I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

I'm not sure why somebody gave you a thumb's down for posting a "press release," so I put it back up.

CNN just called it for Hillary in NJ.

Thanks, CI.

Here's another press release these people won't like. (my bolds)

However, perhaps the most important detail the AP overlooked when crowning Clinton as the nominee was that this year, Luis Miranda, the Democratic National Committee’s own communications director explicitly told CNN’s Jake Tapper that it’s incorrect for the media to count superdelegates before they vote in July:

LUIS MIRANDA: “On superdelegates, one of the problems is the way the media reports it. Any night you have a primary or a caucus, the media lumps in superdelegates that they basically polled, because they call them up and say, ‘Who are you supporting?’ They don’t actually vote until the convention, so they shouldn’t be included in any count on a primary or caucus night, because the only thing you’re picking on primary or caucus nights are the pledged delegates based on the vote.”

JAKE TAPPER: “When we do our totals, do you think it’s okay to include them?”

LUIS MIRANDA: “Not yet, because they’re not actually voting, and they’re likely to change their minds. You look at 2008, and what happened then was there was all this assumption about what superdelegates were going to do, and many of them did change their mind before the convention, and it shifted the results in the end.”

Source

Fine, so the Democratic Party's own official spokesman doesn't like it if the reporters call up the superdelegates and ask how they're voting. So aren't you the folks complaining that the media and the Democratic leaders are conspiring to put Hillary in the White House? Now you are turning around and complaining that the media goes ahead and does some actual reporting instead of sitting on their hands and not reporting like the Democratic party is asking them to.

You guys don't even know what you are saying from one post to the next.

Slow news week, Blinkers?

The point is, the AP are attempting to usurp the political process. Whether this benefits Dillary, or Bernie, if you read above, the people aren't sure.

The AP just called New Jersey for Clinton. All the votes aren't in, but they have enough confidence between polling and the totals in so far to make the call. This is the same. The AP is trying to report the political process. They polled super delegates. Those delegates said, on the record, that they are voting for Clinton and they aren't unsure about it. They counted them and reported the results. What the DNC should have done is to ask their super delegates not to talk to the press. You can't ask the press not to report.

What's funny is that absolutely NO delegates vote until July.

The AP is acting like a cheap tabloid in saying that they can't reveal their sources. For all anyone knows, the "super" delegates haven't said a thing to AP repeaters.

By which time, most people will have had heard enough about the election, and tune out completely. Such a confusing, and drawn-out process.

Quote Builder:

Really? To be credible, reporters must always reveal their sources, according to you?

Clearly, you don't know the first thing about American journalism. Reporters have been celebrated for going to jail for refusing to reveal their sources.

I had to question reporters jailed for refusing to reveal their source, but it's true! I have always believed we had "freedom of the press," but that's not true.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Jailed-subpoenaed-timeline1.pdf

In a fair political process, they should be jailed for attempting to pervert the course of democracy. Of course, the US is an oligarchy, and the AP is part of that oligarchy, so again, no democracy, and no justice.

Wake up, and take the blinkers off. :-)

What would Russians like you know about a fair political process?

Reporters need to protect their sources, because people who are afraid of reprisal will talk only if the reporter promises not to reveal who they are. Many important breaking stories have come from reporters refusing to reveal their sources.

I know, when your bread and butter depends on making anti-US posts on the internet, you have to pretend you don't understand this.

When they're whistle-blowing, yes indeed they do.

When attempting to usurp the political process, they aren't reporting anything.

The rest of your dribble is too funny, Blinkers.

Again you show your lack of knowledge of reporting, as befits someone from Russia. It is not necessary to "whistle-blow" to protect your sources. In order to find out what is going on in an organization, even one that is not engaging in criminal activity, it is often necessary to not give the names of the people who talked to you.

Only someone with no real knowledge of how democracy works would ever say that a reporter calling up a superdelegate and asking him/her which candidate they plan to vote for at the convention under the condition of anonymity is "usurping the political process".

You talk in the hackneyed generalities of the totalitarian.

Again, you show your lack of knowledge of democratic process.

The democratic process does not not include a political party ordering the press not to find out information about the party's workings, and having the press abide by that order. I realize that where you are from, when The Party says don't do something, you don't do it if you know what is good for you.

It doesn't work that way in democratic countries. But then, a person from where you are from can't be expected to know about democratic countries.

Did you read that back to yourself before you pressed the "post" button?

So now you are down to harping on small grammatical errors? So far tonight, you have stated that no news report can be thought honest unless the reporter divulges the name of all his/her sources, and the Democratic Party can order reporters to not report on its internal decisions, and the reporters are obligated to obey lest they be accused of subverting the democratic process.

You are hilarious.

It's still daylight here, Blinkers, which means you're up at ungodly hours just to talk to me.