Jump to content

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Ansem said:

You must be joking right????? That's far from being reality. All the South American Coup that removed democratically elected president for US friendly dictators, same for Central America, Africa, the mess in the middle-East and the Iranian Islamic revolution happened because the US and the British got rid of the then secular and democratically elected president to replace him with the Shah who was a US friendly dictator. People got fed up a revolted.

Sorry but those sentences are false.

Wow, you're actually a pretty smart cookie there.

36 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Seems like Russia is challenging that influence-wise. The world could use a break from American "outweighed effect" on the world.

Okay, so here not so much anymore. You really think that the world "could use a break" from American influence so they can then start getting it from Russia?! To quote you from above, you must be joking, right?????

I certainly don't think a that Russian "outweighed effect" on the world is such a good idea, either. So thanks, but no thanks.

41 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Every empires in history, no matter how powerful they were, ultimately fell. Not saying a foreign power will do it to the states, but it might collapse from the inside. Just a thought

This is just as bad as Truff's "just a thought" about Le Pen winning in France so that L.A.'24 can "neutralize" the Trump effect. Bite your nose off to spite your face mentality. Do you really want an unstable America right next door to Canada? If you really were to think about it, then something tells me that your answer would be no. But as the old saying goes; be careful what you wish for, cuz it might just come back to bite'ya in the a$s! 'Just a thought'. 

Share this post


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

Okay, so here not so much anymore. You really think that the world "could use a break" from American influence so they can then start getting it from Russia?! To quote you from above, you must be joking, right?????

I certainly don't think a that Russian "outweighed effect" on the world is such a good idea, either. **Especially when you consider that Russia is just as guilty of doing to many of it's neighbors (& still is trying to do), what you just mentioned that the U.S. Government has has done to other democratically elected governments in other parts of the world.** So thanks, but no thanks.

Edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Actually (and sorry everyone for the diversion off topic), but the Liberals here ALWAYS are in coalition with the Nationals (and their previous incarnations). One of those quirks of Aussie politics, the conservative side is a permanent coalition.

As for Turnbull. The irony is he's suffering the same curse that undid Gillard - he unseated a sitting PM, and is now being white-anted by the disgruntled of his own party (or parties - remember, his is the permanent LNP coalition).

Labor still one the popular vote. But I agree, he's on the same track as Julia Gillard. I look forward to the next Labor government.

59 minutes ago, Ansem said:

You must be joking right????? That's far from being reality. All the South American Coup that removed democratically elected president for US friendly dictators, same for Central America, Africa, the mess in the middle-East and the Iranian Islamic revolution happened because the US and the British got rid of the then secular and democratically elected president to replace him with the Shah who was a US friendly dictator. People got fed up a revolted.

Every empire has done horrible things, including America. I would make the argument that despite America's obvious faults and failures, the past 70 years has seen the largest growth in economic prosperity and because of America's outsize influence on the world millions have been lifted out of extreme poverty. Look at Europe, this time a century ago it was killing itself; know, despite the EU's flaws, it is still working together to solve issue and try to bring economic growth and prosperity to its people. Because of American power China has liberalized, opened up and both the world and China's 350 million people in the middle class have benefited from it. For 70 years we have not had a large scale global war over trade lanes because America has ensured free and stable global trade. 

Yes, America has unseated democratically elected governments. It has, without good justification overthrown Middle-Eastern regime. However, it is ridiculous to only look at the bad America has done without acknowledging so many of the positive things it has also achieved. 

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

Seems like Russia is challenging that influence-wise. The world could use a break from American "outweighed effect" on the world.

Oh yeah they definitely are. I disagree though, the world needs a responsible, pragmatic, and mature America not a world without it. The United States is very young and immature. It does not know how to properly utilize the power it has. It is prone to out-lashes and quick policy reversals. 

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

Every empires in history, no matter how powerful they were, ultimately fell. Not saying a foreign power will do it to the states, but it might collapse from the inside. Just a thought

Please read my last post again. Even my first. I acknowledge the reality of American power in this moment. I am under no illusions that the US will somehow not fall or loose it's current status as the sole-superpower. It will. Nothing lasts forever, even the longest most glittering reigns all must come to an end. America's dominance, and arguably the Wests is coming to an end. But, be under no illusions that America will seek to matter. Because of America's geography and natural resources it will always be a power of some degree. But yes, you are completely correct, empires fall. I have no illusions America will not, so please stop making false assumptions that I'm some far-right American imperialist that only watches Fox News and knows nothing. I know what I'm talking about.

Share this post


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

Okay, so here not so much anymore. You really think that the world "could use a break" from American influence so they can then start getting it from Russia?! To quote you from above, you must be joking, right?????

I certainly don't think a that Russian "outweighed effect" on the world is such a good idea, either. So thanks, but no thanks

I doubt Russia wants to influence the world. They just don't like having NATO surrounding them with missiles on their borders and trying to cut off their energy sources in the Middle-East and energy markets in Europe.

By break, I mean, leaving them alone for a change.

33 minutes ago, FYI said:

This is just as bad as Truff's "just a thought" about Le Pen winning in France so that L.A.'24 can "neutralize" the Trump effect. Bite your nose off to spite your face mentality. Do you really want an unstable America right next door to Canada? If you really were to think about it, then something tells me that your answer would be no. But as the old saying goes; be careful what you wish for, cuz it might just come back to bite'ya in the a$s! 'Just a thought'. 

Not saying it's my wish, but if Trump's election isn't a sign that something's wrong in America, I don't know what it is. I don't think Trump won because he's like and loved, I think it was Hilary that lost because she represented everything the average came to hate, the "political establishment" that left them behind to fend for themselves and wouldn't listen to them, so they threw a Molotov cocktail at that very establishment to send a message.

As fort Canada, I think we just wish to be forgotten for a while

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

Every empire has done horrible things, including America. I would make the argument that despite America's obvious faults and failures, the past 70 years has seen the largest growth in economic prosperity and because of America's outsize influence on the world millions have been lifted out of extreme poverty. Look at Europe, this time a century ago it was killing itself; know, despite the EU's flaws, it is still working together to solve issue and try to bring economic growth and prosperity to its people. Because of American power China has liberalized, opened up and both the world and China's 350 million people in the middle class have benefited from it. For 70 years we have not had a large scale global war over trade lanes because America has ensured free and stable global trade. 

Yes, America has unseated democratically elected governments. It has, without good justification overthrown Middle-Eastern regime. However, it is ridiculous to only look at the bad America has done without acknowledging so many of the positive things it has also achieved. 

I'd give globalization a bit more credit here. All I'm saying is that the US has brought great things to the world, but interfering with other nations interior affairs has been the plague and ongoing plague of the 20th century. And that applies in reverse.

People around the world and here in Canada protest the Trump ban. Prime Minister Trudeau and I say the same thing when being asked about it, "It's their interior policies, it's none of our business".

26 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

I disagree though, the world needs a responsible, pragmatic, and mature America not a world without it.

Maybe not a world without the US, but the world needs less intervention from the US.

28 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

I have no illusions America will not, so please stop making false assumptions that I'm some far-right American imperialist that only watches Fox News and knows nothing. I know what I'm talking about.

Fair enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^And that one is only a week later from the one I posted last night, & making it only it a couple of days old. Plus, now you have Garcetti also stating (along with Wasserman in a way), that he'll still "support" any changes the IOC may have in the bidding process. This only incites even more evidence that something is really going on behind-the-scenes with this! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

In an effort to divert discussion away from politics and back to the Olympics, here's more from Inside The Games about 2024/2028..

Exclusive: Mayor promises Los Angeles will support IOC if it changes bid process

Unlikely to happen. I could see that for Winter games who has difficulty getting bidders but summer games? There would be an out roar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

In an effort to divert discussion away from politics and back to the Olympics, here's more from Inside The Games about 2024/2028..

Exclusive: Mayor promises Los Angeles will support IOC if it changes bid process

His arm is currently in a very twisted position. He will have to remain open to the idea in light of the shit show that has been the first 10 days of this administration.

Some GOP members are finally starting to distance themselves from Trump.

If the US Govt can show bipartisan support and an ability to work together to stop Trump, at least the US can save face, if not, nobody will want to sit with America at the lunch table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Unlikely to happen. I could see that for Winter games who has difficulty getting bidders but summer games? There would be an out roar

Of course you would say that. But considering that L.A.'s bid chief just last week said that it was an "interesting concept", & now L.A.'s major is saying that he'll "support" any changes the IOC may make seems to suggest that things could be going on behind-the-scenes about it than we realize.

The article states that it seems the only thing standing in the way of awarding both is Budapest. But if they were to withdraw, then it starts to become more likely. But really, I don't see why that matters. Especially when it also states that the IOC would like to award Paris & L.A. a Games. Nothing about Budapest either way.

Plus, considering how many viable cities around the world are actually frowing about even bidding in the first place these days, who's gonna go in an "uproar" (other than supposedley Canada :rolleyes:). That's mainly why the IOC is even contemplating this, cuz they're getting desperate, & for good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*And it's not just the Winter Games, obviously the Summer Games, too. Both Hamburg & Rome withdrew from the 2024 race (& Rome also bailed on 2020). Not to mention how Budapest is now on shaking ground of pulling out, too. So no, it's not just the Winter Games that are going through this.

Share this post


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

Of course you would say that. But considering that L.A.'s bid chief just last week said that it was an "interesting concept", & now L.A.'s major is saying that he'll "support" any changes the IOC may make seems to suggest that things could be going on behind-the-scenes about it than we realize.

The article states that it seems the only thing standing in the way of awarding both is Budapest. But if they were to withdraw, then it starts to become more likely. But really, I don't see why that matters. Especially when it also states that the IOC would like to award Paris & L.A. a Games. Nothing about Budapest either way.

Plus, considering how many viable cities around the world are actually frowing about even bidding in the first place these days, who's gonna go in an "uproar" (other than supposedley Canada :rolleyes:). That's mainly why the IOC is even contemplating this, cuz they're getting desperate, & for good reason.

It's not being reported by any major media worldwide. They are "talks" and "ideas". It's not only about Canada (and there certainly would not be an uproar over this here), but other parts of the world would mostly like to bid as well. If no one are interested in 2028, then by all mean do it in one shot but I doubt that will happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I've noticed Inside The Games is the only site reporting Paris for 2024 and Los Angeles for 2028. I have not seen any other source stating otherwise of affirming the choice in that order.

And the only other source of stating the opposite is from your buddy Alan. I have not seen any other source stating the same affirming the choice that way, either. So I'll take insidethegames much more partial take on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ansem said:

It's not being reported by any major media worldwide. They are "talks" and "ideas". It's not only about Canada (and there certainly would not be an uproar over this here), but other parts of the world would mostly like to bid as well. If no one are interested in 2028, then by all mean do it in one shot but I doubt that will happen

It's not a question of will "no one" be interested in 2028, but will it *suitable* interested parties. And what about Calgary? They're looking at 2026, so that could put a hamper on a 2028 bid. 

Yeah, sure. How many news outlets report on the Olympics on a daily basis? Besides, when you have the L.A. bid chief AND now the L.A. mayor, that can't simply can't just be ignored cuz not everyone is reporting on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Unlikely to happen. I could see that for Winter games who has difficulty getting bidders but summer games? There would be an out roar

Have you actually been following Olympic bidding?  There have been fewer and fewer bidders for the Summer Olympics for several cycles now.  And now for 2024, what once looked to be a field of 5 bidders could be reduced to 2.  So yes, they are very much having difficulty getting bidders to stay in the running.

So let's say they double award 2024/2028.  Who would there be an uproar from?  I brought it up earlier that maybe Canada and Australia would have something to say about that, but I doubt anyone else will be too offended by this.  Either way, the IOC doesn't owe it to anyone to have a full and open contest for the 2028 Olympics.  It's been suggested that the IOC being the IOC and not wanting to forgo that competition may not decide to do this.  But if they don't, it's not because of the threat of an uproar.

Share this post


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

It's not a question of will "no one" be interested in 2028, but will it *suitable* interested parties. And what about Calgary? They're looking at 2026, so that could put a hamper on a 2028 bid. 

Yeah, sure. How many news outlets report on the Olympics on a daily basis? Besides, when you have the L.A. bid chief AND now the L.A. mayor, that can't simply can't just be ignored cuz not everyone is reporting on it.

Exactly, how can you know about who's "suitable" for 2028 if you don't inquire first. I do however agree that if LA loses in 2024 and no suitable bids are made for 2028 than they should be awarded the games. It makes sense, but in the interest of fairness (and for IOC own rules), they have a duty to "inquire" first for 2028. Such a change would have to be submitted to a vote within the IOC "I think"

Calgary? With Switzerland becoming serious about it, Calgary should forget about it. Too close from Vancouver 2010 and Alberta's economy has been hit very hard due to the oil price crashing. They are struggling right now and I doubt the province would think about committing billions over winter games.

LA bid and mayors aren't members of the IOC...FYI. And if Los Angeles is as strong of a bid as you keep singing about, why do you need this so bad and why are you hoping this bad they won't have to go through another bid? That's kind of implying that you have limited faith in LA after all...

Share this post


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

So let's say they double award 2024/2028.  Who would there be an uproar from?  I brought it up earlier that maybe Canada and Australia would have something to say about that, but I doubt anyone else will be too offended by this.  Either way, the IOC doesn't owe it to anyone to have a full and open contest for the 2028 Olympics.  It's been suggested that the IOC being the IOC and not wanting to forgo that competition may not decide to do this.  But if they don't, it's not because of the threat of an uproar

Again, it's not being reported in other medias, and second, they already have a bidding process. Again, not opposed to the idea of doing that if there's no viable bids for 2028, but the IOC as per their own bidding process, must inquire first to see who's interested. If there's nobody or the bids aren't viable, then give it to LA. That's all I'm saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I've noticed Inside The Games is the only site reporting Paris for 2024 and Los Angeles for 2028. I have not seen any other source stating otherwise of affirming the choice in that order.

How many sites have mentioned this at all?  And as FYI mentioned, your boy Abrahamson brought it up, but let's not pretend there isn't bias there when he suggests an order.

This story is merely stating that the IOC is considering awarding both.  It's not suggesting an order has already been chosen.  How could that be if this all is merely in the talks phase and not something the IOC has made it clear that they're doing?  Even if both Olympics are awarded together, it doesn't mean the order will be pre-determined.  No need to get so defensive about this being reported.  It's only framed this way because of the supposed comments from the USOC that they're not interested in 2028 and now you have Wasserman and Garcetti basically clearing the air saying they support the IOC whichever way they go.  Once again, this is the LA folks doing and saying exactly what they should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ansem said:

It's not being reported by any major media worldwide. They are "talks" and "ideas". It's not only about Canada (and there certainly would not be an uproar over this here), but other parts of the world would mostly like to bid as well. If no one are interested in 2028, then by all mean do it in one shot but I doubt that will happen

What other parts of the world would that be?  I brought it up earlier.. the 3 most prominent nations in Asia all have an Olympics in their future.  Europe will have just gotten one and most of the dropouts have come from that continent.  South America isn't bidding again anytime soon.  Africa doesn't seem likely either.  So again, Canada and Australia are out there.  But who else?

And again, let's be clear what the context of this article is.  Inside The Games suggested this is being talked about should not be interpreted as "this is definitely 100% happening."  Who knows how seriously this is being considered.  But I will re-iterate what I said before that with Budapest on shaky ground, if they drop out of this and it's just Paris and LA remaining, that could be a huge factor in whether or not the IOC would consider going forward with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

What other parts of the world would that be?  I brought it up earlier.. the 3 most prominent nations in Asia all have an Olympics in their future.  Europe will have just gotten one and most of the dropouts have come from that continent.  South America isn't bidding again anytime soon.  Africa doesn't seem likely either.  So again, Canada and Australia are out there.  But who else?

And again, let's be clear what the context of this article is.  Inside The Games suggested this is being talked about should not be interpreted as "this is definitely 100% happening."  Who knows how seriously this is being considered.  But I will re-iterate what I said before that with Budapest on shaky ground, if they drop out of this and it's just Paris and LA remaining, that could be a huge factor in whether or not the IOC would consider going forward with this.

I get that and actually see merits in doing that. All I'm saying, there's a duty to inquire for interest in 2028 first. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Have you actually been following Olympic bidding?  There have been fewer and fewer bidders for the Summer Olympics for several cycles now.  And now for 2024, what once looked to be a field of 5 bidders could be reduced to 2.  So yes, they are very much having difficulty getting bidders to stay in the running.

 

But those two bids are from two "A" or "A+" cities. What the bidding lacks are the long-shots. Perhaps because the IOC is discouraging such bids, or because cities are realizing they have no chance and bidding along doesn't bring prestige. In the end, as long as the IOC has a great candidate, they aren't struggling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Exactly, how can you know about who's "suitable" for 2028 if you don't inquire first. I do however agree that if LA loses in 2024 and no suitable bids are made for 2028 than they should be awarded the games. It makes sense, but in the interest of fairness (and for IOC own rules), they have a duty to "inquire" first for 2028. Such a change would have to be submitted to a vote within the IOC "I think"

Calgary? With Switzerland becoming serious about it, Calgary should forget about it. Too close from Vancouver 2010 and Alberta's economy has been hit very hard due to the oil price crashing. They are struggling right now and I doubt the province would think about committing billions over winter games.

LA bid and mayors aren't members of the IOC...FYI. And if Los Angeles is as strong of a bid as you keep singing about, why do you need this so bad and why are you hoping this bad they won't have to go through another bid? That's kind of implying that you have limited faith in LA after all...

What IOC rules?  They have no obligation to inquire about 2028 and offer that opportunity to other cities.  They've made it clear they'll cut a city off if they don't think it's worthy of a bid, so why not cut off every city and give it to one that's right in front of them if they have an opportunity?  Of course that's something the IOC has to decide upon internally, but it's not really changing the rules if they award 2024 as they normally would and then after that, award 2028 as well.

And why would LA hope they don't have to go through another bid?  Gee.. could it be so they could save the time and expense of competing for it?  US bids are not as heavily backed by government funding as other cities/countries.  So yea, no kidding they would jump at the opportunity to not have to go through that process again and spend tens of millions of dollars to do it.  Not to mention what you're saving other cities from not having to do the same.  Is it fair?  Probably not, but since when has the IOC been about fair.  Not to speak for FYI, but I have every faith in LA to come back and win 2028, especially with Asia, South America, and Africa all likely out of the mix and probably little from Europe if Paris is 2024.  So bring on Brisbane and maybe Toronto and whatever other hangers-on want to bid.  LA would likely win that contest in a landslide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ansem said:

I get that and actually see merits in doing that. All I'm saying, there's a duty to inquire for interest in 2028 first. That's all.

I disagree.  There is no obligation.  There's a lot of different ways this could go down.  Maybe the IOC does inquire and still goes with LA anyway.  My gut feeling is that 2028 will not be awarded in Lima, but it wouldn't surprise me if the IOC makes it apparent that they're looking at the 2024 runner-up and would consider awarding them 2028 at some point without a formal bid process.  At the same time, like I said, that would be somewhat un-IOC like, so who knows if they'd do it.

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

×