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

[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!

 

[1stRambo]

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"

 

[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. <<​

 

[Uncensored2008]

In breaking news Chris Suprun of Dallas was found hanging from a Mesquite tree with a sign reading "traitor" on it. Police ruled the death obvious suicide.

 

[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"

 

[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"

 

[depotoo]

Will be interesting.

Under elector responsibilities -

Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector.

 

[Pogo]

Will be interesting.

Under elector responsibilities -

Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector.

It's predictable that there's no link to this since it's completely incoherent.

There is no way the Constitution would "require that electors be completely free to act as they choose". Constitutions are not written in negatives.. That's absurd. The reality is, and this has been tested and affirmed in SCOTUS, that all the Constitution requires is that the several states choose their allotted number of electors and then transmit their votes to the Congress. Exactly how they choose those electors and exactly how they vote, is completely up to the state. The Constitution says nothing about what it "doesn't-not-require", nor should it.

 

[depotoo]

U. S. Electoral College: Who Are the Electors? How Do They Vote?

Will be interesting.

Under elector responsibilities -

Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector.

It's predictable that there's no link to this since it's completely incoherent.

There is no way the Constitution would "require that electors be completely free to act as they choose". Constitutions are not written in negatives.. That's absurd. The reality is, and this has been tested and affirmed in SCOTUS, that all the Constitution requires is that the several states choose their allotted number of electors and then transmit their votes to the Congress. Exactly how they choose those electors and exactly how they vote, is completely up to the state. The Constitution says nothing about what it "doesn't-not-require", nor should it.

 

[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.

 

[emilynghiem]

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 Chris Suprun's twitter info


(((Chris Suprun)))
@TheChrisSuprun

#TXGOP Presidential Elector representing CD30. Media inquiries to [email protected]. Thank you. #BloodAndHotSauce

Dallas, Texas · http://www.neverforget911.org

FOLLOWERS 17,137

• =======================
• As a Democrat who voted for Trump and Supports Green principles of inclusion and consensus, noncoecion, and proportional representation by party,I don't see the purpose in seeking to remove him, but I support the Electors voting by conscience.

Why not ask all Electors to consider voting for the winner of their districts?

If Suprun and others want a different Republican choice,
could we invite Suprun and others HERE to USMB
to consult on how to allocate or apportion their votes to reflect
and represent the diverse members of states across the nation?

 

[emilynghiem]

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

 

[tinydancer]

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.

 

[Silhouette]

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

No, that would be George Soros...He paid good money to seal this election in his favor (to appoint the USSC Justices he wants to rule our nation with an iron fist) and by fucking GOD he's not going to be denied his Will...

Don't worry, Texas will appoint a new elector to fill the seat of the resigned one. So that's one gained (paid for?) electoral vote for Hillary she didn't have before..

 

[tinydancer]

Electors are not selected to vote their conscience and go against the will of the people. Bloody fools. And scumbuckets.

Anti-Trump Forces are Wrong, Electors Have Absolutely No Legal Right To Vote Their ‘Conscience’

by Robert Barnes | 8:16 am, December 2nd, 2016

From the article...

Those encouraging electors to abandon the will of the people are wrong, and are violating the basic principles of democracy.

In the seminal decision of Ray v. Blair, the Supreme Court made clear electors act at the privilege of the state that empowers them, and do NOT enjoy any special right to vote as they please.

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.

In so doing, the Supreme Court reversed the Alabama state supreme court, and rejected the idea that an elector had any Constitutionally protected right to vote in the electoral college as he or she chose.

Electors only “act by authority of the state.” Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. at 224 (1952). The Constitution itself gives such power to the states without restriction or restraint. “Neither the language of Art. II, § 1, nor that of the Twelfth Amendment forbids a party to require from candidates in its primary a pledge of political conformity with the aims of the party.” The “suggestion” of some “assumed” elector choice to ignore the state’s limitations on his office was “impossible to accept” as some intention of the founders. As the court noted: “history teaches” just the opposite, as electors “were expected to support the party nominees.”.

Indeed, the Supreme Court labeled such faithless electors a “fraudulent invasion” for a reason"

More at link:

Anti-Trump Forces are Wrong, Electors Have Absolutely No Legal Right To Vote Their ‘Conscience’

 

[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.

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

No, that would be George Soros...He paid good money to seal this election in his favor (to appoint the USSC Justices he wants to rule our nation with an iron fist) and by fucking GOD he's not going to be denied his Will...

Don't worry, Texas will appoint a new elector to fill the seat of the resigned one. So that's one gained (paid for?) electoral vote for Hillary she didn't have before..

Dear Silhouette
There was already an Elector who resigned.
This guy wants to wait and see if others
Vote for Kasich. There are people petitioning to remove and replace Suprun.

If neither Trump or Clinton gets 270 votes it will go to the House that has to approve the Electors vote anyway.

Suprun is basically using his position to make a public statement, which is a good thing.

I credit Trump also for setting the atmosphere where anyone can use free speech and media to issue statements and influence public perception and opinion.

This is a good step toward self representation and self govt. Trump is not going to censor the media as Clinton and Soros were skewing the media.

So we will see the doors and mic 's open up to everyone speaking out and changing how we interact as people in relation to govt!

 

[tinydancer]

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.

This Electoral College Member in Texas Refuses to Vote for Trump

 

[WaitingFor2020]

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

Then Donald will have to buy them back all over again.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

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.