An example of why Umar Johnson shouldn't be teaching any kids

[mrken12]

@mrken12 he made a thread about me

He'll make threads and posts shytting on people while they're on ignore. He's such a lame.

Can you block a poster from tagging you?

 

[The D-List Vet]

He'll make threads and posts shytting on people while they're on ignore. He's such a lame.

Hank hill and Pifferry are in here dapping his post that tells me all i need to know

 

[iFightSeagullsForBread]

Hank hill and Pifferry are in here dapping his post that tells me all i need to know

Shut it, weeabo.

 

[D-NICE]

I think it should be abolished as well because it's an outdated system. It was meant to decentralize voting power from the northeast cities in the 18th century, but the whole country is populous now so there's no need for it.

Don't act like that's what the guy in the OP was saying though. He said voting is meaningless because the electoral college chooses the president, like it's a body that selects independent of votes. And when I explained to him that electoral votes are assigned by who wins the popular vote state-by-state, he said they're not.

Traditionally and majority of the time they have cast their vote along the lines of the overall popular vote. That does not mean legally they have to vote for the candidate who has the most votes. Like I said, almost half of the states do not have a legal requirement or ramification forcing them to vote for who wins the popular vote. The electoral college is not some computer program or idea, it is actually a group of people. They go and physically vote. They can also go against the popular vote and those members are called faithless elector's. It has happened a 157 times. Most of the time, when faithlessness does occur it is due to death of a candidate or by mistakes, such as John Ewards (nonexistent person) getting a vote in '04. It has happened where a member or members have voted for or against certain candidates. Though it has occurred, faithless electors have not changed the results of any election.

In a sense, the OP is right. Our votes are almost simply suggestions to the electoral college since in almost half of the states their are no legal requirements for the college members to vote how the majority has voted. That being said, I would still recommend people to vote. If the majority of millions of people want them to vote a certain way and follow the traditions that have been set, it would be in their best interest to vote that way because the day they don't and it actually causes someone to be or not be POTUS will be the day the electoral college ends.

Faithless Electors - Fairvote

 

[Nomad1]

Why this fakkit hate umar johnson?

umar is a fraud.

 

[Larry Lobster]

umar is a fraud.

He might be but what he's saying in the video is true.

 

[Nomad1]

He might be but what he's saying in the video is true.

If he's a fraud then what he is saying amounts to nothing.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Traditionally and majority of the time they have cast their vote along the lines of the overall popular vote. That does not mean legally they have to vote for the candidate who has the most votes. Like I said, almost half of the states do not have a legal requirement or ramification forcing them to vote for who wins the popular vote. The electoral college is not some computer program or idea, it is actually a group of people. They go and physically vote. They can also go against the popular vote and those members are called faithless elector's. It has happened a 157 times. Most of the time, when faithlessness does occur it is due to death of a candidate or by mistakes, such as John Ewards (nonexistent person) getting a vote in '04. It has happened where a member or members have voted for or against certain candidates. Though it has occurred, faithless electors have not changed the results of any election.

In a sense, the OP is right. Our votes are almost simply suggestions to the electoral college since in almost half of the states their are no legal requirements for the college members to vote how the majority has voted. That being said, I would still recommend people to vote. If the majority of millions of people want them to vote a certain way and follow the traditions that have been set, it would be in their best interest to vote that way because the day they don't and it actually causes someone to be or not be POTUS will be the day the electoral college ends.

Faithless Electors - Fairvote

Bruh faithless electors, while a stupid idea in an antiquated system (the electoral college) have always been inconsequential when it came to determining the the outcome of a presidential election. Stop trying to for the guy in the OP's idiocy. Every presidential outcome has been directly tied the vote. Dude in the OP is not right in any sense. He is literally saying voting is of no consequence at all, and the electoral college "chooses" the President, as if it's a arbitrary vote and electoral votes aren't amassed by state-by-state voting, and that's not how every U. S. presidential election in history has been decided because he saw "Dr. Umar" say some dumb shyt on a youtube video. That's the sort of danger that arises when charismatic cult leader-type figures get sheep followers.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

He might be but what he's saying in the video is true.

 

[Dr. Sebi Jr.]

The EVILectoral College meets secretly underneath the Vatican to decide the next president based on Masonic bloodlines.

Dr. Umar Johnson

The Prince of Pan-Afrikanism, which isn't a ridiculous nickname to give yourself

The Soul of Marcus Garvey

The DNA of Nat Turner

Goes to the Same Barber as dikk Gregory

 

[Osmosis]

umar is a fraud.

you dislike tariq and boyce too or nah?

 

[Self_Born7]

electoral votes aren't given on who wins the popular vote. They usually do but that's not how it always happens.

If I recall, Gore had more popular votes than Bush,,, and we see how that played out... Its been a couple of times, where the candidate had more popular votes, but the other had more electoral votes to win.