Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

 But the IOC doesn't have to beg.  They don't need Trump's permission to vote for LA.  .

The IOC may feel that way. I doubt Trump does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets remember how the IOC treated the last POTUS, who was charismatically much more likable internationally, than this clown now. So I'm sure that they can give two sh!ts what Frump thinks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

The IOC may feel that way. I doubt Trump does. 

How does he feel?  Why is it a matter of the IOC "begging" to "let them" have the games in the United States?  Was that the case when Obama was president or Bush 43?

Oh, and less we forget.. Trump backs LA 2024 Olympic bid during call with IOC head Thomas Bach

So explain to us here how the onus is now on the IOC to get Trump's blessing when he has already pledged his support directly to Thomas Bach for the 2024 LA bid.  We all know there are a number of things he could say or do that would make it a tougher road for LA2024.  But just because he could say/do those things doesn't mean that he will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote you, Quaker..

5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Know when you're being trolled, fellas B)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/27/nikki-haley-united-nations-ambassador-taking-names
 

Quote

 

UN envoy Nikki Haley pledges to 'take names' of those who don't support US

Trump’s new US ambassador to the United Nations says: ‘For those that don’t have our back, we will make points to respond to that accordingly’

 

Yep... and that's just the 1st week...already pissing off the entire globe...

RIP LA2024

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

How does he feel?  Why is it a matter of the IOC "begging" to "let them" have the games in the United States?  Was that the case when Obama was president or Bush 43?

 

Because he's Donald Effing Trump. The man with the most watched inauguration in history doesn't have to ask people for things.... people ask him for things. 

And, no, that wasn't the case with Obama or the Bush boys. They were pussies compared to Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's quite obvious who in this thread drinks the Frump (& Puppet Spicer) kool-aide, & voted for Mr. Cheetoh. The "everything is bigger & better when it comes to Frump" flavor. This right here totally debunks the nonsense that Trumps inauguration was the "most watched" in history. 

http://www.snopes.com/trump-inauguration-viewership/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tragedy in all of this, for this bid specifically, is that it is the strongest bid to ever come out of America and it is being torpedoed by forces outside of LA 2024's control.

I mean, it gave Paris a serious run for its money, but dickhead in command is ripping the bid to pieces.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the Law of the (political) Land when it comes to Olympic bid races. Geopolitics always play a role one way or another, & the 2024 race is no exception in that regard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, zekekelso said:

Because he's Donald Effing Trump. The man with the most watched inauguration in history doesn't have to ask people for things.... people ask him for things. 

And, no, that wasn't the case with Obama or the Bush boys. They were pussies compared to Trump.

See, here's the thing.. I can't really tell right now if you're being sarcastic and poking fun at Trump or if you actually think it was the most watched inauguration in history.  Knowing your usual level of sarcasm, maybe it's the former.  But then again, maybe FYI is right and I'm just feeding the troll here.

So again, when Trump told Thomas Bach that he supports LA2024, what exactly is the IOC supposed to ask for?  No wait.. to "beg" for?  If Trump is going to take a passive approach to this - as you suggest he is, and I think you're right on that - then this is going down 1 way or the other whether LA2024 and the IOC have his permission or not (which they pretty much already do, so it's a moot point anyway)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rob. said:

I remember people saying he'd mellow as President and wouldn't do this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38781420

The IOC will love this. Odds on LA drifting.

ffs I thought the green card blocking tidbit was just a one-time misunderstanding that they were exaggerating, but apparently not http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/316670-trump-refugee-ban-bars-green-card-holders-report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rob. said:

I remember people saying he'd mellow as President and wouldn't do this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38781420

The IOC will love this. Odds on LA drifting.

I remember other people saying (myself being one of them) that maybe he wouldn't mellow and he'd actually do everything he threatened he would do.  Well here we are.  And it's as horrible as we could have imagined..

Following President Trump’s executive order green card, visa holders already blocked by airports

Trump's executive order could block 500,000 legal US residents from returning to America from trips

Needless to say, this is all really bad for LA2024.  The problem for them is that they can make the argument that by 2024, Trump is likely no longer president and many of these policies might be changed or outright reversed.  But this is still likely to be at the forefront for the next few months, so that's likely weighing on the minds of IOC voters.  And make no mistake, this is not merely a crackdown on illegal immigrants (as some have pointed out, Bill Clinton made a speech with similar talking points more than 20 years ago to a standing ovation), this is specifically targeting certain countries and it excludes other countries where Trump just happens to have business interests.  That's not going to sit well with a lot of people.  And again, we're only a week into his presidency.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some suggestions Mo Farah won't be able to visit his house and training camp in Oregon because of his dual British Somali nationality. 

Edit: this pretty much confirms it

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-visa-ban-also-applies-to-citizens-with-dual-nationality-state-department-says-1485628654?mod=e2tw

Edited by Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

World Handball has given out a double-hosting award for 2021 and 2023.  

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1046353/hosts-named-for-2021-and-2023-womens-handball-world-championships 

LA, I'd grab 2028 now if they even so much as whisper it. 

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the inauguration of the fascistoide Trump government the LA bid is lost - no chance anymore...

It is a tragedy that an open minded city will not be able to host a third time Olympic Games in the US, because of this xenophobic populistic government in Washington...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Yes, that's the irony. California (& especially Southern California) is such a liberal state (area), that these new "policies" are beyond belief. But there's always 2028, though, which really is the better time frame for an L.A. bid by all accounts anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

LA, I'd grab 2028 now if they even so much as whisper it. 

Yep, & here's a little bit more on that: 

Right now, the best scenario for L.A. 2024 is for the IOC to adopt the bandied-about idea that its vote in September be not just on 2024 but on the 2024 and 2028 Summer Games at the same time.  That would allow Paris to have 2024 – the centenary of its last Summer Games – and L.A. 2028, when, thankfully, there is no chance Trump can still be president.

http://www.globetrottingbyphiliphersh.com/home/2017/1/26/america-first-the-last-slogan-la-2024-needed-to-hear

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, FYI said:

Yep, & here's a little bit more on that: 

Right now, the best scenario for L.A. 2024 is for the IOC to adopt the bandied-about idea that its vote in September be not just on 2024 but on the 2024 and 2028 Summer Games at the same time.  That would allow Paris to have 2024 – the centenary of its last Summer Games – and L.A. 2028, when, thankfully, there is no chance Trump can still be president.

http://www.globetrottingbyphiliphersh.com/home/2017/1/26/america-first-the-last-slogan-la-2024-needed-to-hear

Here's the double-edged sword with that.

With Budapest on less than stable footing right now, more than ever this looks like a 2 horse race so it could fuel the idea for the IOC to award 2028 without having to worry about hurt feelings.  The 3 most prominent nations in Asia (with apologies to India, although in terms of Olympic hosting, I don't think they're on that same level) all have an Olympics in their future.  South America is out of the mix.  Africa is RSA in waiting for 2032.  Europe will have gotten theirs and with all the cities dropping like flies there, I doubt there would be much interest there anyway.  So other than Australia and maybe Canada, I can't think of too many nations that would take issue with Paris and LA both getting awarded an Olympics here.

But the flipside.. if there is lingering animosity against the United States because of Trump, even though he's guaranteed to be out of office by 2028, will the IOC want to wait to see the fallout of his policies over the next 4 years and wait to make the decision (whether the USOC is there or not) in 2021 when Trump might no longer be in office and who knows what happens with US foreign policy then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

 So other than Australia and maybe Canada, I can't think of too many nations that would take issue with Paris and LA both getting awarded an Olympics here.

I have brought this up before. But some have made the argument, though, "is it okay" to change the rules "midstream" in order to satisfy an immediate issue at hand at the sacrifice of setting a "dangerous precedent" - i.e. "pissing off some undesirables" like the Baku-koos & the Doha-hahs (since the IOC at least told the former to wait 'til bidding for 2028 instead, & conveiniently told the latter twice in a row that their proposed dates are off). And while that may sound noble & all, but sometimes desperate times calls for desperate measures. And whether right or wrong, but it's not like these type of things don't happen out in the real world everyday anyway. Cuz if they didn't, then it would be a perfect & fair world.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

But the flipside.. if there is lingering animosity against the United States because of Trump, even though he's guaranteed to be out of office by 2028, will the IOC want to wait to see the fallout of his policies over the next 4 years and wait to make the decision (whether the USOC is there or not) in 2021 when Trump might no longer be in office and who knows what happens with US foreign policy then.

This is plausible, & it's gonna be interesting to see which way it goes in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FYI said:

I have brought this up before. But some have made the argument, though, "is it okay" to change the rules "midstream" in order to satisfy an immediate issue at hand at the sacrifice of setting a "dangerous precedent" - i.e. "pissing off some undesirables" like the Baku-koos & the Doha-hahs (since the IOC at least told the former to wait 'til bidding for 2028 instead, & conveiniently told the latter twice in a row that their proposed dates are off). And while that may sound noble & all, but sometimes desperate times calls for desperate measures. And whether right or wrong, but it's not like these type of things don't happen out in the real world everyday anyway. Cuz if they didn't, then it would be a perfect & fair world.

That's the beauty of the situation.  The IOC doesn't have to change anything up so far as 2024 is concerned.  That's what everyone is bidding for and that's all that they put on the table.  Then when 2024 is decided, if they so choose, they can immediately move ahead to offer 2028 to the runner up.  And the IOC owes absolutely nothing to a Doha-ha or a Baku-koo or whoever else might have been interested to make the 2028 bid an open and inclusionary process.  They've made it clear they can and will cut off cities on a whim, so it's hard to argue that they're doing anything wrong by doing that in the immediate aftermath of the 2024 vote, as opposed to inviting cities into the mix later on that they know they're likely to cut off before the final vote anyway.  So if they choose to go that route - and do so AFTER 2024 is settled - again, hard to argue that they're doing wrong by anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×