Texas Republican elector won't vote Trump

[mojo84]

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?

[Soccerdad1995]

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....

[mojo84]

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....

Exactly! Funny how they seem to change their tune when things don't go their way.

[gamboolman]

Here you go Mojo......

"Anyone not willing to accept the results of an election is a danger to democracy".
- Hillary Clinton

[TreyHouston]

So far:

Main, One Elector (D), changed vote from Hillary to Bernie S.

Minnesota, One elector (D), voted no candidate. That person was replaced and they voted Hillary.

Both votes were to go to Hillary. Doesn't this prove that MSM is Fake News?

[KD5NRH]

$$$ in fines wont change anything at all.... Hitlary will pay that change in a heartbeat. However, making it a federal crime to harass an elector should be on the books and FOLLOWED!

But isn't it also illegal to offer someone money to do something illegal? What happens if you pay someone in another state to do it there, where it is illegal, regardless of whether it's legal in your state or not?

[TreyHouston]

Watching this makes me feel bad for Charles. He puts up with this bureaucracy and slow moving wheels often!

[Nuts]

Here you go Mojo......

"Anyone not willing to accept the results of an election is a danger to democracy".
- Hillary Clinton

And to quote Obama " I won and you lost. Grow up and get over it."

[dale blanker]

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.

[mojo84]

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.

It escapes you because I used logic. The citizens of the state of Texas, not a mob of angry lunatics, chose who they want to be president. This guy and one other went against the wishes of the people. Trump is both qualified and the choice of the people of the State of Texas.

Your candidate lost and any efforts to justify discrediting the election or justify the elector's unfaithful actions is disingenuous.

[bblhd672]

The elector that this topic is about is trying to do that. Right or wrong, you have to respect his motives.

Sorry I have no respect for liars and frauds- and that is EXACTLY what this guy has been proven to be.

[Bitter Clinger]

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.

Dale,

You are right. Suprun was clearly compromised by Putin. This will be my final transmission. Executing protocol "Moose - Squirrel".

Boris

[Mxrdad]

The elector that this topic is about is trying to do that. Right or wrong, you have to respect his motives.

Sorry I have no respect for liars and frauds- and that is EXACTLY what this guy has been proven to be.

Respect is not the word that comes to mind with this Faithless Elector. Far from it.

[dale blanker]

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.

It escapes you because I used logic. The citizens of the state of Texas, not a mob of angry lunatics, chose who they want to be president. This guy and one other went against the wishes of the people. Trump is both qualified and the choice of the people of the State of Texas.

Your candidate lost and any efforts to justify discrediting the election or justify the elector's unfaithful actions is disingenuous.

Ok, but your twisted "logic" shows no reasoning. What do you think electors are for???

The Fox article offered by the OP and the Factcheck.org Federalist quote should give you some perspective about the reasons for having electors. The elector was doing exactly what the founders intended, according to Hamilton. It's true he was reneging on a pledge but that pledge was really undermining the intended purpose of an elector anyway.

Of course, this is all academic now that the Electoral College is completed but I think it's good to understand the founders' intent.

[G.A. Heath]

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.