Posted on 12/05/2016 2:37:13 PM PST by sharkhawk
Dallas — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“The Special Snowflake (Also referred to as one with the “Special Snowflake Syndrome” or “SSS”) is a person who believes they are different and unique from everyone else because of something they are or do. Special Snowflakes almost always have a superiority complex.”
...just like everyone else. :>)
This guy is not just unique, but uniquely moronic. No dis against him for his service to his community as a firefighter, but it seems that he’s suffering from the mental aftereffects of too much smoke inhalation. What he says is either outright false, irrelevant, or is a bunch of half-truths that would become meaningless if he knew the full truth.
That’s good data. What would be the criteria for “declared ineligible”?
Someone is not qualified to be an Elector....
She’s already put out a schedule of cities she is visiting to make good on her promise.
So it seems if this moron show up for the electors meeting, and no one kicks his behind, there isn’t anyway to remove him. Perhaps if the majority votes him ineligible based on his public statements?
Per the rapture-me post above, just went thru the statute.
An elector post election can be declared ineligible if he is found to not be affiliated with the party.
If the GOP removes this guy from the rolls, the electors present can choose a replacement by majority vote.
Or if he doesn’t show up at the meeting, because arrested for some meaningless charge and then turned loose hours later, the vacancy at the elector meeting can be replaced by majority vote of the electors present.
look up section 192.006(c)
Why?
Because you’re a liar and a cheat, with no sense of personal responsibility whatsoever.
Next question.
I think this is different, Bush won by 512 votes. Gore was arguing for a recount (It became recounts!)to give him “missed votes” thus showing him winning the state. It was close enough it wasn’t an “unreasonable” request. Florida state law allowed (may be required it!). Here it looks more like a tactic to tarnish Trump’s election more then actually over turn it. It gives the left a 4 year “talking point” that Trump is an illegitimate President, like they did with Bush. If somehow the “find/manufacture” enough votes to tilt those states to Hellary then our “Texas Snowflake” will have his moment in history. Goes to the House & Trump still gets it. If “magic” happens & they choose someone other then Trump. It’s still not Hillary!
Your Question: That’s good data. What would be the criteria for “declared ineligible?
My Answer: Texas has a strong Republican Secretary of State. He will declare him ineligible.
No problem.
Should a re-count delay a state's certification past the deadline (Dec 13), the state legislature is empowered to appoint its own slate of electors who would vote in the Electoral college on Dec 19.
Inasmuch as Republicans control both houses of the legislature in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, there is no danger that any of these states will be unrepresented in the EC or that Trump won't get his full ration of 306 EV.
Dear NYT:
YOUR president will be Donald J. Trump on January 20, 2017.
Doesn’t that just burn your Collective asses?
Love,
5.56mm
My reading of the relevant articles in the Constitution is electors are those appointed by the states voters. So a common sense interpretation would be a majority of electors as appointed by the states voters.
But since layman, common sense interpretations are not in many judges rulings, I have no clue what the 8 super politicians masquerading as Supreme Court Justices will do.
“So the idiots in the Texas Republican party put him in because we can’t be against the public service heroes.”
The uniform is real nice, but if he agreed to cast his electoral vote for the people based on their will, he should do it or he should never have signed up. I don’t care if he is a ‘hero’, he’s being a jackass.
Interesting. But maybe I’m not getting it.
If the faithless elector declines to show up, they can clearly replace him, because he is vacant. But I don’t see how they can replace him because he’s announced he won’t vote for the nominee he was elected to vote for.
That’s a good point!
“But I don’t see how they can replace him because he’s announced he won’t vote for the nominee he was elected to vote for.”
It is hard for me to believe that the law allows him to set aside the votes of millions and exalt his vote above the millions.
He can be replaced if “he is found to be ineligible”. I looked up eligibility.
One criterion is he must be affiliated with the party. So the GOP can remove him from the roster / rolls and he’s no longer affiliated and the electors can replace him by majority vote.
“Should a re-count delay a state’s certification past the deadline (Dec 13), the state legislature is empowered to appoint its own slate of electors who would vote in the Electoral college on Dec 19.”
This happened in 2000 too. In the midst of the Florida court battles the young Speaker of the Florida House said it ultimately didn’t matter what the courts said. The legislature was going to vote to vote in the Bush electors regardless. That’s when I first heard of Marco Rubio.
I read that 29 states have “faithless elector” laws. I don’t know if Texas is one of them.
They will likely replace him now that he has gone public with his likely faithlessness. Better this clown came out of the closet now than when he displayed his faithlessness on Dec 19. At least now he can be replaced with a loyal Trump elector.
An elector can be replaced or resign and replaced until December 13 I believe. He will likely be forced to resign as an elector like the other public NeverTrump Texas elector who stated Trump wasn’t “Biblicly Qualified” for him to cast his electoral vote for President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.