TexasCHLforum.com

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.

dale blanker wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

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."

This supports why an elector must not succumb to the whining and protesting progressive dems that look to live off other people's money or further their own wealth. The electoral college is working as designed. This one elector is going against the grain by succumbing to the mob of progressive dems that just don't like the results.

Your logic escapes me.

Hamilton describes what electors are intended to do, i.e. be informed, judgemental, and make a choice. The elector that this topic is about is trying to do that. Right or wrong, you have to respect his motives. He understands the founders' intent.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Hillary herself said that a refusal to accept the election results would be "horrifying". I think this is a very accurate description of the actions that she and the rest of the liberals establishment are taking. Horrifying.

Didn't she go further to say something to the effect of it being a threat to our democracy?

Yes. And her buddy Hussein also said that it would be impossible to hack the election results. Of course, this was when they thought she would win....

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Hillary herself said that a refusal to accept the election results would be "horrifying". I think this is a very accurate description of the actions that she and the rest of the liberals establishment are taking. Horrifying.

dale blanker wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote: There is NOTHING in the 2nd Article of the Constitution stating that electors should vote their conscience. That is simply sore looser left wing dribble being promoted by cry baby Democrats who chose to run a candidate who violated her oath of office and sold state secrets to foreign governments for personal enornment. Small wonder that the same traitors would now encourage electors to violate their oaths. Makes me want to puke...

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."

philip964 wrote:Apparently he's getting help from Van Jones.

Nice vetting!

Liberty wrote:If they signed a legal document promising to vote one way, Seems as though we could sue them for breach of contract. Get a lien on their home and future earnings.