Ethics Dunce: Texas Elector Christopher Suprun [UPDATED]

Shut up, Chris; shut up, Alexander.

Oh, shut up, Chris; you too,, Alexander.

Another faithless Texas elector has announced himself. This time, it’s Christopher Suprun, the latest previously anonymous figure to exploit the 2016 Presidential candidacy of Donald Trump for 15 minutes of fame. Let’s see: there was Trump’s former lawyer, who breached or nicked several legal ethics duties to get a column in the Huffington Post, Trump’s ghostwriter, and all of the women who never saw fit to complain of being sexually assaulted by the President Elect until their accusations could do maximum harm and spark maximum exposure. Now we have Suprun, who penned a self-righteous op-ed for the New York Times explaining why he feels he is entitled, all by himself, to ignore the will of the people and cast his vote as elector for someone other than the candidate Texas insisted he pledge to vote for: the winner of the most votes by participating Texas citizens in the November 12 election.

The measure of Suprun’s gravitas and qualifications to take this responsibility on himself is aptly illustrated by the first of his justifications for his untenable position: “Mr. Trump goes out of his way to attack the cast of “Saturday Night Live” for bias.” Naturally, he appeals to the authority of Alexander Hamilton, whose various employments in the post-election train wreck has convinced me that he, not Old Hickory, really should move off the currency and make way for someone with the right number of chromosomes. If I hear one more quote from Federalist Paper 68—which no one is 100% certain that Hamilton even wrote—I may strip off my clothes and run screaming Norse epithets into the night. Assuming, as most do, that the author was Hamilton, so what? The paper was written after the Constitutional Convention. Hamilton’s concept for that document and the structure of the government was rejected. He didn’t trust the public, or democracy, wanted George Washington to be king, and championed a system the resembled Great Britain’s. Using him to justify a concept of the Electoral College that has never been employed or accepted in the United States is a classic logical fallacy.

It’s 3:36 AM, and I don’t need to rehash all of the reasons why Suprun is an arrogant, usurping,  anti-democratic ass to presume to over-ride millions of voters because he disagrees with them, in all his expertise and wisdom in governance and leadership (he’s a paramedic), and because he can. The explanations here and here are plenty.  His own column would make his position ridiculous all by itself, however. “Mr. Trump lacks the foreign policy experience and demeanor needed to be commander in chief,” he says, as if nobody alerted him that the campaign was over. Yes, we’ve heard that.  Barack Obama, George Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman similarly lacked such experience. Arguably, Trump has more than any of them did.  Thanks for your observation, Chris: now shut up. The election is over. That argument did not prevail, and you, whoever the hell you are, are neither qualified nor credentialed to apply it to the results of the election now.

“He has surrounded himself with advisers such as Stephen K. Bannon, who claims to be a Leninist and lauds villains and their thirst for power, including Darth Vader. “Rogue One,” the latest “Star Wars” installment, arrives later this month.” Now the theory is that what the President Elect does before he’s sworn in can justify voiding the election, is it? Which anonymously written Federalist Paper makes that amendment to the Constitution? Seriously, Chris, don’t you have some patients to work on? And now we’re using advisors’ comments about Star Wars characters as smoking guns? Who are you?

“I believe electors should unify behind a Republican alternative, an honorable and qualified man or woman such as Gov. John Kasich of Ohio,” Chris writes. Kasich lost, and handily, you pompous boob. How dare you? He was a blithering, twitchy, equivocal joke in the debates, roundly rejected by voters in the Republican primaries, and didn’t run for election: where do you get off deciding that he should be President instead of Trump? At least Hillary Clinton was on the ballot: if you are going to hijack the process and void millions of votes, at least accept the marginally less stupid argument of the Change.Org  petitioners who want to steal the Presidency.

Then there’s the matter of the pledge Suprun took that bound him to vote for whoever got the most votes in Texas. At least Art Sisneros, the other Texas elector who decided that he couldn’t do what millions of Texans voted in the belief he would do, had the integrity to resign. What standing does Christoper Suprun have to criticize Trump’s character, when Suprun swore an oath and now tells us he was crossing his fingers? He had an obligation to refuse to be an elector once he knew that Trump was the Republican candidate.

Chris is  lucky he’s a paramedic and not a paralegal. If, as many paralegals do, he decided to become a lawyer, violating a pledge would be enough to block his bar membership on the grounds of moral turpitude, as it should be.

Enjoy your perfidy, self-importance and fleeting fame, Christopher. Now we know you can’t be trusted.

UPDATE (12/17/16): Since Supron issued his screed, the efforts to use the Electoral College to overturn a fair and legal election have only become more shrill and bizarre, not to mention embarrassing to Democrats for decades if there is any justice. Hollywood actors put out a video (misstating the law and history), and are harassing individual electors by name.Republican electors have been targeted by death threats, harassing phone calls and reams of hate mail. One Texas Republican elector said he’s been bombarded with more than 200,000 emails. Politico reports that…

There have been ad campaigns targeting electors and op-eds assailing their role. One Democratic member of Congress has called to delay the vote for president while an investigation of Russian involvement in the election is underway. Two others have pleaded with electors to consider Russia’s role when deciding how to vote. Progressive groups are preparing protests across the country at sites where electors will meet to cast their ballots. Personal contact information for many electors has been posted publicly — and it’s been used to bury them with massive email campaigns.

A Harvard professor, Larry Lessig, the same odd-ball who ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination on the platform that he would eliminate big money donors in politics and then resign, is serving as central counsel to encourage and defend faithless electors. A Georgetown law professor has announced a theory that  the Supreme Court can declare the Electoral College, which is in the Constitution, unconstitutional. Of course, we still hear about Alexander Hamilton’s decisively rejected theory that the College should be super-voters who can over-rule their state’s citizens’ will, as if his too-often quoted Federalist Paper a Constitutional amendment.

Finally an astute lawyer had enough of the nonsense and wrote a well-researched explanation of just how ignorant and legally impossible the Electoral College scheme is. Robert Barnes, in useful post that I wish was about a month earlier, writes,

Congress and courts established a range of precautions against such rogue actions.

At the outset, it is important to note that the mythical version of the electoral college — as a “check” against the electorate with a right to vote one’s “conscience” against the people — was rejected in the very first election it was used, subsequently invalidated formally in the adoption of the 12th Amendment, and recognized by the Supreme Court and leading jurists and scholars alike. The twinned SCOTUS decisions of McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) (states enjoy plenary and exclusive power over electors) and Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952) (finding since the first election of electors role as “simply to register the will of the people”) made that history clear. Whatever Hamilton thought, the actual voters rejected it, and the Twelfth Amendment chose the voters’ method rather than Hamilton’s. The role of the electors was as a messenger, not as the message.

It gets better. Read it all. Then send it to your silly friends blathering on about Federalist Paper 68.

145 thoughts on “Ethics Dunce: Texas Elector Christopher Suprun [UPDATED]

    • Honestly probably not. He’s probably just a racist who wants to increase the number of people who look like him in the country and doesn’t care about following rule of law to do it. As the article points out, all the arguments he presents are infantile. They are probably not his real reasons.

  1. Also…kick his sorry ass out of Texas. If he wants to write NY…send him there…personally I don’t give a shit if he was a firefighter at 911….I am a infantry combat Vet that fought….so this tells me he migrated his liberal ass here for no tax state….living in Austin, I am sure he is with the weird crowd too… one person should have power like this, what are the consequences of this nerd has to face by not living up to his duty…..15 minutes of fame should be turned to a YouTube video of 15 minutes of humiliation….

    Now great!!! My PTSD is flaring up! He talks about how great Bush was when all past president let Muslims in the country…as in Ohio with the skinnies…..downtown Columbus looks like Mogadishu in certain neighborhoods! This is just another run around the tree naked while it’s ok to hold another dudes Peter and call yourself a pancake sexual… about green house gases aND climate change??? People like this are the cause of said gases…
    And like you said…his first complaint was for the cast of Saturday Night Live……what a shit bucket….I bet this idiot goes to the local glory hole to get his fill of protein after his brisk walk to that liberal, cat shit serving coffee house called Starbutts…..what a waste of our resources…..he just wants his fame from 911….what about my buddies that were shot and blown up…..I am sure some would like to meet Mr. Christy Pants and show what a real man with some nuts looks like…..fuck this guy!

  2. Nothing complicated here… he needs the attention this is giving him. It’s a personality disorder. Become a da corrupt democrat … you’ll be welcomed with open arms.

  3. “If I hear one more quote from Federalist Paper 68—which no one is 100% certain that Hamilton even wrote—I may strip off my clothes and run screaming Norse epithets into the night. ”

    For that reason and that reason only I will be posting quotes on your Facebook page every day from now until you do this.

    • “THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded.”

      -Federalist #68

  4. Query: Had HRC won, would the NYT have published a letter by an elector from the Empire State announcing he was going to cast his vote for the defeated Donald Trump? No. They would have slammed any publication that dared to do so. Incredible hypocrisy. Where’s their ombudsperson? The arrogance continues. Didn’t anyone in their editorial room raise this question?

    • The Times has been all-de-legitimizing Trump, all the time. Their subscriptions are up, and Angry Left bitter-enders flock to the bias. It’s offensive.

      But I’m subscribing too. In most other respects, there’s no paper close to as good, including my local paper, WashPo.

        • Meant to add: In light of the Podesta emails which suggested promoting Trump and revealed the collusion of the media, I think the Clinton campaign got what it deserved. I originally thought the idea that the media was deliberately promoting a candidate they thought Clinton could defeat was conspiracy theorizing. Unfortunately, sometimes there really is a conspiracy.

    • Query: Had HRC won, would the NYT have published a letter by an elector from the Empire State announcing he was going to cast his vote for the defeated Donald Trump? No. They would have slammed any publication that dared to do so. Incredible hypocrisy.

      Ooh! Hypothetical, un-falsifable hypocrisy is my favorite kind!

      Had HRC won, and an elector said he was going to cast his vote for the defeated Donald Trump, would you support his choice? Of course you would! I’m just going to assume you would before you can even answer! Incredible hypocrisy on your part that I made up.

      • “Had HRC won, and an elector said he was going to cast his vote for the defeated Donald Trump, would you support his choice?”

        I don’t think so. I voted for HRC.

        “I’m just going to assume you would before you can even answer!”


        “Incredible hypocrisy on your part that I made up.”

        You lost me there.

        What exactly is your point, Chris?

        • You seem often to play weird word games and think doing so makes a valid point. Aside from being irked by what seems to me to be a personal attack, I’m mystified.

          • Chris, what you fail to get is that the reason a true conservative is a conservative, is that they believe things like personal responsibility, rule of law, being honest, and objective truth.

            Of course I would have slammed your faithless Trump rebel elector, and for the same reason I condemn this doofus. Rule of law and honesty requires this idgit fulfill his oath, regardless of his personal qualms. Otherwise, resign the position.


              • Same decade here, same lesson on counting being learned here. OB, it seems clear that with Chris, all of HIS reality is HIS authenticity, HIS frontier, HIS gibberish. Hence, my ad Chrisinem attack on him…

                • Oh Chris actually has a point for once. The accusation was that the news source was hypocritical over a hypothetical scenario.

                  It would have been more accurate to characterize the hypothetical by concluding that in all likelihood, based on the past behavior of the MSM that the news source WOULD have behaved hypocritically had the opportunity presented itself.

                • Lucky. I’ve finally broken the code on Chris’s modus operandi. He uses pedantry to obstruct any discussion he doesn’t approve of. Now that I’ve been able to identify it, it won’t drive me up the wall. I don’t think. I hope.

                  • Belated thanks OB! I think you nailed it: Obtusely argumentative pedantry, right? That’s pedantic as in, [with] “undue emphasis on minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge” (I put quotes around a paraphrased dictionary definition).

            • It is rather odd (I don’t expect you to admit), that all the electors who are coming out that we are hearing about are switching against the Apprentice.

              • Well, well, Chris, lucky you – this is your lucky day, in this Year of Faithless Electors. Based on another commenter’s input to this thread, it appears that not all electors we are hearing about are switching against the Apprentice. Maybe the next POTUS will be elected by a bunch of HOR people, after all.

              • Odd? They are the objects of the dishonest disinformation campaign, they are the ones being bombarded by the “the popular vote is the REAL election” lie, the candidate they are supposed to vote for is the one being called Hitler and a monster.

                • Maybe I should have used a word other than odd. I meant odd in the sense that in this Year of Faithless Electors (and of The Most Ethically Unfit POTUS Candidates for a Binary Choice, Ever), one would reasonably expect electors to excuse themselves from voting for both of the binary choices. And that is exactly what has happened – unless I can’t trust Tim LeVier’s account of the electors in Colorado (Cnton pledges) who are suing for the power not to vote for the Cntons. (I’ve adjusted my spell-checker to ignore the squiggly red lines under that crime family’s name, spelled correctly here, since…[I’m tired of explaining that correct spelling].) But I had previously understood (incorrectly) that all announced faithless electors are Trump pledges – so at the time, before Tim commented, that one-sided faithlessness seemed odd to me.

            • I’d say my point was that they were hypocrites not to say to themselves in an editorial meeting, “Hey, if Trump had lost and not accepted the results and begun lobbying the electors to cast their votes for him, would we publish a letter from an elector defecting from HRC to Trump?” If they honest with themselves, they would have said “No, we wouldn’t do that. We’re not Breitbart or Fox News.” So yes, I am accusing the NYT of hypocrisy for so dutifully publishing this guy’s letter and, effectively, endorsing what he’s saying. What’s so outrageous about that?

              • I was using a hypothetical to make a point. Big deal. What’s the harm in that? It’s an opinion, an observation. A, you know, as HRC was wont to say, repeatedly, a comment.

  5. The Federalist Papers were a series of eighty-five essays urging the citizens of New York to ratify the new United States Constitution. Written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, the essays originally appeared anonymously in New York newspapers in 1787 and 1788 under the pen name “Publius.” — Library of Congress

    First, it does not matter which of the these three men wrote FP68, they worked together on these and more than likely vetted each other’s drafts before putting their press into motion. But it also does not matter for another reason…

    While it is true that the Federalist Papers were written after the Constitution was, you forget the role these documents played in our nation’s supreme laws. They were published to inform and encourage the public to ratify the new and 2nd attempted Constitution for our country. The 1st had been a disaster and people were skeptical of the proposal. They wanted — no they needed — to understand how this new form of government would work when the other had failed so badly.

    Each paper published was the equivalent of a political stump speech combined with a schoolroom lecture telling voters what they were voting on and why to vote ‘yes’ when the time came, just as modern voters read the analysis and commentaries of ballot initiatives today. And while they were intended for the voters of New York, the records show that copies of these essays were reprinted and distributed in many other parts of our young nation for the same reason. It was based on the explanations in these papers that the people of that era decided whether or not to support the proposed law.

    Our Constitution came into force because of the Federalist Papers and throughout or history federal courts have often looked to these papers to help understand the intent not only of the Framers but also of the American people who ratified the highest law in the land.

    • Nonetheless, they are about as authoritative for citing an op-ed editorial today. It certainly matters who wrote them, as Hamilton was not sympatico with the democratic impulses of the government system we settled on. In this case, the paper is an opinion about how thinks should work out that has benn completely ignored and rejected since.

      The history and perspective is interesting, and EA is grateful for it, but it doesn’t change the fact that electors are not what Hamilton (or whoever) wanted them to be, and have never been.

      • Hamilton being “not sympatico” is irrelevant. As you point out it could have been someone else. Was Madison “not sympatico”? Was Jay?

        The people used the analysis of this *unknown* writer from the team known as “Publius” to decide about the proposed law, just as many people today use the analysis of some faceless/nameless writer from the “League of Women Voters”.

        It was the published analysis that guided the ratification vote and it was the **government-as-described** in that analysis that the then electorate chose to support.

        Publius, whoever he was behind FP68, did not ratify the Constitution, the people who read FP68 did.

      • I’m not sure what the issue is, since nothing Hamilton said in Federalist 68 contradicts the Constitution; it merely contradicts the tradition that came after. There is nothing in the Constitution mandating Suprun cast a ballot for Trump, so Federalist 68 seems as good an authority as any.

        • It’s not as good an authority as 200+ years of precedent, and since it was written without benefit of the precedent and based on multiple incorrect assumptions (like the absence of parties, no vetting of electors, and universal suffrage), it’s not good authority at all. It’s interesting historical perspective.

        • If I’m reading it right, Fed 68 seems to call for a system whereby the electors were actually elected, and then they cast votes. Am I reading this wrong? If I’m not, does it make sense to use Fed 68 as an authority to determine how the electoral college works when its proposed system has clearly been rejected, and to my knowledge, never used?

            • It wasn’t willfully obtuse; my understanding was that breaking this pledge was not illegal, but I hadn’t read the article. You’ve had no trouble telling me when I was wrong before, so I’m not sure what stopped you this time.

              I see now that there are certain state laws prohibiting electors from breaking their pledges, but they’ve never been enforced and some lawyers think they violate the Constitution. According to you, lawyers who advocate for this should be prosecuted for “sedition.”

              You must be one of those authoritarian leftists you keep warning us about.

              • 1) pretty sure you’ve been involved in many of the discussions that have touched on faithless electors laws in past. If not, my bad, though I really feel like they are relatively common knowledge among people who engage in these types of forums.

                2) never being enforced and those questioning their constitutionality still don’t make them less illegal to violate.

                3) “According to you, lawyers who advocate for this should be prosecuted for “sedition.”” this is a patently absurd non-sequitur and you really should disabuse yourself of thinking it is logic.

                Anyone is free to opine that electors should be allowed to be faithless, there is substantive difference though when a lawyer says “if you go break the faithless electors laws to vote against Trump, I will provide free defense”. You see, that is material encouragement to break the law.

                Anyone is free to opine that “I think murder ought not be legal” it is however an encouragement to commit murder for a lawyer to say “if anyone goes out and intentionally kills citizen Melvin Shlubknuckles, I will provide you a free defense in court”.

  6. ““He has surrounded himself with advisers such as Stephen K. Bannon, who claims to be a Leninist and lauds villains and their thirst for power, including Darth Vader. “Rogue One,” the latest “Star Wars” installment, arrives later this month.” Now the theory is that what the President Elect does before he’s sworn in can justify voiding the election, is it? Which anonymously written Federalist Paper makes that amendment to the Constitution? Seriously, Chris, don’t you have some patients to work on? And now we’re using advisors’ comments about Star Wars characters as smoking guns? Who are you?”

    Was the empire actually the bad guys?.

    We’re the Jedi actually the good guys?

  7. Jack,

    In an above reply you said you “know more than most, being an expert on ethics, and a student of leadership and the Presidency.”

    I have a small challenge for you. Would you please review the following article and give us your expert opinion on the ethics involved and what these mean for the Presidency. I will state right up front that the article is not pro Trump so that you know I am not trying to trick you or trap you. I am however trying to expand your world view a little.

    If you are worried that the article is “fake” please note that the article refers to numerous public court records that are available to practically any skilled attorney and most citizens if they are willing to do the paperwork and request copies. This makes the details easy enough to prove or disprove.

    PS: I expect this will take a while and will probably require an entire blog post so I am not expecting an immediate reply. However, since I read many blogs on both sides of the aisle (I do not like to live in an echo chamber) and it is difficult to keep track, would you please “ping” me by replying here when your post is ready. Thank you

    • You seem to be under the impression that Jack has not criticized Trump’s many ethical failures. He has, in detail. He’s been more focused on the anti-Trump forces since the election–guided by the (in my view mistaken) belief that we need to give the president elect a chance–but he is not some unaware Trump supporter.

    • Are you really under the impression that I am Pro-Trump? Why don’t you do some due diligence before insulting me. I was “NeverTrump” before there was a “NeverTrump”

      It is a mark of ignorance, a small brain pan and a biased nature to assume that everyone else is driven by partisan bias because you are. The article is a waste of my time: since I stated YEARS ago that Trump was a slime ball and untrustworthy, it tells me nothing I don’t know. It also tells me that Newsweek, and YOU, apparently, adopt the unethical and frankly idiotic construct that when it can be shown that an accuser is guilty of similar or worse conduct that the one he accuses, it mitigates in any way the conduct of the accused. IT DOESN’T. NEVER. This was the unethical, dishonest bleat from Clinton defenders from the start. Read my posts about the issue. Trump was corrupt and dishonest. That doesn’t make Hillary one iota better than she was or less culpable, or her corrupted enablers less reprehensible.

  8. Oh, one last thing, and then I will be quiet for a while I promise…

    Since this blog is about ethics, and this post is about your view that faithless electors are unethical, why have you not equally blasted the seven Democratic electors who are willing to support a Republican candidate?

    Double standards are hardly an ethical behavior wouldn’t you agree?

    • 1). Jack can’t write about everything.

      2) do you know how often knee jerk left winners gripe that Jack is bised against them when he doesn’t also mention every time a particular republican does the same behavior he is critiquing a democrat for? Do a modicum of research before throwing out that accusation.

      3) yes, they are also violating their pledges, but a key kicker here in focusing on the faithless Trump electors is that Trump is the electoral winner. Faithless electors from his camp lead to his loss. Despite the system working as planned. Faithless electors from Hillary’a camp don’t make her *more* lost….

    • Yes, but this isn’t a double standard, not even close. “Being willing” to vote for a candidate in breach of one’s duty is nothing; ethics doesn’t include theoretical, irrelevant willingness. My guess is they are grandstanding and lying, but it’s not worth writing about, because they can’t do anything except lessen an already losing total of electoral votes for Clinton. Tell you what: if and when I see their votes, I’ll write about how they are grandstanding jerks, and if they don’t, I’ll note that they are manipulative liars. generally I don’t waste my time unless I see something meaningful. This isn’t a partisan post: the principles apply equally to any faithless elector, but only the GOP faithless want to hijack the election and over-ride the voters’ will. That’s what the post is about.

  9. Jack, is it ever ethical to realize that a pledge one has made is unethical and impossible to hold oneself to, and to then break that pledge?

    Of course, it would be best to make no pledge at all then to break one. From what I’ve read, there have been no unpledged electors since 1964. Anyone know why that is? Can one still be an elector without pledging to vote a certain way?

    Another question: are the electors who choose to step down automatically replaced? Or could Trump’s victory hypothetically be reversed if enough Trump-pledged voters step down?

    • What do you mean “realize”? Of course breaking a pledge is sometimes more ethical than keeping it. This is not such a case. He had all the necessary information before he made the pledge. More over, this pledge is necessary: doing other than following the will of the state’s voters is an abuse of power and position, pledge or not.

      • Of course breaking a pledge is sometimes more ethical than keeping it.


        This is not such a case.

        We’re going to have to disagree here.

        He had all the necessary information before he made the pledge.

        True, which is why he shouldn’t have made it.

        More over, this pledge is necessary: doing other than following the will of the state’s voters is an abuse of power and position, pledge or not.

        How is it an abuse of power and position? It’s a use of power and position. If electors can’t choose to vote for whom they feel is the right choice, then their power and position is pretty much meaningless, and their jobs shouldn’t exist.

        • Because he had that information prior to making the pledge, it cannot be used to justify breaking it.

          If electors can’t choose to vote for whom they feel is the right choice, then their power and position is pretty much meaningless, and their jobs shouldn’t exist.

          I agree sort of, but there are real cases which would justify them. For instance, death of the president elect or evidence of a major crime would mean they need to pick someone. I think the effects of turning the electors into the real focus of future campaigns would have horrendous consequences for our system of government, so I can’t support efforts to use it to cancel Trump’s election. It doesn’t help that most of the arguments are either trumped up lies (He’s a white supremacist, his VP supports electroshock conversion therapy, etc) or meaningless (lost the popular vote in an election which is not based on the popular vote).

        • No it’s an abuse, since that power and that position are not permitted to be used this way by the State (hence the pledge), or acknowledged to be used this way by voters (hence betrayal) and will lead to disaster if routinely used this way (hence the established precedent of not doing so,)

  10. He’s making a symbolic gesture, which is the political equivalent of folding his arms ’round the playground ball, sitting down and refusing to let anyone else play. Only, it won’t make a bit of difference–and the other kids have other balls to play with.

    After reading his op-ed piece ( on several websites ), I did some ‘fact checking’. This guy isn’t a nut-job or a whiney-ass nobody, he’s one of the hero ‘first responders’ during 911 and has been active in organisations that teach our youth some of the lessons learnt during 911. The guy is civic minded. That being said, I still think he’s wrong on several counts:

    Alexander Hamilton said the presidential candidate should be ‘free of demagoguery…free of foreign influence…and qualified’. Trump is the single candidate on both sides of the fence who is absolutely free of foreign influence ( Hillary, by contrast, was essentially bought and sold by the power elites and actual enemy states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, by contrast ). Trump essentially self-financed and owes no ‘outsiders’ or ‘inside’ special interest group. As far as ‘demagoguery’ ( a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument ), you have just described every political candidate since Theodore Roosevelt ( possibly excepting Jimmy Carter ). Donald Trump was the only one to buck the politically-correct, multi-cultural nonsense and speak the truth that the majority of people outside the liberal coasts already knew. It was not the ‘popular’ thing to do, as the ‘popular’ vote has proven. Donald Trump has consistently shown that he is one of the most successfully businessmen in the whole world and he will bring this approach to ‘Making America Great Again’. Perhaps by ‘qualified’, Mr. Suprun believes that only a ‘career politician’ would be suitable for the ‘Oval Orifice’.

    Mr. Suprun criticises Donald Trump ( the President Elect ) for not making a statement until a day after the OSU terror attack ( which happened a couple of blocks from my home, by the way ). But Donald Trump did weigh in and gave his sympathy for the attack and pointed out that it was a legal immigrant who did this. The ACTUAL President, Barack Obama, said nothing. One of his staffers proffered a lukewarm response after The Donald weighed in. Hillary Clinton’s running mate, made the–rather pathetic ( but expected )–usual excuse about how we needed gun control, completely missing the point it was yet another Muslim terror attack.

    Mr. Suprun accuses Donald Trump of ‘inciting fear and stoking outrage’ about certain issues. How else should we feel when our borders are so porous that we have at least 11 million people ILLEGALLY living in our country and enjoying our largesse, when we have improperly-vetted refugees and immigrants who engage in terror attacks. What else but outrage should thinking Americans feel when the ‘Progressive’ Leftists have worked to weaken our allies, strengthen our enemies and ignore actual economic issues and suffering at home ?

    Mr. Suprun ‘misses’ how the nation seemed to be united after 911 and the leadership shown by George Bush the Lesser. George Bush, the man who sat dumbfounded and blankly staring into space for minutes at a time after he’d been informed of the attack. The man who picked a war with the wrong target, the President under whom we witnessed an explosive growth in organised terror and the precursors and genesis of the Islamic State. The man who paid off the people who caused banking crisis. There was no unity, and Americans were scrambling to deal with the reality that Muslims posed or how to deny it better. Paying off the victim’s families and making 911 millionaires was a dog-and-pony show, it was not leadership. Spectacle replaced good governance and the Progressives seized power in the resulting vacuum left by the Bush Administration.

    Other of Mr. Surprun’s reasons seem to be rather desperate stabs at President Elect Trump’s choice of associates. It is clear that Donald Trump was not Mr. Suprun’s candidate of choice, and he is in fact expressing the same sort of ‘outrage’ felt by Clinton supporters that HIS candidate didn’t win and it’s just ‘unfair’ somehow. For all Mr. Suprun’s much vaunted ‘ideals’, he comes off as merely another butt-hurt voter. It’s time to grow up, already. The world has changed and we have a new President taking office.

    The well-funded Recount campaigns, the organised anti-Trump ‘demonstrations’, the professors and teachers ‘excusing’ students from class to ‘mourn’ the election–and all the rest of the nonsense–are just stalling tactics and the adult equivalent of spoilt children throwing temper tantrums because they just didn’t get their way.

    Mr. Suprun doesn’t have the ‘right’ to change our mind for us. He is a ‘faithless elector’ if he doesn’t cast his vote to reflect the will of the American people. If he felt strong enough about it, he should have just abstained.

    • Just one point: being a heroic fireman is no more proof of civic wisdom and government acumen than hitting a game winning home run or rescuing a puppy. It’s not a qualification to tell millions of people that their vote doesn’t count. I’m a thousand time more qualified than him, and no shrinking violet, and even I’m not so deluded that I think I could or should make that decision.

  11. Couldn’t agree more with this column. I would also agree that this idiot needs to resign his “electoralship” so someone with a true ethical compass can fulfill the oath to cast his/her vote as the people have voted in your state. And as a Navy Veteran I also took an oath. They are sacred and not up for deliberation or interpretation. They should change the moniker from “Faithless Elector” to “Honorless Elector”…

  12. I should just point out that under the current regime, the cultural elites will hold you guilty of cultural appropriation for screaming Norse epithets into the night. Just to be on the safe side, you should stick to Greek epithets until at least February.

  13. For someone to put his own personal issues above the wishes of the voters of his state is beyond reprehensible. I am ashamed that he is a member of my brotherhood of firefighters. You only want to have your 15 minutes of fame. The people of the state of Texas have spoken and you are deaf, dumb and blind. Auwe!

  14. Suprun is a disgrace to Texas, himself and his profession- actually makes paramedics/firefighters look stupid, unethical and not to be trusted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.