DOCSLIB.ORG

WWE Battleground/Seth Rollins Predictions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WWE Battleground/Seth Rollins Predictions Is The Future Of Wrestling Now? WWE Battleground/Seth Rollins Predictions Author : When Seth Rollins first stabbed his brothers in “The Shield” in the back, he joined “The Authority” and proclaimed himself the Future of the WWE. Why shouldn’t he … He was on top of the world. He had the protection of Triple H and the rest of the stable, he had the Money in the Bank contract and then, he had the World Title. With the Championship came a bit of hubris for Rollins. That Hubris has caused him to alienate all who have been around to help him and protect him. He had made up with them before his big title match with Brock Lesnar at Battleground, giving J&J Security Apple Watches and a brand new Cadillac, and he gave Kane an Apple Watch and a trip to Hawaii. It seemed to work as they ALL had Rollin’s back when Lesnar showed up on RAW. But all that did was piss off the Beast. Lesnar then went and tore apart the Caddy and had it junked. While he was doing that he broke Jamie Noble’s arm and suplexed Joey Mercury through the windshield, putting them both out of action. Then last week on RAW, Lesnar dropped the steel steps on Kane’s ankle. That pissed Rollins off so much; he then yelled at Kane and jumped on his ankle. So you can cross off the Devil’s favorite Demon off of Rollins protection list heading into Battleground. So what IS going to happen to the “Future” of the WWE? Here is one mans informed opinion. Now just so you know, this is not a totally uniformed opinion … I do know people at the WWE, and I have been through the process of trying to be a writer for the company. So while this may not be totally accurate, it could be a damn good description of what to expect heading into Summer Slam … BATTLEGROUND At Battleground, Rollins will face Lesnar and for the FIRST TIME, he will have NO BACK-UP. I think this match will not be a long one at all. I think Lesnar SMASHES him, almost like Lesnar did to John Cena at last year’s Summer Slam (remember 16 Suplexes), and in the end Lesnar will stand tall with the Belt, while Rollins lays in a heap in the ring. As Lesnar and Heyman leave triumphant, we see Rollins pounding on the canvas in disbelief. Then the arena goes dark and we hear it “GONG … GONG … GONG”, that’s right, the Undertaker is headed to the ring with his baby brother Kane (who may or may not be on crutches) … They both enter the ring to exact a little revenge on Rollins for his treatment of Kane. But just as the beating is about to begin, out comes Triple H, Stephanie McMahon, the Big Show (and maybe 1 / 2 Kevin Owens and or Sheamus). So it looks like Rollins will be saved when cooler heads prevail. But just as Triple H picks up Rollins and makes sure he is ok, he hits a Pedigree on him. He looks at the rest of the Authority (and the Undertaker) and tells them to take him apart. That’s how Battleground will end. MONDAY NIGHT RAW (After Battleground) It starts with the “New” Authority in the Ring and Triple H talking about Best for Business and how Rollins was too good at pushing his own people away, and not being a team player is not good for business. Of course this brings Rollins out; he stays on the stage and argues back and forth with Triple H. Which leads to a challenge being laid down for a Triple H vs Rollins match at Summer Slam? Of course, in typical Triple H fashion, he tells Rollins that first he has to fight a Handicapped match tonight against two men who have been waiting to get their hands on him, Dean Ambrose and Roman Reigns in the Main Event of RAW. Throughout the evening we see little vignettes of Triple H not only insulting Rollins but making sure everyone knows he has a plan for tonight. We see a flashback of Rollins turning on The Shield and Triple H mentioning that you have to have a Plan B. So we get to the Main Event of RAW, and Ambrose and Reigns are having their way with Rollins. You can tell they have been waiting to get their hands on their former Shield Brother. As the match continues, out comes the Authority in full force. With Ambrose and Reigns dominating, the Authority gets into the ring and starts to work on Rollins. They hold him up by each arm to allow Ambrose and Reigns to have free shots at him. Just as Reigns goes to spear him, he misses and nails Kane who is holding one of Rollins arms. Meanwhile Ambrose delivers Dirty Deeds on whoever is holding the other arm. The faces then clean house of the Authority and RAW goes off the air with The Shield reuniting. After RAW this coming Monday, I will check back on the column and see how I did … If I hit it right on the head (like I am sure I will), I will add to the column all the way up to and including Summer Slam. If for some insane reason, I am wrong … I will write a mea culpa and make a better prediction. 2 / 2 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Unintended Consequences of the American Presidential Selection System
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLP\15-1\HLP104.txt unknown Seq: 1 14-JUL-21 12:54 The Best Laid Plans: Unintended Consequences of the American Presidential Selection System Samuel S.-H. Wang and Jacob S. Canter* The mechanism for selecting the President of the United States, the Electoral College, causes outcomes that weaken American democracy and that the delegates at the Constitu- tional Convention never intended. The core selection process described in Article II, Section 1 was hastily drawn in the final days of the Convention based on compromises made originally to benefit slave-owning states and states with smaller populations. The system was also drafted to have electors deliberate and then choose the President in an age when travel and news took weeks or longer to cross the new country. In the four decades after ratification, the Electoral College was modified further to reach its current form, which includes most states using a winner-take-all method to allocate electors. The original needs this system was designed to address have now disappeared. But the persistence of these Electoral College mechanisms still causes severe unanticipated problems, including (1) con- tradictions between the electoral vote winner and national popular vote winner, (2) a “battleground state” phenomenon where all but a handful of states are safe for one political party or the other, (3) representational and policy benefits that citizens in only some states receive, (4) a decrease in the political power of non-battleground demographic groups, and (5) vulnerability of elections to interference. These outcomes will not go away without intervention.
    [Show full text]
  • POLL RESULTS: Congressional Bipartisanship Nationwide and in Battleground States
    POLL RESULTS: Congressional Bipartisanship Nationwide and in Battleground States 1 Voters think Congress is dysfunctional and reject the suggestion that it is effective. Please indicate whether you think this word or phrase describes the United States Congress, or not. Nationwide Battleground Nationwide Independents Battleground Independents Dysfunctional 60 60 61 64 Broken 56 58 58 60 Ineffective 54 54 55 56 Gridlocked 50 48 52 50 Partisan 42 37 40 33 0 Bipartisan 7 8 7 8 Has America's best 3 2 3 interests at heart 3 Functioning 2 2 2 3 Effective 2 2 2 3 2 Political frustrations center around politicians’ inability to collaborate in a productive way. Which of these problems frustrates you the most? Nationwide Battleground Nationwide Independents Battleground Independents Politicians can’t work together to get things done anymore. 41 37 41 39 Career politicians have been in office too long and don’t 29 30 30 30 understand the needs of regular people. Politicians are politicizing issues that really shouldn’t be 14 13 12 14 politicized. Out political system is broken and doesn’t work for me. 12 15 12 12 3 Candidates who brand themselves as bipartisan will have a better chance of winning in upcoming elections. For which candidate for Congress would you be more likely to vote? A candidate who is willing to compromise to A candidate who will stay true to his/her get things done principles and not make any concessions NationwideNationwide 72 28 Nationwide Nationwide Independents Independents 74 26 BattlegroundBattleground 70 30 Battleground Battleground IndependentsIndependents 73 27 A candidate who will vote for bipartisan A candidate who will resist bipartisan legislation legislation and stick with his/her party NationwideNationwide 83 17 Nationwide IndependentsNationwide Independents 86 14 BattlegroundBattleground 82 18 Battleground BattlegroundIndependents Independents 88 12 4 Across the country, voters agree that they want members of Congress to work together.
    [Show full text]
  • The Popular Culture Studies Journal
    THE POPULAR CULTURE STUDIES JOURNAL VOLUME 6 NUMBER 1 2018 Editor NORMA JONES Liquid Flicks Media, Inc./IXMachine Managing Editor JULIA LARGENT McPherson College Assistant Editor GARRET L. CASTLEBERRY Mid-America Christian University Copy Editor Kevin Calcamp Queens University of Charlotte Reviews Editor MALYNNDA JOHNSON Indiana State University Assistant Reviews Editor JESSICA BENHAM University of Pittsburgh Please visit the PCSJ at: http://mpcaaca.org/the-popular-culture- studies-journal/ The Popular Culture Studies Journal is the official journal of the Midwest Popular and American Culture Association. Copyright © 2018 Midwest Popular and American Culture Association. All rights reserved. MPCA/ACA, 421 W. Huron St Unit 1304, Chicago, IL 60654 Cover credit: Cover Artwork: “Wrestling” by Brent Jones © 2018 Courtesy of https://openclipart.org EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD ANTHONY ADAH FALON DEIMLER Minnesota State University, Moorhead University of Wisconsin-Madison JESSICA AUSTIN HANNAH DODD Anglia Ruskin University The Ohio State University AARON BARLOW ASHLEY M. DONNELLY New York City College of Technology (CUNY) Ball State University Faculty Editor, Academe, the magazine of the AAUP JOSEF BENSON LEIGH H. EDWARDS University of Wisconsin Parkside Florida State University PAUL BOOTH VICTOR EVANS DePaul University Seattle University GARY BURNS JUSTIN GARCIA Northern Illinois University Millersville University KELLI S. BURNS ALEXANDRA GARNER University of South Florida Bowling Green State University ANNE M. CANAVAN MATTHEW HALE Salt Lake Community College Indiana University, Bloomington ERIN MAE CLARK NICOLE HAMMOND Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota University of California, Santa Cruz BRIAN COGAN ART HERBIG Molloy College Indiana University - Purdue University, Fort Wayne JARED JOHNSON ANDREW F. HERRMANN Thiel College East Tennessee State University JESSE KAVADLO MATTHEW NICOSIA Maryville University of St.
    [Show full text]
  • Donald Trump 41% 55% 4%
    August 13-17, 2017 / N=1,000 Registered voters / ±3.1% M.O.E. THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BATTLEGROUND POLL A national survey of 1,000 Registered Voters August 13-17, 2017 / N=1,000 Registered voters / ±3.1% M.O.E. Do you feel things in the country are going in the right direction, or do you feel things have gotten off on the wrong track? 70% 69% 66% 66% 64% 65% 63% 64% 58% 30% 28% 26% 26% 27% 27% 28% 21% 21% 14% 11% 10% 8% 9% 8% 7% 6% 9% 3/20/2014 8/28/2014 12/11/2014 5/7/2015 4/20/2016 9/1/2016 10/13/2016 12/1/2016 8/17/2017 Right direction Unsure Wrong track Q1 August 13-17, 2017 / N=1,000 Registered voters/Split sample A/B/ ±3.1% M.O.E. Do you feel things in the country are going in the right direction, or do you feel things have gotten off on the wrong track? 72% 75% 73% 70% 69% 67% 67% 65%66%66% 63%64% 63% 64% 62% 62% 61% 60% 59% 59% 59% 64% 58% 56% 57%56%57% 55% 55% 54% 54% 59% 54% 52% 51% 40% 41% 34% 40% 39% 38% 38% 39% 37% 37% 28% 36% 34% 28% 32% 32% 33%32% 26% 31% 31% 30% 29% 28% 28% 27% 27% 21%21% 26% 24% 6/1/04 8/1/0410/1/043/1/05 10/1/052/1/06 9/1/06 7/1/0912/1/094/8/10 8/1/109/21/1010/21/105/12/119/1/11 11/11/112/12/125/1/128/12/129/20/129/27/1210/18/1211/5/1212/6/1210/31/131/16/143/14/148/28/1412/11/145/7/154/20/169/1/16 10/13/1612/1/168/17/17 Right Direction Wrong Track Unsure Q1 August 13-17, 2017 / N=1,000 Registered voters / ±3.1% M.O.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Battleground 2014 (XLIII)
    Battleground 2014 (XLIII) FINAL STUDY #14107 THE TARRANCE GROUP and LAKE RESEARCH PARTNERS N = 1,000 Registered “likely” voters Margin of error + 3.1% Field Dates: January 12-16, 2014 Hello, I'm _______________ of The Tarrance Group, a national survey research firm. We're talking to people today about public leaders and issues facing us all. IF CELL CODE = “N”, ASK: May I please speak with the youngest (male/female) in the household who is registered to vote? IF CELL CODE = “Y”, ASK: CP-1. Do you currently live in (state from cell sample sheet)? Yes (CONTINUE TO CP-3) No (CONTINUE TO CP-2) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ IF “NO” IN CP-1, ASK: CP-2. In what state do you current reside? __________________________ (RECORD STATE NAME) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ IF CELL CODE = “Y”, ASK: CP-3. For your safety, are you driving right now? Yes (SCHEDULE CALL BACK) No _____________________________________________________________________________________________ A. Are you registered to vote in your state? IF "NO," ASK: Is there someone else at home who is registered to vote? (IF "YES," THEN ASK: MAY I SPEAK WITH HIM/HER?) Yes (CONTINUE) No (THANK AND TERMINATE) *=less than .5% 1 And… B. What is the likelihood of your voting in the elections for US Congress that will be held in November 2014-- are you extremely likely, very likely, somewhat likely, or not very likely at all to vote? Extremely Likely ..................................................... 60% (CONTINUE) Very Likely .............................................................. 27% Somewhat Likely ..................................................... 13% (THANK AND TERMINATE) Not Very Likely UNSURE (DNR) (UPELECT) C. Are you, or is anyone in your household, employed with an advertising agency, newspaper, television or radio station, or political campaign? Yes (THANK AND TERMINATE) No (CONTINUE) Now, thinking for a moment about things in the country-- 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Spreading the Gospel of Climate Change: an Evangelical Battleground
    NEW POLITICAL REFORM NEW MODELS OF AMERICA PROGRAM POLICY CHANGE LYDIA BEAN AND STEVE TELES SPREADING THE GOSPEL OF CLIMATE CHANGE: AN EVANGELICAL BATTLEGROUND PART OF NEW AMERICA’S STRANGE BEDFELLOWS SERIES NOVEMBER 2015 #STRANGEBEDFELLOWS About the Authors About New Models of Policy Change Lydia Bean is author of The Politics New Models of Policy Change starts from the observation of Evangelical Identity (Princeton UP that the traditional model of foundation-funded, 2014). She is Executive Director of Faith think-tank driven policy change -- ideas emerge from in Texas, and Senior Consultant to the disinterested “experts” and partisan elites compromise PICO National Network. for the good of the nation -- is failing. Partisan polarization, technological empowerment of citizens, and heightened suspicions of institutions have all taken their toll. Steven Teles is an associate professor of political science at Johns Hopkins But amid much stagnation, interesting policy change University and a fellow at New America. is still happening. The paths taken on issues from sentencing reform to changes in Pentagon spending to resistance to government surveillance share a common thread: they were all a result of transpartisan cooperation. About New America By transpartisan, we mean an approach to advocacy in which, rather than emerging from political elites at the New America is dedicated to the renewal of American center, new policy ideas emerge from unlikely corners of politics, prosperity, and purpose in the Digital Age. We the right or left and find allies on the other side, who may carry out our mission as a nonprofit civic enterprise: an come to the same idea from a very different worldview.
    [Show full text]
  • The Atlantic Return and the Payback of Evangelization
    Vol. 3, no. 2 (2013), 207-221 | URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-114482 The Atlantic Return and the Payback of Evangelization VALENTINA NAPOLITANO* Abstract This article explores Catholic, transnational Latin American migration to Rome as a gendered and ethnicized Atlantic Return, which is figured as a source of ‘new blood’ that fortifies the Catholic Church but which also profoundly unset- tles it. I analyze this Atlantic Return as an angle on the affective force of his- tory in critical relation to two main sources: Diego Von Vacano’s reading of the work of Bartolomeo de las Casas, a 16th-century Spanish Dominican friar; and to Nelson Maldonado-Torres’ notion of the ‘coloniality of being’ which he suggests has operated in Atlantic relations as enduring and present forms of racial de-humanization. In his view this latter can be counterbalanced by embracing an economy of the gift understood as gendered. However, I argue that in the light of a contemporary payback of evangelization related to the original ‘gift of faith’ to the Americas, this economy of the gift is less liberatory than Maldonado-Torres imagines, and instead part of a polyfaceted reproduc- tion of a postsecular neoliberal affective, and gendered labour regime. Keywords Transnational migration; Catholicism; economy of the gift; de Certeau; Atlantic Return; Latin America; Rome. Author affiliation Valentina Napolitano is an Associate Professor in the Department of Anthro- pology and the Director of the Latin American Studies Program, University of *Correspondence: Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, 19 Russell St., Toronto, M5S 2S2, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (3.0) Religion and Gender | ISSN: 1878-5417 | www.religionandgender.org | Igitur publishing Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 10:21:12AM via free access Napolitano: The Atlantic Return and the Payback of Evangelization Toronto.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Standards, Thresholds, and the Next Battleground of Climate Change Regulations
    Article Environmental Standards, Thresholds, and the Next Battleground of Climate Change Regulations Kimberly M. Castle† and Richard L. Revesz†† Introduction .......................................................................... 1350 I. Traditional Risk Assessment Models ............................. 1363 A. Carcinogens ............................................................... 1363 B. Noncarcinogens Other than Criteria Pollutants ..... 1371 II. Treatment of Criteria Pollutants ................................... 1377 A. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 ......................... 1378 B. Shift in the EPA’s Approach: A Case Study of Lead ....................................................................... 1383 C. Rejecting Thresholds and Calculating Benefits Below the NAAQS .................................................... 1391 III. Calculating Health Benefits from Particulate Matter Reductions Below the NAAQS ....................................... 1397 A. Scientific Basis .......................................................... 1400 B. Regulatory Treatment .............................................. 1409 C. Addressing Uncertainty ........................................... 1413 D. Adjusting Baselines .................................................. 1417 IV. Considering Co-Benefits ................................................. 1421 A. Co-Benefits and Indirect Costs ................................ 1424 B. The EPA’s Practice ................................................... 1427 † Research Scholar, Institute
    [Show full text]
  • Battleground 2016: New Game
    Battleground 2016: new game June 30, 2016 Methodology Battleground Survey of 2700 Likely 2016 Voters in 9 competitive presidential battleground states. This survey took place June 11 - 20. Respondents who voted in the 2012 election, 2014 election, or registered since the 2014 election were selected from the national voter file. Likely voters were determined based on stated intention of voting in 2016. Data shown in this deck is among all 2016 likely voters unless otherwise noted. Margin of error for the full sample = +/-1.89 percentage points at 95% confidence. Margin of error will be higher among subgroups. Respondents were divided equally among states (n=300) of Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Margin of error for each state sample= +/- 5.66 percentage points at 95% confidence. Margin of error will be higher among subgroups. Forty-nine percent of respondents were reached by cell phone, in order to account for ever-changing demographics and accurately sample the full electorate in each state. Regression analysis. A series of fractional logistic regressions were conducted to obtain the marginal effects of the explanatory variable (presidential vote) on outcome variables (associations, statement pairs), representing the change in outcome probabilities estimated for the explanatory variable, all else held equal. No causation is implied by these results. 1 State Breakdowns Senate Battleground: Arizona Diverse Target States: Florida* Arizona Florida Nevada Nevada North Carolina North Carolina Rustbelt Target States: Ohio Ohio New Hampshire New Hampshire Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Wisconsin Michigan Wisconsin *The Senate vote results were excluded in Florida where Senator Rubio had not yet announced his candidacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Cubed Circle Newsletter 241 – Consistency Is Hard
    Cubed Circle Newsletter 241 – Consistency is Hard As many of probably noticed, we have been posting late and sporadically for the last month. This was, obviously, not our intention, but with the second semester eating into my free time, staying up to date is a tall order. Even without the newsletter itself seeing weekly publication the site has still remained up to date on a weekly basis, thanks primarily to co-author Ben Carass, as well as guest writers Paul Cooke and Leslie Lee III. But, the newsletter has survived for well over 241 weeks, and will hopefully thrive in the years to come. I have attempted to make provisions for publishing related tasks which should minimize the risk of major delays (obviously there will be some regular delays, as this late issue can attest), but we have some fail safes in place in order to keep this to a minimum. With all of this said, we have a great issue for everyone this week with Paul Cooke discussing the Pro-Wrestling Only Greatest Wrestler Ever project and his personal experience with the poll, Ben covers the news including tons of results from Japan and the Lesnar USADA violation, the Mixed Bag returns with a look at comedy wrestling, Ricochet/Ospreay, and a potential WWE match of the year -- plus Ben also looks at last Sunday's Battleground show and the first RAW of the brand split (a very good show). Also, for those unaware, we now have an official Twitter account @CubedCircleWres allowing the banger to unprecedented highs at @BenCarass and @RyanClingman.
    [Show full text]
  • Neutral Ground Or Battleground? Hidden History, Tourism, and Spatial (In)Justice in the New Orleans French Quarter
    University of Massachusetts Boston ScholarWorks at UMass Boston American Studies Faculty Publication Series American Studies 2018 Neutral Ground or Battleground? Hidden History, Tourism, and Spatial (In)Justice in the New Orleans French Quarter Lynnell L. Thomas Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umb.edu/amst_faculty_pubs Part of the African American Studies Commons, Africana Studies Commons, American Studies Commons, and the Tourism Commons Neutral Ground or Battleground? Hidden History, Tourism, and Spatial (In)Justice in the New Orleans French Quarter Lynnell L. Thomas The National Slave Ship Museum will be the next great attraction for visitors and locals to experience. It will reconnect Americans to their complicated and rich history and provide a neutral ground for all of us to examine the costs of our country’s development. —LaToya Cantrell, New Orleans councilmember, 20151 In 2017, the city of New Orleans removed four monuments that paid homage to the city’s Confederate past. The removal came after contentious public de- bate and decades of intermittent grassroots protests. Despite the public process, details about the removal were closely guarded in the wake of death threats, vandalism, lawsuits, and organized resistance by monument supporters. Work- Lynnell L. Thomas is Associate Professor of American Studies at University of Massachusetts Boston. Research for this article was made possible by a grant from the College of the Liberal Arts Dean’s Research Fund, University of Massachusetts Boston. I would also like to thank Leon Waters for agreeing to be interviewed for this article. 1. In 2017, Cantrell was elected mayor of New Orleans; see “LaToya Cantrell Elected New Or- leans’ First Female Mayor,” http://www.nola.com/elections/index.ssf/2017/11/latoya_cantrell _elected_new_or.html.
    [Show full text]
  • CBS News 2016 Battleground Tracker Pennsylvania
    CBS News 2016 Battleground Tracker Pennsylvania Sample 1091 Likely Voters⇤ Conducted October 26-28, 2016 Margin of Error 3.7% ± 1. How likely is it that you will vote in the 2016 Presidential election in November? Already voted early or by mail . 4% Definitely will vote . .91% Probably will vote . 4% Maybe will vote . 1% Probably will not vote . 0% Definitely will not vote . 0% Don’tknow ...............................................................0% 2. When you vote, how do you think you will cast your ballot? Asked of respondents who have not yet voted In person on election day November 8th . 98% By mail ballot/absentee . 2% 3. Have you gotten the ballot but not yet returned it, or have you not received it yet? Asked of respondents intending to cast a ballot by mail Have not yet returned it . 32% Have not yet received it . 66% Already mailed it or dropped it off . .2% 4. How motivated do you feel to vote this year? Asked of respondents who have not already voted Very motivated, can’t wait to vote . .72% Somewhat motivated . 16% Not too motivated . 6% Not motivated, but I’ll do it anyway . .6% ⇤1100 registered voters total were interviewed. 1091 likely voters are included. 1 CBS News 2016 Battleground Tracker Pennsylvania 5. If the 2016 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton, the Democrat, and Donald Trump, the Republican, who would you vote for? Voters selecting someone else in the initial question were given a choice of a selection of third party candidates Hillary Clinton . .48% Donald Trump .
    [Show full text]