take their authority back from the presidency.

I agree. Wait,... I'm pretty sure "She" and Satan one and the same????

Mxrdad wrote:I agree. Wait,... I'm pretty sure "She" and Satan one and the same????

Texas Republican elector Chris Suprun, who voted for Ohio Gov. John Kasich on Monday, hinted that a push for Trump's impeachment could be in the works.

“As a person who has always played fast and loose with the law, Trump will likely be impeached within the first year of his Presidency by responsible Republicans in Congress. For the rest of us Americans, his presence in the Oval Office represents a crisis for the Constitution, the economy and the country,” he said in the statement.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12 ... cause.html

That's rich...Suprun talking about Trump playing fast and loose with the law. Pot meet kettle