"Mr. Trump goes out of his way to attack the cast of 'Saturday Night Live' for bias. He tweets day and night, but waited two days to offer sympathy to the Ohio State community after an attack there. He does not encourage civil discourse, but chooses to stoke fear and create outrage," Christopher Suprun wrote in his op-ed. "This is unacceptable."
Suprun wrote that the Electoral College was designed to "determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence."
Via Reddit: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/texas-elector-will-not-vote-trump
18 comments:
Shallow, self-serving twit has an opinion and a soapbox, but also an obligation to vote according to his pledge. Are there any consequences for being a faithless elector?
All inconsequential words he didn't like. Personal feelings about a candidate's choice or style of rhetoric is not a serious reason to steal the votes of millions of people. The one who is proving himself unfit for his responsibilities is this elector.
There's a petition to oust him and put an adult in his place.
I am sure this guy is a renowned legal and constitutional expert.
Sounds like a law prof.
This is who he is:
https://www.bustle.com/articles/198514-who-is-christopher-suprun-this-texas-elector-wont-be-voting-for-donald-trump
He tweets: "If you tweet to lobby me to vote one way or the other in #ElectoralCollege I will not engage everyone, but I likely am reading it."
The only input you need was provided by millions on election day.
Anyone who watches SNL to find a political opinion of their own - complete moron.
He doesn't seem to have consulted with his fellow electors.
Probably he's a John McCain type figure, a great sense of honor which attaches to random and idiotic things.
The buffoon role.
Cited Star Wars and SNL as his reasoning. So what we have here is a top pragmatist.
(Trump's tweeting about SNL, but still, come on, he cited SNL) He has a problem with Trump's tweeting. He has a problem with Trump sidestepping his beloved and ever faithful never biased national news organizations. The agencies we trust unquestionably. The ones that poisoned his tender credulous mind.
Aaaaaand, the president and vice president are specifically exempted from prohibition of accepting gifts from foreign governments. When the president does it, it's not illegal. How else would we end up with such menacing things as Churchill's bust?
Now, I'm no constitutional lawyer so that cannot be held against me, not so esteemed as say, Obama, but I sometimes play one online, and I read them so often as everyday.
Every
single
day.
Repeatedly.
*whips out internet browser* Voila!
Most of the regulatory restrictions on the acceptance of gifts by federal officials from so-called
“prohibited sources” are not applicable to the President of the United States, although
the President may not solicit gifts from such sources. The President, in any event, may
receive gifts that are given on the basis of personal friendship. When personal gifts
accepted by the President or his family exceed a certain amount, those gifts are required
to be publicly disclosed in financial disclosure reports filed by the President. The
President remains subject to the bribery and illegal gratuities law which prohibits the
receipt of a gift or of anything of value when that receipt, or agreement to receive, is
connected to the performance (or nonperformance) of an official act.
BANG! In your face with a fireplace, Mr. Unfaithful Texas Elector. Now, pull up your pants and get off my bell end, you're no fun anymore.
What ever happened to ascertaining the will of the voters?
See Florida 2000.
rhhardin said...
He doesn't seem to have consulted with his fellow electors.
Probably he's a John McCain type figure, a great sense of honor which attaches to random and idiotic things.
Worse. He's a Van Jones, Think Progress Lefty.
He's Ana Navarro only w/ a smaller dick. Obviously looking for attention. He's probably shooting for a Reality TV show.
Well I feel better. He's a transplanted New York carpetbagger that managed to convince the gullible people of Dallas to make him an elector for the state.
And, on that sunny note, it may be germaine to note The Donald has picked up 84 votes in the WI recount.
This fuckwad's 5 minutes won't end well. If any of you don't believe that leftist.
Guys like that are why they took away my power to wish people into the cornfield.
NOW....if only the California electors from the red districts in the state would do the same and vote for Trump instead of Hillary in block vote! Look at an electoral map of the states and see all the red voting counties and electoral districts.
Maybe if we peeled of about 15 of California's districts that routinely vote Republican and go rouge....Vote for Trump instead of Hillary, it would be a good lesson for those who think that they should do the same for Hillary by denying Trump the State's block of votes.
Goose/Gander
Personally I do think that we should apportion the Electoral votes according to how the districts vote. HOWEVER---> that isn't the system now. If this guy in Texas wants to do the system like Maine does, then they can change it at the State level
I looked briefly for an accounting of what the 2016 electoral college vote would have been if electors were awarded by congressional district plus two votes per state for the statewide winner. I failed.
Anyone have a link?
Post a Comment