Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

2016 Predictions Now!Follow

#1 Jan 15 2015 at 1:53 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
So, I meant to do this at new years before people started throwing in their bids, but what are your 2016 presidential predictions? The earliest prediction with the most accuracy is the winner.... You can change throughout the months, but your most recent "prediction official" post will be the one that count.

1. I believe HRC will run and win the Democratic nomination.
2. I do not think Warren will run, but a bunch of no names that will not break 30% of the overall vote.
3. I think Rand Paul will be the Republican nomination
4. I think HRC will win the presidential nomination
5. FNC will have another break down
#2 Jan 15 2015 at 7:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Warren took herself out of the running the other day stating that she was not and will not be running.

Rand Paul ain't gonna win nothin' (well, in terms of the 2016 presidential primary)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Jan 15 2015 at 8:19 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Rand Paul ain't gonna win nothin' (well, in terms of the 2016 presidential primary)

It's Jeb's turn. Why does anyone ever think there's any mystery at all involved in the GOP primary?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#4 Jan 15 2015 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Why does anyone ever think there's any mystery at all involved in the GOP primary?
Ratings. Like Mitt Romney.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 Jan 15 2015 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Rand Paul ain't gonna win nothin' (well, in terms of the 2016 presidential primary)

It's Jeb's turn. Why does anyone ever think there's any mystery at all involved in the GOP primary?

Mitt called a do-over.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#6 Jan 15 2015 at 1:08 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Mitt called a do-over.

Doesn't matter, he's had his turn, it's Jeb's turn now.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#7 Jan 15 2015 at 1:23 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Mitt called a do-over.

Doesn't matter, he's had his turn, it's Jeb's turn now.


Why do we even have pretend elections at this point? It is just a question of which dynasty gets in.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#8 Jan 15 2015 at 1:27 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Why do we even have pretend elections at this point? It is just a question of which dynasty gets in.

Well, Obama was an unexpected twist. Happens sometimes that you'll get someone who isn't part of the establishment elected, who then becomes part of it before taking office, but still, exciting for entertainment value.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#9 Jan 15 2015 at 1:36 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Why do we even have pretend elections at this point? It is just a question of which dynasty gets in.

Well, Obama was an unexpected twist. Happens sometimes that you'll get someone who isn't part of the establishment elected, who then becomes part of it before taking office, but still, exciting for entertainment value.


There were some bright moments like when my gma said she will vote for him, because, even though he is black, he is also tall and handsome. Ahh, old people..
There was also confused conversation of two talking heads:
A: what are his policies?
B: he brings people hope
A:...

Good times; I admit.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#10 Jan 15 2015 at 2:45 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Warren took herself out of the running the other day stating that she was not and will not be running.

Rand Paul ain't gonna win nothin' (well, in terms of the 2016 presidential primary)
Obviously Jeb is the better candidate, but depending how much of a fight Mitt and Chris puts up, I think Rand might squeak by. He has been plotting for some time now.
#11 Jan 15 2015 at 5:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Warren took herself out of the running the other day stating that she was not and will not be running.

Rand Paul ain't gonna win nothin' (well, in terms of the 2016 presidential primary)
Obviously Jeb is the better candidate, but depending how much of a fight Mitt and Chris puts up, I think Rand might squeak by. He has been plotting for some time now.


Pretty much anyone, but Hillary.. even Jeb.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#12 Jan 15 2015 at 6:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Rand Paul? I suppose anything can happen in politics, but he's too young/new, too weighed down by his father, and almost certainly more willing to play spoiler/issues guy than taking an actual lead role. It's much easier and comfortable to be the guy in the armchair telling everyone how the guy at the podium is ******** things up. Also, there's probably like 5 GOP names in the maybe field that I'd rank before him in terms of probability.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Jan 15 2015 at 7:41 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
gbaji wrote:
Rand Paul? I suppose anything can happen in politics, but he's too young/new, too weighed down by his father, and almost certainly more willing to play spoiler/issues guy than taking an actual lead role. It's much easier and comfortable to be the guy in the armchair telling everyone how the guy at the podium is ******** things up. Also, there's probably like 5 GOP names in the maybe field that I'd rank before him in terms of probability.


Two reasons for Rand Paul:

1. It's more exciting to guess right for the underdog.
2. If you watch any "competition" show, e.g., cut throat kitchen, ink master, etc., if the big players focus on each other, the less qualified tends to out do better players. They usually lose at the end, but they get much further than they would if any attention were placed on them from the beginning.
#14 Jan 15 2015 at 7:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The primary difference being that the mediocre guys on the reality shows don't have a billion dollars backing them.

Rand Paul appeals to a fairly narrow slice of the conservative electorate and there's too many people who wouldn't vote for him in a primary over someone either more "establishment" or more of a social conservative (depending on their leanings). Now, if every other GOP primary candidate died in a lightning storm and Rand Paul won the nomination by default they might vote for him over the Democrat purely by virtue of the (R) but they'd never vote for him over a different Republican alternative.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Jan 15 2015 at 7:57 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Which is why it was listed as #2. #1 is just the thrill of an underdog winning, like the "Democratic South" in the 2014 mid terms. We all knew it wasn't going to happen, but it was nice to see the polls.
#16 Jan 15 2015 at 8:31 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
they'd never vote for him over a different Republican alternative.

What if we find a liberal guy named George Bush? There has to be one, it's a pretty common name.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 Jan 15 2015 at 8:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Be better if you could find a Reagan although that might be a harder trawl. Maybe there's some chick out there named Reagan Ronald.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Jan 15 2015 at 9:10 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
2. If you watch any "competition" show, e.g., cut throat kitchen, ink master, etc., if the big players focus on each other, the less qualified tends to out do better players. They usually lose at the end, but they get much further than they would if any attention were placed on them from the beginning.


I've determined that if I were ever on Cutthroat Kitchen (this presumes I were a far better chef than I am, of course), the correct strategy is to spend no money in the first round at all. You don't appreciably improve your odds unless you spend a lot of money, which usually hurts you in later rounds. There's usually a sabotage that affects all three of the others to some degree in there, so you're unlikely to be the sole target for anything (especially if you keep your head down and don't get into a bidding war). Just don't get dorked more than anyone else and you'll be fine. It's worth the risk of getting randomly knocked out in the first round to ensure you have max cash going into the second.

In the second round, jump on the first sabotage. Doesn't matter what it is. You want to win this because you're sitting at full cash and thus are the target of elimination for everyone else. Win it, pretty much at any cost and play it on whichever of the other two players has the most money. This serves to do two things:

1. You decrease your cash supply, thus making you less of an apparent threat and less likely to be targeted for sabotage.

2. Lumping multiple sabotages on one player is the best way to ensure you go on to the next round, thus the guy you didn't target (the one with the least cash coming out of round 1) may target the same guy you just hit if he wins an auction himself. So double threat reduction basically.

The hope is that the guy with the poor spending control in the first round will still have poor spending control and will blow even more money and will target the other player and not you. But even if you do get hit, you made sure someone else got one too, giving you decent odds (nothing is guaranteed in that game). The key point here is that you get the first sabotage, but don't spend any more money after that. The objective is to go into the final round with a significant cash advantage over the other guy.


Oh. And far more important than the auctions, but what everyone forgets. Pantry strategy. I've seen more contestants get eliminated by not getting key ingredients than because of sabotages. 60 seconds is not much time to gather what you need, and IMO that's the hardest part of the game. Not sure how one practices for this, but if I were going to be on that show, I'd be finding some way to do that.

Yeah. I like the darn show. Sue me!

Oh. I suppose I should mention the alternative, more or less opposite strategy. Bid heavy in the first round. Deplete your cash to around $12k or so. Theory being that you'll make it to round two and will be ignored because everyone else should want to take the guy with the least cash to round three. Unfortunately, this is risky because it's pretty clear that most of the people who play the game don't seem to grasp the concept of having more cash in round three than your opponent and will sometimes dump on the guy with the least cash in round two for some random reason (like say, revenge for some sabotage placed on them in round one). I mention it because it *should* be a good strategy, but unless you're playing with more game savvy players, it probably wont.

Edited, Jan 15th 2015 7:15pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Jan 15 2015 at 11:28 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I've determined that if I were ever on Cutthroat Kitchen (this presumes I were a far better chef than I am, of course), the correct strategy is to spend no money in the first round at all.
The first couple of episodes, the sabotages were so lame, that it was better to pass them up and rely on your skills. Fortunately, the love of money and the desire to win clogs logic and strategy. Now, the sabotages are basically necessary (to avoid) in order to win. For me, the best strategy is to NOT get the first sabotage, because revenge is almost guaranteed. You can almost last till the final round by letting two cooks go at it.
#20 Jan 16 2015 at 12:58 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
lolWiki wrote:
The Queen is the longest-lived and second-longest-reigning monarch of the United Kingdom and the second-longest-serving current head of state (after King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand). She does not intend to abdicate,[162] though the proportion of the Sovereign's duties performed by Prince Charles is expected to continue to increase as Elizabeth reduces her commitments.[163] She would surpass Queen Victoria as the longest-reigning British monarch on 9 September 2015
As I read this my brain went "won't make it". So, I predict QE II will kick le bucket prior to September 9 2015.



On the subject of Cuthroat Kitchen: I've only seen a couple but I thought that forcing a competitor to "milk" a fake cow for his dairy product(s) (5 teats-5 types) was entertainingly cruel.Smiley: laugh

Edited, Jan 15th 2015 11:59pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#21 Jan 16 2015 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I predict that Mitt will have an accident in the bathroom with his blow-dryer. His hair will burn brighter than any Bush. From the ashes will arise the republican savior...and it shall become prez...and it will be good.



Edited, Jan 16th 2015 3:26pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#22 Jan 16 2015 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
lolWiki wrote:
The Queen is the longest-lived and second-longest-reigning monarch of the United Kingdom and the second-longest-serving current head of state (after King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand). She does not intend to abdicate,[162] though the proportion of the Sovereign's duties performed by Prince Charles is expected to continue to increase as Elizabeth reduces her commitments.[163] She would surpass Queen Victoria as the longest-reigning British monarch on 9 September 2015
As I read this my brain went "won't make it". So, I predict QE II will kick le bucket prior to September 9 2015.
Negative. Much like a vampire, she will feed off the lifeforce of Prince George.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#23 Jan 16 2015 at 5:21 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I predict that "war on terror" will be the forefront again. The current administration will avoid it by passing the buck to the next person. The next person will want to go to war.
#24 Jan 16 2015 at 7:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I've determined that if I were ever on Cutthroat Kitchen (this presumes I were a far better chef than I am, of course), the correct strategy is to spend no money in the first round at all.
The first couple of episodes, the sabotages were so lame, that it was better to pass them up and rely on your skills. Fortunately, the love of money and the desire to win clogs logic and strategy. Now, the sabotages are basically necessary (to avoid) in order to win. For me, the best strategy is to NOT get the first sabotage, because revenge is almost guaranteed. You can almost last till the final round by letting two cooks go at it.


Yeah. Some of the sabotages are just plain guaranteed wipe-out. If the challenge is making a roast beef sandwich and you have all your beef replaced with beef jerky, your odds of winning are very close to zero. But the true wipe-out sabotages usually show up in the second round, while the first usually has more of the "inconvenience all your opponents" variety (some of which can still be wipe-outs, but it's random chance really). This is why I think just avoiding bidding in the first round is the best starting strategy. If you randomly get the something that wipes you out, your out. But odds are, you wont (75% right?), so just keep your money and don't make enemies. Then aim in round two to eliminate the guy with the next most money if possible.

It's a fun game to watch IMO. And some of the sabotages are just plain evil (and/or hilarious to watch), so there's that. Alton Brown pulls off the mad scientist/tormenter pretty much perfectly too.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Jan 16 2015 at 8:03 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Yeah. Some of the sabotages are just plain guaranteed wipe-out. If the challenge is making a roast beef sandwich and you have all your beef replaced with beef jerky, your odds of winning are very close to zero.
I know it's easy to say from the T.V screen, but that's why I would always go with an alternate when picking my ingredients. There always tends to be some sabotage on a main ingredient such as bread or a type of meat. People who don't have a variety in their basket, but only the key ingredients for the perfect meal are the ones who get hit the hardest. I haven't seen it recently, but it appears that most people fail to see that aspect of the game. They only focus on delivering the sabotage as opposed to receiving one.
#26 Jan 16 2015 at 9:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
That's part of what I meant by pantry strategy. You're absolutely right. The people who get just the exact ingredients they need to make the perfect <whatever> are much more susceptible to any sabotage that may come their way. Also, they're much more likely to be completely screwed if they forget just one ingredient (which happens a lot). If I grab 20 things beyond what I need, and I forget butter or eggs, maybe some of those things have something I can use in place of those things. But if I had just the exact items I need, I'm screwed. And it's shocking how often a contestant gets back to their station, looks at their basket and realizes that they forgot something really key to the dish they have to make.

Interestingly enough, the sabotages that take stuff away always replace it with something which can theoretically be used instead. Of course, "theoretically" in Alton Brown's mind doesn't necessarily translate to anything remotely likely to pass muster to the judge, but there's at least a chance you can get by. I guess my point is that if you are asked to make fried chicken and you forget to get any kind of chicken product, you're still more screwed than the guy who had all his chicken replaced with chicken pate, and a lot more screwed than the guy who has to wear a giant chicken costume while cooking. So yeah, get everything in the pantry that you know you'll need and then any thing you think you might possibly need and then any other random stuff that happens to be within arms reach. There's no reason at all to have anything less than a stuffed full basket.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 247 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (247)