First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Madam President
804 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 16 days ago
Ok, so I was getting groceries tonight and saw a Newsweek special edition about our new President, Hillary Rodham Clinton. I couldn't believe my eyes, so I flipped through it; it wasn't written as satire, and nothing indicated it was a hoax! I looked into it as soon as I came home, and found a snopes article (http://www.snopes.com/clinton-newsweek-cover/) explaining that two sets of magazines were printed ahead of time: one for a Trump-win, and one for a Clinton-win.

You know, this just seems like an enormous waste of paper. I understand writing two editions, but printing them ahead of time is silly. You'd think people could wait until the morning after the election to buy a magazine.
Emtro 
1541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 16 days ago , edited 16 days ago

foraslan wrote:

Ok, so I was getting groceries tonight and saw a Newsweek special edition about our new President, Hillary Rodham Clinton. I couldn't believe my eyes, so I flipped through it; it wasn't written as satire, and nothing indicated it was a hoax! I looked into it as soon as I came home, and found a snopes article (http://www.snopes.com/clinton-newsweek-cover/) explaining that two sets of magazines were printed ahead of time: one for a Trump-win, and one for a Clinton-win.

You know, this just seems like an enormous waste of paper. I understand writing two editions, but printing them ahead of time is silly. You'd think people could wait until the morning after the election to buy a magazine.


It's is an old problem that newspapers will always have. In order to distribute to the masses, printing must be started at a certain time and so they start around a day to 2 days before. The issue is, supposedly, distribution. Apparently, they were never meant to distribute the loser's cover page and the company handling distribution did it anyways.

Edit: Although, it seems the person who leaked the photo of the Hillary cover claims there were no Trump covers... I like how Snopes calls it a "Mixture" and then says the websites that showed it are disreputable. LOL.
10568 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 16 days ago
Wow. It isn't like we haven't seen this happen before. When President Dewey took office after beating Truman, there were papers declaring Truman the winner! Shocking! Appalling! Scandalous!
Posted 16 days ago
Don't they do the same thing with the super bowl?
Where they make jerseys for each team?
50326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 16 days ago
Now we just need Trump holding that paper to repeat history
804 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 16 days ago , edited 16 days ago

gornotck wrote:

Wow. It isn't like we haven't seen this happen before. When President Dewey took office after beating Truman, there were papers declaring Truman the winner! Shocking! Appalling! Scandalous!


Actually, 'we' haven't seen this before (unless you were around for that election, in which case... meh). I wasn't trying to claim this is some unprecedented scandal. Only that I was surprised, and wanted to see why it was published.
Banned
1408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Virginia, USA
Online
Posted 16 days ago
Newspaper and magazine sales skyrocket in big events like elections and other history making news. Imagine being in the business of publishing and having the problem of not having enough copies to sell. That's money you lost.
Banned
6934 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
In a basket of de...
Offline
Posted 16 days ago
You should have bought it. Maybe it would be worth money someday. A collectors item from the day the DNC imploded from all it's lies and corruption. I'd pay $5 for that.
951 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere Drinking
Offline
Posted 16 days ago
It could make for good toilet paper or napkins to blow your nose.
Emtro 
1541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 16 days ago

Adjacent-Taurus wrote:

It could make for good toilet paper or napkins to blow your nose.


Do you really want to wipe you face or butt with that paper that has that face on it?
608 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 16 days ago

HomuliIIy wrote:

Don't they do the same thing with the super bowl?
Where they make jerseys for each team?


Yes and they either destroy or donate the incorrect ones. I think they donate more than they destroy these days.
10568 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 15 days ago
So that is where those Brazilian kids get all those jerseys...
Posted 15 days ago

foraslan wrote:

Ok, so I was getting groceries tonight and saw a Newsweek special edition about our new President, Hillary Rodham Clinton. I couldn't believe my eyes, so I flipped through it; it wasn't written as satire, and nothing indicated it was a hoax! I looked into it as soon as I came home, and found a snopes article (http://www.snopes.com/clinton-newsweek-cover/) explaining that two sets of magazines were printed ahead of time: one for a Trump-win, and one for a Clinton-win.

You know, this just seems like an enormous waste of paper. I understand writing two editions, but printing them ahead of time is silly. You'd think people could wait until the morning after the election to buy a magazine.


Snopes making themselves look bought off and retarded yet again. Newsweek did NOT make a trump one ahead of time, and the CEO of Newsweek even called it a "business decision" to go with the hillary one and not preprint a DT one.

I mean, its not like all of the major media is owned by the same group of degenerates that own the DNC, pays off congress, owns central banks.


I love how Snopes proves itself to be fully compliant liars when needed, just like with 911.
37281 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 15 days ago

foraslan wrote:

Ok, so I was getting groceries tonight and saw a Newsweek special edition about our new President, Hillary Rodham Clinton. I couldn't believe my eyes, so I flipped through it; it wasn't written as satire, and nothing indicated it was a hoax! I looked into it as soon as I came home, and found a snopes article (http://www.snopes.com/clinton-newsweek-cover/) explaining that two sets of magazines were printed ahead of time: one for a Trump-win, and one for a Clinton-win.

You know, this just seems like an enormous waste of paper. I understand writing two editions, but printing them ahead of time is silly. You'd think people could wait until the morning after the election to buy a magazine.


There was a thread about this a few days before the election. Everyone was accusing Newsweek of calling the election for Hillary ahead of the election. They printed and distributed Madam President, ahead of time, but did not print and distribute any President Trump, because they "knew he would lose."

I laughed at Newsweek when Trump won. I figured they'd have to go through a mad dash of collecting all of the Madam President issues, while hurriedly printing and distributing the President Trump issue.

Did you not see any Newsweek President Trump issues, only Madam President issues?
97899 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
68 / M / Columbia, MO
Offline
Posted 15 days ago , edited 15 days ago
Pulled from Catherine Austin Fitts--The Solari Report, Notes & Commentary, November 16, 2016:

(Clinton won the popular vote)**


HILLARY CLINTON HAS A NEGATIVE RETURN ON INVESTMENT TO THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER

Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election. While I believe that there were significant shenanigans and vote rigging on both sides of the aisle, I believe Clinton lost the popular vote and the electoral vote (despite any news reports to the contrary). Let’s look at some of the reasons why.

Hillary Clinton has been getting steadily richer while many of the productive people in America have been getting steadily poorer.

It is worth comparing Clinton’s profits on speeches at Goldman Sachs (who benefited richly on the end of Glass-Steagall during the Clinton Administration and bailouts during Obama/Clinton, among many other policies ) to what professionals in American earn:

While millions of people were losing their homes and funding bailouts, Hillary Clinton was buying and living in multi-million dollar mansions in Washington and New York.

After Libya, one of the worst examples of Clinton-style disaster capitalism was Haiti, which we discussed with Dr. Dady Chery in our Solari Report, Haiti & Disaster Capitalism.

Following the Haiti earthquake in January 2010, Bill Clinton as Special UN Ambassador and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State literally took control of Haiti. The Clinton Foundations raised enormous sums of money, which never reached the Haitian people. To this day, the many questions as to where the money went continue to go unanswered.

Chelsea Clinton was married six months after the US invasion of Haiti. There are now allegations that Clinton Foundation funds helped pay for her wedding, which is estimated to have cost $3-5 million.

One wedding website described Chelsea’s wedding cake as follows

“We talked to Chelsea’s cake baker from La Tulipe Desserts for a few of the details. The nine-tiered cake was 500 pounds and four feet tall, and price estimates fall in the $10,000 to $12,000 range. The cake was mostly white with silver accents and 1,000 edible white sugar flowers, all delicately brushed to give a pearlescent sheen. The gluten-free (Chelsea’s allergic to gluten) vanilla wedding cake with dark chocolate mousse filling was made out of local and mostly organic ingredients.”

Imagine how many Haitians would be alive today if the Clintons had decided to simply allowed $3 million more of the money they raised for the Haitians actually go to the Haitian people.

Imagine why someone planning on running for President would spend $10,000 or more on a wedding cake while the Haitian people were dying for lack of shelter and safe drinking water or innocent Americans were working in private prisons as slave labor to make uniforms for the military.

Of course, we all know what happened to the woman who said “Let them eat cake.”

Americans are a remarkably generous people. They have no problem with wealthy people who earn money in the markets through hard work, innovation and good luck. They do have a problem with politicians and political appointees who make money by selling influence and using the taxpayer credit to engineer private benefits – including for themselves – that shrink the pie. The average American knows that, in the long run ,you have to make money by baking pies instead of stealing other people’s pies.

As allegations poured out from Wikileaks regarding the Clinton campaign and the Clinton Foundation, Americans got a taste of how “pay to play” really works, how manipulation of classified information is used to create private fortunes, and even how treason was possibly commited.

Hillary Clinton is part of a syndicate that has grown in wealth and power by centralizing control in the US in a manner which has drained the productive people who creating much of the economic wealth that financed it. There were many people who voted for Trump in the 2016 election who voted for Obama in 2008. The productive wanted change eight years ago. What they got was a transfer of $27 trillion in bailouts – more than all the retirement savings in the country – to the large banks and private interests.

With the debt financed growth coming to an end, the productive were not prepared to tolerate the continued drain.

Clinton was shrinking the pie of the productive people but they did not want to be liquidated to keep the empire going. This was not about race, sex or any of the divide-and-conquer, politically correct waste-of-time air cover used to stalk the general population in support of empire building.

Clinton lost because of a productivity backlash.

CONCLUSION

So what happens now? Will President Elect Trump be able to lead the US towards lasting change?

Rejecting Clinton and the Necons is the first step. Once inaugurated, however, President Trump and Vice President Pence will assume leadership of a complex machinery that is deeply dependent on harvesting global and domestic subsidy. Turning that machine around is easier said than done. Yes, the productive people want change. However, that change will require a broad-based commitment to shift the fundamental dependency of the US establishment and general population away from the “central banking-warfare model.” The richly subsidized, in particular, are in no hurry to convert to becoming fundamentally productive. Do we see Hillary Clinton embracing the opportunity to learn how to drive her own car or to clean her multiple homes? In my experience, there is no one meaner than the richly privileged when they are suddenly required to earn their keep.

Here is what Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson said regarding the challenge that lies before all of us:

“The two candidates that we have just had offered to us in this election, both of them made comments and one of them had a profession that dictated this…that they were going to continue to play by that playbook. Now one wonders what one of them is going to do because he [Trump] is bouncing all over the place. Is he going to rewrite the playbook? Is he going to play by the playbook? Is he going to throw it out the door? What’s going to happen?”

“That uncertainty certainly unnerved the markets initially, they recovered today. And they will continue to recover as long as he remains somewhat conciliatory and doesn’t look like he is going to throw the playbook out. Just imagine if he suddenly decided that he would and it might be beneficial to the country that he did.”

“Then you see what I am talking about now because the markets will go all over the place again. Because the markets are part of this state. The markets are part of waging war. They are part of the warfare state. Our entire financial system now is geared to this warfare state. It has an umbilical cord extending from it. That’s how it survives. That’s how it makes a lot of its profits …directly or indirectly.”

“Not for nothing was HSBC found out for laundering drugs. You know where a lot of those drugs were coming from?…Afghanistan. This is a vicious many-headed animal that we have allowed to grow up – as Eisenhower predicted – and if we are not careful it is going to eat all of our lunches before it is through with us.”

The task before the new administration is much greater than most people appreciate. Since the election, millions of dollars have flowed to engineer protests and a vindictive corporate media is doing its best to sabotage the transition. The political establishment is trying to build political toll booths at every turn. This change will not be decided by an election. This is trench warfare, involving all of us.

What can we do? Peggy Noonan addressed it in her latest column in the WSJ, “What Comes After the Uprising.” She closed with some exceptionally sound advice:

“The next president needs you. This is our country. Help him.“

Give thanks that Hillary Clinton is not going to be the President of the United States. As Winston Churchill once said, “Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.” We have missed a very big bullet – one that could have destroyed America. Then go to work, each in our own way. If the productive want a country where we are once again free to be productive, if we want America to be great again, it is going to take all of us pulling in that direction every day for the next four years.

Share


First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.