It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Newsweek Calls It: "Madam President Clinton" Hits The Shelves Due To A "Business Decision"

page: 1
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Newsweek has decided that Clinton will win tomorrow.



This is the cover that has been sent to newsstands. It was leaked by a bookstore employee.



This is the screen capture of her Tweet before her account was deleted and someone chastising her for fueling Trump supporter hysteria.

And Newsweek did confirm that they made two versions of the cover, one for each candidate, but it was a "business decision" to print and send out the Hillary ones.


As CNN explains to its slower readers, "this is the media version of World Series keepsakes that were on sale in Cleveland and Chicago last week. Street vendors printed "Cubs win" and "Indians win" T-shirts, then trashed the Indians shirts after the Cubs won Game 7."

There is just one very notable difference: in the case of the World Series, there were two sets of shirts created. However, in the case of the infamous Newsweek special edition, the publishing company Topix, decided to print just one.

Guess which.

And this is where the "business decision" came in: according to CNN, "Topix made a business decision to only print the Clinton version ahead of time given that she is almost universally favored to win the election on Tuesday."


So basically Newsweek is so sure of a Hillary win that they didn't even bother printing two editions. They just printed and sent one for their preferred candidate.



I wonder if anyone at Newsweek remembers this part of their election history? I'm not saying it will happen because I don't know, but at this point, it would be some poetic justice.




posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   

And this is where the "business decision" came in: according to CNN, "Topix made a business decision to only print the Clinton version ahead of time given that she is almost universally favored to win the election on Tuesday."


Topix made the decision, not NewsWeek?



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Oh they are so sure of themselves, this just drove up Trump's turnout.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Oh dear! How HORRIBLE it would be if they jinxed things!




posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Makes me wish I worked at a bookstore so I could grab one of those things if she ends up losing. It would then be a real collector's item.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Didn't Newsweek go bankrupt in 2010?

"Business" decisions haven't always worked out well for them.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant
Didn't Newsweek go bankrupt in 2010?

"Business" decisions haven't always worked out well for them.


It appears that the OP contradicts it's own source.

The decision was apparently made by the publishing company, not Newsweek.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
This is utterly disgusting.

That enough money can be spread around to buy an Election.

You need a new Amendment to guard against the Banks. But then, you were told they were an enemy by many passed Presidents.

This is not Democracy, you all are just blinded if you can't see it.

Democracy is where the people vote. Let us see once again if the people's vote counts for anything.

P



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Presidents who take a stand against the banks and stand with the people don't last long at all.

Except Teddy Roosevelt, only a madman would go after him.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I suspect many of the rich people who will make these decisions already know the result.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
I suspect many of the rich people who will make these decisions already know the result.


They did cancel her fireworks.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You are correct



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant
a reply to: introvert

You are correct


A risky gamble, but potentially very profitable.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Newsweek has decided that Clinton will win tomorrow.



This is the cover that has been sent to newsstands. It was leaked by a bookstore employee.



This is the screen capture of her Tweet before her account was deleted and someone chastising her for fueling Trump supporter hysteria.

And Newsweek did confirm that they made two versions of the cover, one for each candidate, but it was a "business decision" to print and send out the Hillary ones.


As CNN explains to its slower readers, "this is the media version of World Series keepsakes that were on sale in Cleveland and Chicago last week. Street vendors printed "Cubs win" and "Indians win" T-shirts, then trashed the Indians shirts after the Cubs won Game 7."

There is just one very notable difference: in the case of the World Series, there were two sets of shirts created. However, in the case of the infamous Newsweek special edition, the publishing company Topix, decided to print just one.

Guess which.

And this is where the "business decision" came in: according to CNN, "Topix made a business decision to only print the Clinton version ahead of time given that she is almost universally favored to win the election on Tuesday."


So basically Newsweek is so sure of a Hillary win that they didn't even bother printing two editions. They just printed and sent one for their preferred candidate.



I wonder if anyone at Newsweek remembers this part of their election history? I'm not saying it will happen because I don't know, but at this point, it would be some poetic justice.



Lol, I am starting to have to just laugh at Trump supporters anymore!!!! There is just no rationalization to be had by 99% of them!!!!!One more day!!!!!!



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Disgusted with our political system!

The two parties have become an enemy of the people of the US of A.



Article VI of the Constitution requires Officials to take an oath “to support this Constitution.” Today, 5 U.S.C. 3331 specifies the language of the oath for federal officials. According to this statute, officials must “solemnly swear (or affirm)” that they “will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: In4ormant
a reply to: introvert

You are correct


A risky gamble, but potentially very profitable.


I wish it was the other way around but probably the smart play.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I heard that there is a version with Trump on the cover but it won't be available until November 28th.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: In4ormant
Didn't Newsweek go bankrupt in 2010?

"Business" decisions haven't always worked out well for them.


It appears that the OP contradicts it's own source.

The decision was apparently made by the publishing company, not Newsweek.


Actually Newsweek call Topix a licensee not a publisher.

But regardless...if it turns out to be wrong do you think people will know or even care about that or just not trust Newsweek as a reliable source of information and use them as the butt of endless jokes?

BTW - Does anyone know if Topix is the same company as The Daily Beast who originally bought Newsweek when it was hemorrhaging readers years ago? Or did they or simply Newsweek alone get purchased by Topix?

ETA - Just discovered that Topix is a Newsweek licensee not Newsweek's publisher
edit on 11/7/2016 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: In4ormant
Didn't Newsweek go bankrupt in 2010?

"Business" decisions haven't always worked out well for them.


It appears that the OP contradicts it's own source.

The decision was apparently made by the publishing company, not Newsweek.


True....but...

...if it turns out to be wrong do you think people will know or even care about that or just not trust Newsweek as a reliable source of information and use them as the butt of endless jokes?

BTW - Does anyone know if Topix is the same company as The Daily Beast who originally bought Newsweek when it was hemorrhaging readers years ago? Or did they or simply Newsweek alone get purchased by Topix?



An intelligent person would not blame Newsweek for a decision made by the publishing company.

Edit:

It appears they hold the license to publish Newsweek.
edit on 7-11-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: In4ormant
Didn't Newsweek go bankrupt in 2010?

"Business" decisions haven't always worked out well for them.


It appears that the OP contradicts it's own source.

The decision was apparently made by the publishing company, not Newsweek.


True....but...

...if it turns out to be wrong do you think people will know or even care about that or just not trust Newsweek as a reliable source of information and use them as the butt of endless jokes?

BTW - Does anyone know if Topix is the same company as The Daily Beast who originally bought Newsweek when it was hemorrhaging readers years ago? Or did they or simply Newsweek alone get purchased by Topix?



An intelligent person would not blame Newsweek for a decision made by the publishing company.


I just edited my original post in light of new information. You might want to check it out. Link below.

Newsweek Twitter feed


edit on 11/7/2016 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join