los angeles 2024

[FYI]

10 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

 #Paris2024.  #LA202*8*. Happy?

Now I am! 

[anthonyliberatori]

Just now, FYI said:

Now I am! 

Lol, I will say, I LOVE the closeness of Paris's plans and the metro system is surely going to help many tourists get around, I read that no matter where you are within city limits, there is a metro station within 400 meters. That is a HUGE advantage LA doesn't have.

[Quaker2001]

20 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Again I say, I support both bids. I was just bringing up a point that I thought would be somewhat relevant to LA's bid, but I guess the horse has been beat long before I got here. Didn't really know that that kind of statement was "argument" (Quaker2001's words) quality, but I'm new here, so of course I haven't learned too much about the ropes yet. I never once tried downgrading Paris either, as it is a wonderful city that I cannot wait to visit this summer. #Paris2024.  #LA2024. Happy?

You support both, but you're clearly making the case for 1 over the other.  And yes, it does seem like you are downgrading Paris somewhat in order to prop up LA.

[FYI]

1 minute ago, Quaker2001 said:

You support both, but you're clearly making the case for 1 over the other.  And yes, it does seem like you are downgrading Paris somewhat in order to prop up LA.

Well, to be a bit fair (at least for now anyway), he did just make this argument for Paris.

14 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Lol, I will say, I LOVE the closeness of Paris's plans and the metro system is surely going to help many tourists get around, I read that no matter where you are within city limits, there is a metro station within 400 meters. That is a HUGE advantage LA doesn't have.

 

[FYI]

*which is more then I can say than you-know-who.

[anthonyliberatori]

11 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

You support both, but you're clearly making the case for 1 over the other.  And yes, it does seem like you are downgrading Paris somewhat in order to prop up LA.

 

8 minutes ago, FYI said:

Well, to be a bit fair (at least for now anyway), he did just make this argument for Paris.

 

Again, I've been here for 5 minutes. The Paris-favored arguments are coming

[Roger87]

LOL.

[Rob2012]

13 hours ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Sochi and Rio both offered a new model. Rio was the first Games in South America and was chosen on its good economic standing and its growth potential, just like Beijing was, but unlike Beijing, suffered an uncontrollable economic and political crash, causing venues to be finished within days of the start, sailors sailing in literal human waste, crime, very cheap tickets, negative world exposure, and of course, white elephants.

Rio didn't offer a new model, it offered a new location and very much a continuation of the existing model. LA and Paris aren't offering a new model either, but both have more already built than Rio so are less likely to present such a risk. Those arguing LA offers a new model, or that what it's proposing will somehow entice bid-shy cities back into the fold are not using logic. LA will show how a city with nearly everything built can host a low cost Games, which doesn't help anyone really.

Don't get me wrong, that's not a fault of LA - they're bidding for an Olympics and are offering the IOC a remarkably solid bid. But some of the PR guff I hear from supporters about LA turning round the IOC's current predicament doesn't make sense to me when you actually think about it.

Quote

Please don't get me wrong, I support both LA 2024 and Paris 2024. I think both bids have potential and could really turn around the ill-fated ways of some recent Olympic host cities. I just feel that in Rio's wake, the IOC will feel that the safest option is to choose the city that is conditioned to these types of events, has the venues ready, or a majority ready with plans for them afterwards, in a country that has continuously placed high in the Games and is guaranteed to have a lot of attendance.

Agree with this completely. And you are describing both LA and Paris here.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Rob.

[FYI]

^Careful there. That's too much "regular blah blah blah" for the likes of truffina & company to intellectually comprehend.

[Quaker2001]

4 hours ago, Rob. said:

Rio didn't offer a new model, it offered a new location and very much a continuation of the existing model. LA and Paris aren't offering a new model either, but both have more already built than Rio so are less likely to present such a risk. Those arguing LA offers a new model, or that what it's proposing will somehow entice bid-shy cities back into the fold are not using logic. LA will show how a city with nearly everything built can host a low cost Games, which doesn't help anyone really.

Don't get me wrong, that's not a fault of LA - they're bidding for an Olympics and are offering the IOC a remarkably solid bid. But some of the PR guff I hear from supporters about LA turning round the IOC's current predicament doesn't make sense to me when you actually think about it.

I agree.  What LA and the 1984 Olympics are talked about as having pointed the Olympic movement in the right direction, that came on the heels of the terrorism in Munch and poor economic management in Montreal.  The issue back then was as much with the cities than it was with the IOC.  And Los Angeles, to their credit, did help right the ship for the IOC moving forward.

But that's unlikely to be the case here.  Nowadays, the issue is as much the IOC and their management than it is the host cities.  Los Angeles or Paris hosting a low-cost Olympics isn't necessarily going to help other prospective bid cities/countries in their efforts if they can't replicate the plans of Paris or LA (which they likely won't be able to if they have to build new venues).  What it will accomplish is to instill some confidence for other host cities where the trend moves away from the extravagance of Sochi and Beijing and more towards sustainable host cities.  But again, that still needs to start with the IOC that they're willing to commit to that and reject the boondoggles that have become such a problem for them.

[anthonyliberatori]

If the IOC does decide to grant host to both 2024 and 2028 simultaneously, with the loser of 2024 getting 2028, I can see Paris for 2024 and Los Angeles for 2028. If Paris's bid is so contingent on this land that will not be available for 2028, and LA has 98% of the venues and could basically host whenever on a low cost basis, I think Paris will likely be chosen. Also, in 2028 there is no way that the current US administration will be in office, but in 2024, they could be just finishing their second term, if re-elected. The US administration and political situation has already been a hurdle for the US, and we haven't cleared a full month yet. LA really needs to be getting the support from the international community and IOC voters at this time, and I don't know how well they can do if our administration is forcing travel bans to/from countries that would definitely make an appearance at the Olympics. So, I think Paris will win 2024, with LA taking 2028. It just seems more likely given the circumstances, and LA's flexibility. 

[FYI]

2 hours ago, anthonyliberatori said:

If the IOC does decide to grant host to both 2024 and 2028 simultaneously, with the loser of 2024 getting 2028, I can see Paris for 2024 and Los Angeles for 2028.

So, I think Paris will win 2024, with LA taking 2028. It just seems more likely given the circumstances, and LA's flexibility. 

Precisely - & L.A. always touts on how flexible they are.

[Nacre]

On 2/14/2017 at 8:12 PM, RuFF said:

So im sorry to break your bubble, but being able to have both ways is something LA can do.

2 + 2 = 5

[Roger87]

50 minutes ago, Nacre said:

2 + 2 = 5

As alternative facts for 2024 LA

[Roger87]

On 16/2/2017 at 10:36 AM, FYI said:

That's precisely why Alan's bias-sided logic is so flawed, that all these European cities are going to be "lining up" for 2028. He conveniently cites the European rejection against Paris 2024, but then in the his very next partial breath he says that Paris will be one of the European cities "lining up" for 2028! I mean seriously, how WACKY does that fu@king sound!!!  

Oh, & can't forget about that "German city" that miraculously will make some sort of a 180, after two failed German referendums of their own & get in "line", too.  And Budapest? They're already on the brink of pulling out on 2024, so yeah, I'm sure 2028 is going to be the first thing on the Hungarian agenda! And that's even before taking into consideration the big logistical challenges Budapest has in the first place even before anti-public support. 

And Milan? After two consecutive Roman bid withdrawals, CONI will be treading that thin ice very carefully. And St. Petersburg? REALLY?! After he cites the extravagance of Sochi 2014 & it's what got the IOC in this mess ITFP, that he thinks another Putin-ville sponsored Games is such a great idea??!!  Gawd, wake the F-up, AA! "This is it" now for Paris & Europe. And only anyone with an objective POV can see that from a mile away. Partiality OTHO, only goes so far.

Yep, that's why I found Abrahamson's theory a full of garbage.

-If Paris loses 2024 they won't return, especially if names like Le Pen, Hamon and Melenchon keep certain power in France.

-Germany had two previous referendums with failed results. Berlin has a long history of no Olympic movement

-Netherlands rejected the 2019 European Games!! For financial issues.

-Italy is in a full political turmoil and these next years (Depending of when will they country do elections) can be a full dominance of Brillo's party. If that happens, like Rome did, No Olympics soon in Italian either. Ditto with Madrid and Spain.

-UK is in a current process of divorce for Brexit

-No Nordic countries either.

 

So that leaves you from Europe... Russia (If the IOC wants another Sochi) or Istanbul (If they can control Erdogan and his tyranic paranoia, good luck for that). 2024 is key for the IOC to regain the confidence of Europe and geopolitics is currently playing in field, especially in a region with 500 millions of spectators and still some of the biggest sport nations in the history of Olympics. Now, if these new (few) Californian supporters may want to be the new Madrileños, well, be my guest.

[Roger87]

I don't want to defend myself, FYI or Quaker, because that recent comment of RuFF is my final confirmation of being the new "madrileño" contender , but calling Robs as trolling clown?! Really? When his attitude tends to be impartial and his comments, while rational, tend to be more open of discussion. Good to know RuFF is applying the presidential PR control in his arguments.

[Rob2012]

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

Anthonyliberatori, sorry you stepped into the wrath of Quaker, FYI, Roger and Robs company. There are supporters of the LA bid but these trolling clowns have unilaterally labeled anybody who supports the LA bid. They're not really here for discussion. By comparison they're striking each other's dicks in the Paris thread. 

It seems to me that Anthonyliberatori is perfectly capable of conversing with people without you butting in. I responded to his posts as honestly as I can and he responded to mine with his own pov. I have no problem with him, he seems like a decent new forum member to me.

You, on the other hand are a vacuous LA booster who gets nasty when people don't agree with you 100%. Apparently, even if I say LA is offering a remarkably solid bid, as I did in my very last post, I'm anti-LA. It's beyond pathetic.

I'm fairly neutral in this race, as I have been for most bid cycles since supporting London back in 2005. I have no reason to spin things. So I'm not going to be called a troll by a prat like you who attempts to spin everything, even Donald f*cking Trump, into a positive for LA.

FYI, Quaker and Roger clearly tired of your boring sh*t a long time ago. Posting uncritical propaganda in just one thread and attacking those who disagree means you contribute far less than any of them to this forum. Just sod off. You're incredibly boring.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Rob.

[Rob2012]

19 hours ago, anthonyliberatori said:

If the IOC does decide to grant host to both 2024 and 2028 simultaneously, with the loser of 2024 getting 2028, I can see Paris for 2024 and Los Angeles for 2028. If Paris's bid is so contingent on this land that will not be available for 2028, and LA has 98% of the venues and could basically host whenever on a low cost basis, I think Paris will likely be chosen. Also, in 2028 there is no way that the current US administration will be in office, but in 2024, they could be just finishing their second term, if re-elected. The US administration and political situation has already been a hurdle for the US, and we haven't cleared a full month yet. LA really needs to be getting the support from the international community and IOC voters at this time, and I don't know how well they can do if our administration is forcing travel bans to/from countries that would definitely make an appearance at the Olympics. So, I think Paris will win 2024, with LA taking 2028. It just seems more likely given the circumstances, and LA's flexibility. 

Agree with pretty much all of that. Politics aside, 2028 would also give LA the chance to include their subway extension with absolute certainty, which from what I've read would be a huge plus.

[paul]

.....it sounds like a trick for any city (particularly LA) to be awarded 2028 so long before it happens. The IOC would be hovering around for a decade...no thanks!? That sounds absolutely annoying. The opportunities for corruption sort of doubles, Way too long for a temporary party to try to influence a cities priorities. 2028 is a BAD idea for LA......so is 24. This whole charming event looks more lovely from afar, better to shove it back down Europe throat, everyone agrees they need to learn to love the Olympics again.

Edited February 18, 2017 by paul

[FYI]

43 minutes ago, paul said:

.....it sounds like a trick for any city (particularly LA) to be awarded 2028 so long before it happens. The IOC would be hovering around for a decade...no thanks!? That sounds absolutely annoying. The opportunities for corruption sort of doubles, Way too long for a temporary party to try to influence a cities priorities. 2028 is a BAD idea for LA......so is 24. This whole charming event looks more lovely from afar, better to shove it back down Europe throat, everyone agrees they need to learn to love the Olympics again.

I don't see how it would be a trick, & on the contrary, particular for a city like L.A. If they have much less to build (like they're always touting), then I don't see how it creates "double" the opportunity for corruption. It's not like Sochi where they had to build everything from scratch, so the corruption went off the charts. Plus, thats typical for Russia. On the contrary, if anything, it gives L.A. more of an opportunity to promote the "2028 Games"! 

[anthonyliberatori]

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

Anthonyliberatori, sorry you stepped into the wrath of Quaker, FYI, Roger and Robs company. There are supporters of the LA bid but these trolling clowns have unilaterally labeled anybody who supports the LA bid. They're not really here for discussion. By comparison they're striking each other's dicks in the Paris thread. 

Wrath? I wouldn't call it that. I mean, I was tired of bringing up my Olympics Bid arguments with friends and family and getting a simple "yeah, okay" in order to shut me up, so I joined this forum so I can talk to like-minded individuals and actually have counterarguments presented to me. This way, I can strengthen my own point of view, while also learning new facts about other views from counterarguments and counterpoints. Granted, it was a little rough, but I needed to learn the ropes of the forum and how to properly craft an argument on here at some point, better to learn it when I first started!

[baron-pierreIV]

16 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Wrath? I wouldn't call it that. I mean, I was tired of bringing up my Olympics Bid arguments with friends and family and getting a simple "yeah, okay" in order to shut me up, so I joined this forum so I can talk to like-minded individuals and actually have counterarguments presented to me. This way, I can strengthen my own point of view, while also learning new facts about other views from counterarguments and counterpoints. Granted, it was a little rough, but I needed to learn the ropes of the forum and how to properly craft an argument on here at some point, better to learn it when I first started!

 

Welcome, anthony.  If only some crudites (that one who knows who he is) were as candid, sincere, humble and mature as you.  Well said!!

[FYI]

2 hours ago, Rob. said:

You, on the other hand are a vacuous LA booster who gets nasty when people don't agree with you 100%. Apparently, even if I say LA is offering a remarkably solid bid, as I did in my very last post, I'm anti-LA. It's beyond pathetic.

I'm fairly neutral in this race, as I have been for most bid cycles since supporting London back in 2005. I have no reason to spin things. So I'm not going to be called a troll by a prat like you who attempts to spin everything, even Donald f*cking Trump, into a positive for L.A.

And the thing is, that no one here has been "anti-L.A." or an "L.A. hater". That's only coming from the L.A. cheerleaders. I for one, have done nothing but prop-up L.A. for 2028!  But bcuz I don't share the sentiment (& for obvious objective reasons) that it has to be for 2024, then I (we) get labeled as "trolls" (or other nasty [homophobic] names, as you can see in the post you quoted) cuz we don't agree with all the L.A. mumbo-jumbo.

It's hysterical when truff talks about "discussing". Cuz they're not here to discuss anything whatsoever (never have) but merely to spread L.A. proganda. And the hell with anyone who actually wants to discuss the relativity of the contents in this "L.A. thread". 

2 hours ago, Rob. said:

FYI, Quaker and Roger clearly tired of your boring sh*t a long time ago. Posting uncritical propaganda in just one thread and attacking those who disagree means you contribute far less than any of them to this forum. Just sod off. You're incredibly boring.

I'm just glad that finally more & more members are starting to see truffs true colors, behind all the L.A. salespitch twaddle.

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, paul said:

.....it sounds like a trick for any city (particularly LA) to be awarded 2028 so long before it happens. The IOC would be hovering around for a decade...no thanks!? That sounds absolutely annoying. The opportunities for corruption sort of doubles, Way too long for a temporary party to try to influence a cities priorities. 2028 is a BAD idea for LA......so is 24. This whole charming event looks more lovely from afar, better to shove it back down Europe throat, everyone agrees they need to learn to love the Olympics again.

What was that you were saying earlier about "back to the LA hate"?

LA obviously doesn't see it that way.  They want back in on the action.  That's why they're going so hard for 2024.  And if they lose that, they'll probably return for 2028.  You're right that having the IOC meddle with your affairs for up to 11 years instead of 7 could lead to trouble.  If LA has their act together though and claims to be on solid footing, then they probably shouldn't have much to fear from the IOC.  If LA believes a relationship between themselves and the IOC would be mutually beneficial (and we know they do), then they're going to continue to want this.

[FYI]

6 hours ago, Roger87 said:

Now, if these new (few) Californian supporters may want to be the new Madrileños, well, be my guest.

Ain't that the truth! And you know how hard that would be to accomplish, but Truff & Company are taking the lead now in snatching the Gold medal in the nasty, viperish (Truff) Troll category!!