DALLAS – The Republican elector who has gotten national attention for refusing to vote for Donald Trump at the Electoral College on Dec. 19 was apparently not a first responder on September 11, 2001 as he has stated for years and has a questionable career history, according to an investigation by WFAA.
Chris Suprun, 42, portrays himself as a heroic firefighter who was among the first on the scene after the third plane flew into the Pentagon on 9/11.
In a heavily-publicized editorial this month for the New York Times, Suprun stated that as a member of the Electoral College he will not cast his ballot for Trump because the president-elect “shows daily he is not qualified for the office.”
Christopher Suprun’s appearance with Tucker Carlson on Fox News is below.
Thoroughly explains his lack of integrity in following through with his commitments!
There is a reason that ******** try to protect muslimes at every turn, because they are no different. Both insist that it is fine to lie if it suits their agenda. This jerk is no conservative, he is just another libturd who has infiltrated the right.
The GOPUSA introduction is just the tip of the iceberg. To see what a fraud this elector is, you need to click on the link to the full WFAA story. There are several lies of such a magnitude that even one of them should have been enough to disqulify him as an elector.
It doesn’t take much vetting to uncover these lies, either. Just look at the biggest “medal” an elector has awarded himself, and check it out.
Typical liberal poser.
Chris LIBERAL Suprun, another NARCISSIST LIAR, one can add to the Liberal loons in society. Go to bed with Geraldo, since everything in the world revolves around you two clowns. You and Geraldo can put on your panties and go to bed in a safe space, with crayons, a coloring book and play dough.
The man is liar!!!!!
He should be fired POST HASTE.. The Texas board of elections should PUBLICLY Shame and fire his behind.
Snake, Gary, Budapest, and Backpacker, how’s Suprun a liberal, liar, or a supporter of Muslims, the latter just being a distraction? While I like him, Carlson was gravely wrong about the Constitution and the history leading to it, especially of the Federalist Papers.
While I’d vote for Trump if I were an Elector, Suprun was right about Hamilton in Federalist 68 about the reason for the Electoral College. The Framers feared pure democracy so they gave us a representative one so as to hopefully allow the choosing of educated people to represent us and to use their education, experience and wisdom to make decisions for us, EVEN if at times they didn’t do what the masses wanted in a heated moment. That applied to congress, the administration, AND the Electoral College.
If that weren’t so, then as Suprun clearly stated, there’d be no need for an EC as the State Sec. of State could just certify the votes and send them to Congress. The purpose of the EC is as Suprun said, to act as a buffer between the masses and representative government.
As for being a liar, all that all of you can point to are the unsubstantiated comments about his alleged background. However, I’m with Peter Nyikos. If true they should’ve disqualified him as an Elector. Of course the issue of proper vetting affects many other areas of government.
Ituser, Texas is one of the about 21 States that doesn’t have a law regarding faithless electors.
in response to Recce1, there is more than one reason for the EC. The EC was also to keep the more populous states from nullifying votes from smaller less populous states. If not for the EC the west coast and northeastern states would be determining the presidency without any regard for smaller states. We are NOT a democracy. Under this system Trump defeated Clinton soundly in accordance with the Constitution and the will of the people in all 50 states. This faithless elector needs to get with the program or resign.
“As for being a liar, all that all of you can point to are the unsubstantiated comments about his alleged background.”
Other than the fact Texas statute states
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.192.htm
(b) To be eligible to serve as a presidential elector for a political party, a person must be affiliated with the party.
So the 38 votes are not coming from anyone but the Republican party, who had a convention and elected Trump as their nominee
Suprun only has the privilege of voting because the REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATE WON
Other people with other votes were EXCLUDED every step of the way
This will be the LAST VOTE he cast on behalf of his party and will be the LAST TIME he has the party’s sacred TRUST
Based on his lying past and his willingness to step into the spotlight never thinking he would be found out indicates a narcissistic personality disorder
“people with NPD typically value themselves over others to the extent that they disregard the feelings and wishes of others and expect to be treated as superior regardless of their actual status or achievements” Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.)
dizzy245, I’ll defer to Alexander Hamilton and other Framers of the Constitution as to why the EC was created. Suffice if to say that the goal of protecting the smaller States could just as well have been achieved by using the same formula of allocating Electors and just have the State Secretaries of State forward the results to congress.
I agree under the current system Trump fairly defeated Clinton and I for one am thankful for that.
By the way, a number of Clinton Electors are considering voting for someone else, even a few for Trump. What about that? Should they be bound to a corrupt traitor who was a clear security risk to the country?
“Suffice if to say that the goal of protecting the smaller States could just as well have been achieved by using the same formula of allocating Electors and just have the State Secretaries of State forward the results to congress.”
No it could not. A republic is a representative government
Lets add a few words to this “the goal of protecting the smaller States”
The goal is protecting the voice of the PEOPLE in smaller States
How best to do that?
One vote of all the people or many votes for representatives with many stages
First elect a precinct committeemen, then these representative elect a county party body, then have precincts vote to send delegates to the county convention, then elect representatives as delegates to the state convention, then the national convention,
This is at least five votes before the national election that then has electors selected to represent this final will for your state’s votes at the national level.
This is really the beauty of a republic, many, many, many votes each only doing a part to finally make the whole
People who like one great big vote for winner take all know how easy it is to fix just one vote, and then dictate.
Jota, it seems you didn’t read my comment very carefully. I never mentioned anything about one big vote for each State. If the purpose of the Electoral College is to be a forced rubber stamp of the results in each State, why have it? Please read Federalist Paper #68.
Also, as constituted today the primary system has nothing to do with the Electoral College. It’s a party type system that the Framers were suspicious of. As you probably know, money is what controls both major political parties.
But tell me, does Texas have a “Faithless Elector” law or not? Yes or no? Not whether or not it should have one. Also, does Texas Election Code Title 11. Chapter 192 Subchapter A state how an Elector must vote? Yes or no? And is there anything in the Constitution that dictates how the States are to set up their Elector procedures and requirements other than in deciding the number each State has?
Again, I think he should vote for Trump, but by Texas and US law, something many here are ignorant of, he doesn’t have to.
Electors are assigned to their position by fellow citizens in their area. As I understand it there is one elector for every congressional district and those who are appointed actually run for that position after having spent hours and hours of volunteer work for their political party. They then by state regulation or law must vote for president and vice president as the people of their state voted. To change their vote is against the will of the people and they have violated the duty of their position. If they do so they should be banned from politics for life and in some states actually imprisoned. Worms do not belong in politics, too bad our apple is so full of them.
Reece,, Yes i understand the initial intent of the EC.. And what this schlep is doing is NOT (well to m perception) following with that intent.
And yes i know Texas doesnt have a ‘faithless elector’ penalty. My remark on him paying with his job is in relation to him LYING to get the spot about being a 9/11 first responder..
ebohsytram, in most States Electors are chose by party officials for their work for the party. So they apply for the position, not run as in an election for it.
In 21 States there’re NO laws against Faithless Electors. In the other 29 States most penalties are civil fines, but in NM it’s a 4th degree felony with a $1000 fine and a year and a half in prison. However, no one, I repeat, no one has ever been prosecuted under the Faithless Elector laws in any State as far as I know of.
Have you ever read the Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers, particularly Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper #68? In it he explained why the Framers included the Electoral College. It was two fold. First, they wanted to protect representation of the small States. Remember, it was the States that created the federal government. Secondly, it was to allow educated and hopefully wise men to stop a demagogue from becoming president as they feared pure democracy.
Of course the two major parties, which are political business corporations, aren’t enamored of true political freedom that threatens their oligarchy. Do you side with them in favoring tyranny with your proposed life time ban by law from politics? I hope not. While I favor civil penalties, I think you fail to understand the basics of our party system.
We need to be more worried about seditionists and traitors in our body politics, like Obama, the Clintons, and Kerry.
Ituser, I agree with your last comment. He has a right under thaw to do what he intends to do. But I question his judgment, especially in light of his apparent dishonesty about his past.
This is rich!!! I bet this nincompoop never thought any of this information would ever come to light. So while trying to get his 15 minutes of fame by being a doorknob, he has now been outed as a liar regarding his “stellar” career. Maybe he should slither back under the rock he came from. How funny!! And this brings me to another question…if he has a “questionable” work history, how the hell did he get to be a Republican elector?!!
sclayton, there is no vetting process worthy of the name for electors. Your can read this at the full WFAA story that is linked at the end of the GOPUSA introduction. This makes your last question a no-brainer.
So I read the WFAA story and obviously this guy is a fraud and has been for years. How can he look himself in the mirror knowing he has lied for so long about so many things?! And I love the comment about there being a difference between shopping at Old Navy and being a Navy Seal. We have to figure out a way to vet these electors. As the article stated it would have been very easy to find out about this idiot’s past and then he never would have been an elector. And with all his lies, he thinks he has better judgment than the voters in Texas and doesn’t want to vote for Trump…unreal. Texans should throw this idiot out!
maybe he is a close friend of “MITT ROMNEY” That would be my guess.
Evidently they are not too choosy as to who they appoint to be electors, sclayton. I heard Bill Clinton was one, too–and Moonbat Pelosi’s daughter is one, so the ethical bar for electors obviously isn’t very high! That needs to change! How can you have faith in the integrity of the electoral college vote if it is full of a bunch of LYING DIRTBAGS who would probably be quick to take a bribe if it was offered to change their vote?
[Evidently they are not too choosy as to who they appoint to be electors, sclayton. I heard Bill Clinton was one, too–and Moonbat Pelosi’s daughter is one, so the ethical bar for electors obviously isn’t very high! That needs to change! How can you have faith in the integrity of the electoral college vote if it is full of a bunch of LYING DIRTBAGS who would probably be quick to take a bribe if it was offered to change their vote?]
It certainly should change. FIRST change would be a pproper vetting of all of these, so lies like this would be found BEFORE someone gets put into place as a state elector.
2nd change would be to make it to where NO ONE WHO is a familial relation to someone serving in federal government (OR who has served for at least 10 years) can become an elector.
3rd change would be to make ALL Sign a contract under penalty of JAIL TIME, that they will abide by the will of the voters in their states.. NONE OF THIS faithless elector crud anymore.
Ituser, your suggestions for improving the vetting of electors would have to done State by State as the Constitution leaves the choosing of electors up to the States.
But tell me, why would you want to effectively ban most who’ve ever served in the military or are related to someone serving from becoming electors?
Third, what is the reason for the Electoral College?
Recce1 I’m sure you know very well that when ituser said “serving” he was NOT talking about the military, but meant “serving” in political office. You must be a lawyer, the way you split semantical hairs!
That’s exactly what i was going for teabag. Guess i forgot we have nitpickers around here..
Oleteaqbag and Ituser. Perhaps I was nitpicking, however, due to pettifoggers who’ve really messed up what we euphemistically now call constitutional law, I get nervous when people make very broad statements, especially when they aren’t aware of existing laws. MOST States don’t allow people serving in political office to be electors. But the idea of not allowing ALL people related to them to be Electors or those once out of office I believe is too restrictive.
But I can see restriction on very close relationships and short time restrictions. For instance, one of the Electors in NY is BILL CLINTON. His dishonesty aside, I think that’s too much of a conflict of interest.
So I apologize Ituser for misinterpreting what you meant. I wouldn’t be quite as restrictive as you, but I believe your idea has merit.
Sounds to me like this guy has committed fraud and perjury. It’s little wonder he is acting like a Democrat. Probably not enough time, but he should be removed and replaced.
A perfect example of “stolen valor”. Lib-***** like this dufus lie about everything, especially when it means profiting and furthering their agenda!
A man who isn’t worth his word is WORTHLESS! Electors who will not do what they were elected to do, cast their vote for the candidate that won their state, whether they like it or not, are all worthless *** people, exactly like the liberal democrats and their leaders…so I am in total agreement with you captijellco! I am getting fed up with all this BS and want to see these obnoxious liberal creeps everywhere get thrown out! Negative lies and deceit is all they offer! It is all rebellion against good and promotion of their evil. Their cunning stupidity is actually dangerous and scarey! Satan comes only to steal, kill and destroy,… everything democrats are known for and worse! When good men do nothing, evil will flourish! We FINALLY have a good man taking a stand as evil goes into full battle mode. He is building a GREAT army of more good men like him who are not afraid to stand up and fight! GOD BLESS DONALD TRUMP AS HE DEFENDS US AND OUR COUNTRY against this destructive group of liars and evil doers! May everything he lays his hand and heart to prosper, which includes us, the American people!
I would LOVE it if every fireman and cop in Texas (on their day off) PICKET OUTSIDE his house with signs saying Faker, Liar, Stolen valor, and the like…
recce1 the reason for the electoral college is to prevent two or three large states from dominating all national elections, it worked as planned by the founders
Lewis Williams, did I say otherwise? Also, why did Hamilton say the EC was created in Federalist Paper #68?
The Republican Party will be stronger if we do not recruit pretend conservatives such as this guy. (They always turn out to be backbiters). Also, Lindsay Graham and John McCain come to mind.
While this story is outrageous in itself, it’s part of a much bigger story:
America is in the midst of an attempted takeover by leftists who would have us believe that their ethical standards and motives are beyond reproach and that their disdain for the Constitution of the United States is justified. They will only be successful if we allow them to be.
We need to be ready to do whatever it takes to make sure they fail in their attempts. COUNT ME IN!
Heck did you see that recent Utube vid with Martian sheen, and a bunch of Other actors, calling on those who are electors, to ‘follow the constitution, and your morals, and NOT vote for trump..’
SORRY But since the EC was formed BY the constitution and requires them to vote in accordance with the WILL of the state, how is ‘that following the damn constitution?!?!?
In addition to Martin sheen, it also has richard shiff, Debra Messing, James Cromwell, BD Wong, Noah Wyle, Freda Payne, Bob Odenkirk, J. Smith Cameron, Michael Urie, Moby, Mike Farrell, Loretta Swit, Christine Lahti, Steven Pasquale, Dominic Fumusa and Emily Tyra.
ALLL OF THESE actors are now dead to me…
ltuser: I did see the commercial this morning. most of the actors in the commercial are not what I would call big name actors to begin with and my first thought when I saw the commercial was, “what makes these pinheads think their opinions are so much more important than anyone else’s?” Talk about a bunch of over-inflated egos. And they seriously think that by going on tv and spouting this BS, it will change the outcome? Mark Wahlberg was right…Hollywood has completely lost touch with reality.
Ituser, please read Federalist Paper #68 about the purpose the Framers created the Electoral College in the Constitution. In addition, show me where in the Constitution it requires Electors to vote a certain way.
I’d like him and all the GOP Electors to vote for Trump but not all States have “faithless electors” laws. Texas is one that doesn’t.
Cromwell, meissenger, wyle and sheen i would all call big names. But the rest i agree.. A bunch of over paid no bodies..
Jota, you keep referencing TX law insinuating it dictates how he must vote, yet you claim, “NOT THE REASON WHY I POSTED IT.” But IT IS the reason you wrote it, so I read nothing into your comment that you didn’t intend to convey.
The bottom line is that he’s permitted by law to vote how he said he intends to do. However, he’s quite dishonest on a number of levels in addition to being a faithless Elector. Also, unfortunately the Electors chosen in TX weren’t vetted well enough. I believe Ituser mentioned that perhaps TX should enact a Faithless Elector law.
What I hope for in 2 days is that the EC will elect Trump as our next president. I believe you feel the same way.
Take care and enjoy the weekend.
“Jota, you keep referencing TX law insinuating it dictates how he must vote,”
First, since you have placed your comment in a thread in which does not have a single one of my comments, am let wondering to what, exactly, you are referring.
Second, I am not insinuating any such thing, it is what you are inferring. Once again your reading problem
I see no evidence an elector is under any compulsion from the Constitution to vote a particular way, but that does NOT mean they are FREE to vote however they will
And your use of the words “dictates” and “must” seem to suggest you think the law can take a person’s will. Which is absolutely false, otherwise all crime would vanish from the face of the planet
The bottom line, it is within the power of the office, which he now occupies, to vote for possibly anyone who meets the Constitutional qualification for the office of president of the United States, and we have to accept the VOTE he makes, but we are under no obligation to accept the MAN.
The vote is protected not the man. The people are under NO OBLIGATION to accept the man into any group or organization or do business with him, even selling him food.
That is the problem with $1000 fines it acts as a cap on what the people can do, not as minimum for punishing an unfaithful elector
It is really a form of protection for unfaithful electors
Jota, my apologies. I was unaware you didn’t understand common English usage. Nor was I aware it’d upset you so much that my comment didn’t get posted on the correct thread, but you have posted under a number of different threads.
You seem not to even understand that I spoke about TX law and that the Constitution says nothing about qualifications, but rather ELIGIBILITY for the office of the presidency. Also, you seem to disregard what Hamilton wrote.
As for punishment, you sound like a partisan demagogue. Hatred is such a strong force. Perhaps you’d like to see Suprun killed.
“Jota, my apologies. I was unaware you didn’t understand common English usage.”
That is quite alright, you don’t use it
“You seem not to even understand”
Yes, you seem to understand nothing
The ONLY reason he gets to vote as an Electoral College member is because we honored our word that the party with the winning nominee would have that right
For some individual within a party, to pledge to vote for the parties nominee if he was to win, then after he has won, say he will not honor the person who won and gave him the very right by which he now votes, makes him the equal of a criminal deserving to be hanged
And to bring you up to speed, a lot has changed since Hamilton wrote what he did, mainly members of the Electoral College are NOW indirectly picked by the American voter.
When Hamilton wrote what he did he had those who use to pick its members in mind, the state’s legislature.
Jota, I take it you believe in an esigetical rather than an exegetical approach to interpreting the Constitution. I don’t. It’s that simple.
But at least you admit you’d like to see him dead. That’s the hallmark of a demagogue. It’s quite sad.
“But at least you admit you’d like to see him dead. That’s the hallmark of a demagogue. It’s quite sad”
No, what is sad is when everyone acts as him and no one honors their word, then we are all dead
Better to hang them when they are few in number
But he can count on us to honor his vote
“I take it you believe in an esigetical rather than an exegetical approach to interpreting the Constitution”
As for your getting lost in the deep meaning of things and overlooking the obvious
What is the major complaint against the Electoral College?
It does not represent the will of the people? agree?
So if we set it up so it only has members elected to it AFTER the popular vote, and then these members vote contrary to how they were seated, does it inspire confidence in that the people’s will for their respective states is being done?
I did not vote for members of my state’s Electoral College to vote for anyone other than who they promised to vote for.
See, we really are not voting for President, we are voting for members of our party to vote for us as we voted for them based on their promise
But you think I really meant to vote for someone else?
Would that be the esigetical or the exegetical approach, or just pure ?
“That’s the hallmark of a demagogue.”
As for demagoguery, he is a member of a party which had a primary, then elected and sent delegates to the national convention, which Trump won, then Trump won the state of Texas against the Democratic challenger Hillary, in the general election and now that he is seated as a member of the Electoral College for his state, ONLY because Trump won it, otherwise it would be made up of 34 different faces if Hillary had won, he thinks he can, in good conscience, vote for someone other than Trump because he knows better than everyone else
Here is the definition of demagogue from O.E.D.
A leader of a popular faction, or of the mob; a political agitator who appeals to the passions and prejudices of the mob in order to obtain power or further his own interests; an unprincipled or factious popular orator.
A Suprun!
Yet another lying liberal Democrat pretending to be a first responder and Republican. Glad this pretender and RINO was outed for the obstructionist that he is.
Are you saying because he supports the centrist Republican Gov. Kasich that makes him liberal Democrat?
“Are you saying because he supports the centrist Republican Gov. Kasich that makes him liberal Democrat?”
It makes him an idiot because Kasich does not have a running mate and Suprun, as an elector, has ONE vote to be cast for BOTH president and vice president,
but who knows, maybe the Democrats will claim him as one of their own and allow him to just vote however he wills, but doubt even them are that stupid.
So unless some party would like to spend their money and have him throw it away, he is done with political life and probably a lot of other aspects of life too.
Jota, your comment is a non-sequitur. If for some reason neither Trump nor Hillary received a majority of votes the election would be thrown into the House for the president and the Senate for the vice-president. Please read the Constitution.
My comments was not what Suprun should do but what he can do. Personally, I’d vote for Trump.
However, it seems that a lot of posters are woefully ignorant of what the Constitution says or what Texas laws says or doesn’t say.
The Constitution DOES NOT dictate how Electors must vote. Texas has no faithless elector law. The reason for the EC was stated by Hamilton in Federalist Paper #68. Argue with him and other Framers if you don’t like it.
“Jota, your comment is a non-sequitur.”
What comment?
Texas state law says
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.192.htm
(b) To be eligible to serve as a presidential elector for a political party, a person must be affiliated with the party.
38 were selected for EVERY political party
The ONLY reason Suprun gets to vote for president as an elector is because HIS PARTY WON, not the 38 Democrats for Hillary, not the 38 Green party for Jill Stein
So Suprun would have to break his affiliation with the Republican party to vote contrary to the nominee his party selected at the national convention, for that to be NOT true he would need to claim his is the party, and that is absurd
And Hamilton’s argument is valid and Suprun’s vote will count for whomever he votes, however, no one in their right mind will every place their trust in him again to do something on their behalf.
Which is something considerable more than a $1000 fine and makes it completely unnecessary to have a penalty of any kind on the books because it gives the appears that is all they can be punished. When being shunned is so much more costly
Jota, your whole comment was a non sequitur. A non sequitur, in formal logic, is an invalid argument. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument nonetheless asserts the conclusion to be true and is thus fallacious.
The point is that you’re misapplying Texas law as being binding on how one MUST vote. Being affiliated with a party doesn’t mean being “owned” by the party as Texas doesn’t have a Faithless Elector law. Some States not only have a fine, they also replace the Elector with someone who WILL vote according to the votes in the State. Again, not so with Texas and about 20 other States.
However, I agree except in EXTREME cases an elector should be faithful to a party’s choice. The extreme case was referred to in Hamilton’s Federalist Paper #68. I don’t believe it applies in this case. If it were me, although I favored Dr. Carson, I’d vote for Trump.
But as I said, there’s nothing in the Constitution or in Texas law that prohibits him for even voting for Clinton or Sanders. Also, he said he’s “thinking” about voting for Kasich, a Republican, who like Dr. Carson did run in the GOP primary.
But as you point out, Suprun will never be trusted again in political circles. And with the discrepancies in his background perhaps he won’t be trusted in other areas as well.
The comment of yours I really liked was the one about the vetting of Electors. Look what happened with the vetting, or lack thereof, with Mr. (intentional) Obama.
“Jota, your whole comment was a non sequitur”
It is rather easy to check out the definition of “non sequitur” Thank you very much
It is, however, impossible to determine what you are talking about since you just repeat the same assertion without showing what was the comment.
Look, I can do it too, you’re wrong, but I will do what you seem to find impossible to do, provide the proof of what I am talking about
“The point is that you’re misapplying Texas law as being binding on how one MUST vote.”
I never claimed any such thing, you are completely and utterly mistaken, because I don’t believe it in the least, but he is NOT FREE to do it without incurring a cost, even in Texas
Maybe, when you master reading for comprehension you can move on to evaluating statements of logic
Jota, your non sequitur comment was and I quote, “It makes him an idiot because Kasich does not have a running mate and Suprun, as an elector, has ONE vote to be cast for BOTH president and vice president,
but who knows, maybe the Democrats will claim him as one of their own and allow him to just vote however he wills, but doubt even them are that stupid.
So unless some party would like to spend their money and have him throw it away, he is done with political life and probably a lot of other aspects of life too.”
You keep trying to conflate social or moral costs, WHICH I AGREE WITH YOU THERE SHOULD BE, with legal cost. That’s disingenuous. Otherwise you wouldn’t reference Texas law which has NOTHING to do with how an Elector MUST vote as much as you or I might like to see a Faithless Elector law in Texas with civil penalties.
What you seem to not understand is that I’m not trying to justifying his decision, but just saying under the LAW he has the right to make it according to Federalist 68 – that’s all.
“Texas law which has NOTHING to do with how an Elector MUST vote”
NOT THE REASON WHY I POSTED IT
And you are mixing your various comments up from different articles you commented on to confuse the issue
You wrote
***
Other than the fact Texas statute states
“As for being a liar, all that all of you can point to are the unsubstantiated comments about his alleged background.”
***
If he is planning to vote different than his party then he is lying about being “affiliated with the party”
See
****
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.192.htm
(b) To be eligible to serve as a presidential elector for a political party, a person must be affiliated with the party.
***
The ONLY reason the Republican PARTY’s electors get to even vote is because THEIR PARTY NOMINEE WON
How hard is that to understand?
He is a complete and utter LIAR to claim he is WITH the PARTY and ACT AGAINST IT at the same time
So one can point to more than “the unsubstantiated comments about his alleged background”
He is a bona fide LIAR (contradiction in terms to make an oxymoron to convey he is pathological)
So get off your tangent and read what is wrote, rather than read into it.
“It makes him an idiot because Kasich does not have a running mate and Suprun, as an elector, has ONE vote to be cast for BOTH president and vice president”
This was in error and needs to be corrected
Correctly stated
He has a vote for president and a vote for vice president
Thank you for the correction. We have to keep in mind the Constitution and the Amendments were written by pettifoggers. (lawyers) 😉
The primary commandment of the Left is thus: “Win by whatever means necessary”.
Reid, Pelosi, and Hillary certainly believe that.
It’d seem some must agree with Reid, Pelosi, and Clinton believing the primary commandment of the Left, “Win by whatever means necessary”, is OK and so dislike my pointing that out. 😉
Maybe it was cause some thought you were agreeing with Pelosi etc..
Ituser, GOD FORBID! Give me 50 lashes across the eyeball with a wet noodle if I ever imply Pelosi et, al are good examples of what our political leaders should be.
By the way, I believe that by the constitutional definition Speaker Pelosi committed TREASON during the Bush administration. Perhaps you remember that she went to Syria to meet with the dictator Al-Assad. She did in defiance of the Bush administration. I believe she told Assad not to negotiate with Bush as Obama would be a more amiable president. At the very least she violated the Logan Law.
Suprun is unfit to be an elector and clearly not qualified for the office.
The IDIOCY continues, get a life!
ANd it will KEEP happening until and unless WE THE PEOPLE start bringing the ‘rain’ on their heads..
He was a plant, just in case Trump won… to gather any wavering with his rallying cry…”lie.” That is why electorates have been receiving death threats. Its all been planned. This is war. Our enemy is real… but remains hidden behind veils of deceptions..
These idiots are running out of options and time, when this happens they will be resorting to violence so be wary of those wild eyed Third Reich looking types, as well as any that act like they have been indoctrinated into the liberal progressive commucrat way of thinking. Tuesday morning we will probably be seeing more tears and whining and be able to see what to expect in the month of January.
Rhetorical question follows: Why is it the ones who deny the qualifications of others, claim for themselves moral and/or ethical superiority, and assert their motivation for breaking faith is some higher duty to conscience, are so often exposed as frauds, liars, and hypocrites? This fellow, in his arrogance, evidently never considered that he himself would be vetted after taking the traitorous position he did, and that he himself would be “outed” as the one without conscience, nor qualifications for his position of trust. As with all narcissists, he feels, or felt, he would be applauded for his high moral decision and no one could, nor would, do anything but take him at face value.
It’s a ‘projection’ matter like many liberals have…’It’s not me, it’s him..!!”
Guess he thought wrong. Hopefully Texans will get rid of this loser!
At this point his face value isn’t very much.
He is unfit to be an elector, and the Texas A G should
put him out as an elector. A worthless human being he is.
Under the false honor statue (meant for military fakers) IMO the AG in texas needs to take HIM TO COURT!
This man is a legend is is own mind. He has much more in common with the Democrats–a type of dementia.
He may well be the only turncoat elector. There will not mass defection. His state Attorney General needs to file a case against him and bring the full weight of the law on him for his action, should be be so stupid to do it.
great stuff. another “hero” outed as a con man. I think someone should look into his “charity” to see just how well the money collected has been used, and how much (note I dont say “if” any was self directed to his own wallet) of that money this moron stole.
if he truly was a first responder hero and had to “vote his conscience”, that is one thing. I may not agree, but have to respect. still, its not really his choice to make, but he must represent the wishes of the voters!
but it seems like he is just a b.s. (bovine fecal matter) con artist secret lefty libtard liar. and thus should be replaced immediately.
Guess one has to pass more background checks to use a gun to shoot than to use the Electoral College to shoot off their mouth.
Why no mental check here? Too many liberals couldn’t pass?
Hell, we have more people dying on the roads from people’s STUPIDITY than we do from gun violence.. YET you don’t get back round checked to own a car..
Am sure Obama and Hillary will now claim he has been hacked by the Russians
hahahahahaha
It’s no wonder we have corruption at every level of government in this Country today, when anyone can become part of the electoral college without the least iota of vetting/background checks; that’s precisely how we ended up with Obama in the White House. This guy Suprun should be disqualified and fined a goodly sum as accountability for his lying & deception for all these many years. Until there is accountability. corruption will continue to metastasize like a malignant cancer and then there will be no more America as we have known know her to be. the noblest of all Countries on this Planet earth. Suprun is without principles or ethics, a weasel of a man.
My, my, what a surprise–this DEMOCRAT in sheep’s clothing is as big a LIAR as all the OTHER Democrats!
part of the californication of Austin Texas
I honestly wonder what the good people of texas were THINKING when they welcomed the fleeing liberals from Commiformia into their midst KNOWING they would spread their liberalism like a plague in their great state??
Anyone can run for president and if the people didn’t think he is qualified he wouldn’t get elected. If this moron was my elector and changed the vote I cast I would think he would need to get his but kicked, hard.
Rules vary by state but some dictate if electors cannot vote for the person who received the most votes they will be replaced and fined.
Replace this **** ****!
Col JIm, first thank you for your service to this country, but the election rules specify the dates that can be done by and that date has passed.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/key-dates.html
I do like the way you are thinking, though.
Colonel, Texas doesn’t have a Faithless Elector law.
Perhaps this will GET THEM to make one!!
It’s high time that some true Texans clean house in Dallas and Austin and get rid of these liberal progressive commucrats. I wonder why all these guys always look like they are from the Third Reich photo album?
I heard this guy last night on NPR (I know they are liberal but they do have some interesting topics). He was treated like he was legit and not a lying crackpot. His Hamilton arguments for not casting his ballot as the people of Texas directed him to were at best misguided and based on misinformation put forth by the ignorant liberal media that he totally bought into…
mr suprun put his name on the ballot as an elector for Mr Trump, he just may be guilty of election fraud
Texas doesn’t have a Faithless Elector law and the Constitution doesn’t dictate how an Elector must vote. In addition, he name was not on the election ballot.
We need to hang this 2 bit imbecile.
recce1 we have common ground I was also a Carson support, I agree Texas does not have a faithless elector law, but there has to be some sanction against an elector who ignores the will of the Texas voters.
The real problem is: imagine a situation where a billionaire candidate offers each elector a million dollars to switch their vote, clearly not impossible and clearly a situation the people do not want.
I agree completely with you, but the law is as it is. Of course the example you state would likely violate the law as almost all States make it a crime to buy votes, at least so crassly. Now if one bribes people with promises of welfare benefits…
By the way, one attorney HAS offered free legal service to GOP Electors who switch their vote in States with Faithless Electors laws. THAT may well be an illegal inducement to voter fraud.
[By the way, one attorney HAS offered free legal service to GOP Electors who switch their vote in States with Faithless Electors laws. THAT may well be an illegal inducement to voter fraud.]
That certainly looks to ME to be inducement to fraud…
BUT then again i have seen TV Ads and 20/20 & 60 minute specials covering lawyer firms (Divorce) FLAT OUT ADMITTING TO they encourage their women clients to FALSIFY spousal/child abuse charges against the husband.. NOT ONLY does that get the father out of the house, and thus gives the house effectively to the wife but it ALSO wins her major favor when it comes to jurys. AND EVEN IF ITS FOUND TO BE FALSE there’s no bloody sanctions, either against the wife (Ex) for falsely claiming it, OR THE BLOODY lawyers for encouraging it..