Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, JesseSaenz said:

I think Trump's Presidency is numbered. He is a bull in a China cabinet and is a danger to the country and the world.

I don't see this trainwreck lasting four years.

How much longer will this go on before theres an impeachment?

 

I don't know and I'm not sure I want to know.  As much as I (and millions of others) were rooting against him during the election, now we kinda have to root for him.  If he gets impeached, that means he must have done something really bad, and I'd rather not attempt to envision what that might be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The thing you LA boosters just can't seem to understand is that the IOC only cares about what the host city will do for "the Olympic movement." The sports federations are not interested in urban devel

Sigh! I've tried not to get too involved in the tit-for-tatting in the whole LA debate. And tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that you're a passionate and blinkered supporter of LA

I am struck by the statement that "there is no reason to attack LA." There is no reason to attack any city or any people in any city. This is the horror of terrorism. Whichever city wins any Olympi

Just now, Quaker2001 said:

I don't know and I'm not sure I want to know.  As much as I (and millions of others) were rooting against him during the election, now we kinda have to root for him.  If he gets impeached, that means he must have done something really bad, and I'd rather not attempt to envision what that might be.

Sadly, that is our reality.

He is signing executive order left and right that roll back years of progress on many issues and on foreign policy.

Too much is already on the chopping blocks or at stake and its only been week 1.

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

I don't know if the subject has already been covered in this thread or not but... I was watching parts of the 1984 opening ceremony and wondering at what time it started. It was broad daylight at the start and twilight at the end of it. This would mean that it took place during the late afternoon in order to air in the prime time hours on the East Coast (assuming it was shown live on ABC? I can't find any information online).

I'm just wondering whether a LA Olympics in 2024 would mean the return of daylight ceremonies given that these huge events in the US are always scheduled with East Coast viewers in mind...

57 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

If you look at previous opening ceremonies prior to the 1984 Summer Olympics, those were also held while it was still daylight.  Seoul 1988 was that way as well.  I believe it was the 1992 Barcelona Games that were the first to hold the opening ceremonies at night.  

And just to add, myself having grown up in and continuing to live in the Los Angeles area, I've always been kinda miffed by how east coast-centric the US media tends to be; a lot of awards telecasts that originate in Los Angeles are shown as a tape delay (is that term even used anymore?  Hehe I guess I'm dating myself) on the west coast, except the Oscars, which are always broadcast live.  I think the Golden Globes for several years now have also been broadcast live on the west coast.  

I believe that's correct about Barcelona.  The Seoul opening ceremony was held at 10am local time at the request of NBC so that it could be held in US primetime.  Not 100% sure about LA's opening ceremony, but I believe the start time was 7:30pm ET / 4:30pm PT.  And yes, I believe it was shown live coast to coast.

No idea how they'd handle 2024 in an effort to balance having the ceremony finish at night versus having it fit into a window where it could be shown in US primetime.  And yes, most events are scheduled that way because the majority of the country's population lives in the Eastern and Central timezones.  That's not just sports, but other events as well - as you noted.  To answer your question, yes "tape delay" is very much still used, and not just in reference to NBC and the Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vancouver 2010 started at 6PM local time and was broadcast live by NBC on the East Coast. Oddly, it was broadcast on tape delay on the West Coast in the US. Some people actually left the ceremony, went home and then saw it again. 

That was the last time NBC showed an opening ceremony live, and was probably the last time they ever will. They've gotten too good at packaging the thing for TV. I suspect an LA ceremony will start the same as RIO did... one hour before 8PM Eastern (or 4PM Pacific). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

of jobs and companies lost. If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting.

 

 

9 hours ago, Ansem said:

I think Paris got this one in the bag.

Supposedly it was Mexico's president that wants to cancel the meeting cuz he was so "annoyed" with Frumpy's rhetoric continuing about them paying for the wall. 

Can you just imagine Frumpy going to Lima, though?! :blink::lol: I think it's safe to say now where all of the Western Hemisphere votes will go to!

If the IOC was "annoyed" with Obama's security detail, they'd absolutely barf with what they'd have to endure with Frumpy's presence there. 

Can you just hear his "speech" now too?! "We'd give you the best Olympics ever in the history of the Olympics. Including the ancient ones, too. Nobody else can do it better, believe me." That should take care of the rest of the votes! ^_^

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

If he gets impeached, that means he must have done something really bad, and I'd rather not attempt to envision what that might be.

Could it possibly have something to do with "grabbin'em by the pu$&y!" :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DamC said:

 I was watching parts of the 1984 opening ceremony and wondering at what time it started. It was broad daylight at the start and twilight at the end of it. This would mean that it took place during the late afternoon in order to air in the prime time hours on the East Coast (assuming it was shown live on ABC? I can't find any information online).

 

It started like 4:00pm Pacific time; so 7:00 pm back East.  Of course, it was shown live on ABC.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FYI said:

 

Supposedly it was Mexico's president that wants to cancel the meeting cuz he was so "annoyed" with Frumpy's rhetoric continuing about them paying for the wall. 

Can you just imagine Frumpy going to Lima, though?! :blink::lol: I think it's safe to say now where all of the Western Hemisphere votes will go to!

If the IOC was "annoyed" with Obama's security detail, they'd absolutely barf with what they'd have to endure with Frumpy's presence there. 

Can you just hear his "speech" now too?! "We'd give you the best Olympics ever in the history of the Olympics. Including the ancient ones, too. Nobody else can do it better, believe me." That should take care of the rest of the votes! ^_^

Can the USOC deny him the chance of participating in Lima, or do they have no say in the matter and Drumpf can just show up and get LA votes if he feels like it? 

Since I think our chances are pretty much dead now that the electoral college gave him the presidency, I kind of want him to show up so he can make a complete ass of himself and have us place last, behind Budapest lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

So LA supporters are proud they got an enormous attendence for the women's march, (pointing this out in this thread presumably because they understandably want to distance their bid and city from Trump). But when an outside observer (me) says Trump could be a problem I get told people saying this are "butthurt" and if anything the man might be an asset. Weird. So the takeaway is Trump and LA's anti-Trump stance are simultaneously good for the bid. Anyone else confused?

Edited by Rob.
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rob. said:

So LA supporters are proud they got an enormous attendence for the women's march, (pointing this out in this thread presumably because they understandably want to distance their bid and city from Trump). But when an outside observer (me) says Trump could be a problem I get told people saying this are "butthurt" and if anything the man might be an asset. Weird. So the takeaway is Trump and LA's anti-Trump stance are simultaneously good for the bid. Anyone else confused?

Anyone thinking Trump is an asset for the LA bid is clearly an idiot who voted for him and can't be reasoned with. He's certainly no asset since because of him we're probably going to lose the majority of the votes in Latin America. And that was supposed to be our largest support for an LA bid.

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

Can the USOC deny him the chance of participating in Lima, or do they have no say in the matter and Drumpf can just show up and get LA votes if he feels like it? 

Since I think our chances are pretty much dead now that the electoral college gave him the presidency, I kind of want him to show up so he can make a complete ass of himself and have us place last, behind Budapest lol

They can try, but given who this president is, do they really want to tell him he's not welcome or invited?  Not sure they would want to deal with the backlash of that.  The best LA2024 can hope for is that Trump is neither interested nor does he attempt to have a personal stake in the bid so he watches from afar.  If he does take a personal interest, there's very little they'll be able to do to stop him from going to Lima, IMO.

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

So LA supporters are proud they got an enormous attendence for the women's march, (pointing this out in this thread presumably because they understandably want to distance their bid and city from Trump). But when an outside observer (me) says Trump could be a problem I get told people saying this are "butthurt" and if anything the man might be an asset. Weird. So the takeaway is Trump and LA's anti-Trump stance are simultaneously good for the bid. Anyone else confused?

You're just noticing this "confusion" now. I remember the same people that you're referring about, squawking right before the election, that if Frump won that "L.A. should FOLD their bid & call it a day." That they "don't care" anymore if L.A. gets the Games or not, etc. Well, needless to say Donald Duck won & here we are with the "butthurt" analysis. The confusion (to say the least) has been a common theme in this thread for the past 16 months now! Trying to figure it out is futile, unless you rightly conclude that it's complete bias rhetoric.

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

So LA supporters are proud they got an enormous attendence for the women's march, (pointing this out in this thread presumably because they understandably want to distance their bid and city from Trump). But when an outside observer (me) says Trump could be a problem I get told people saying this are "butthurt" and if anything the man might be an asset. Weird. So the takeaway is Trump and LA's anti-Trump stance are simultaneously good for the bid. Anyone else confused?

49 minutes ago, LatinXTC said:

Anyone thinking Trump is an asset for the LA bid is clearly an idiot who voted for him and can't be reasoned with. He's certainly no asset since because of him we're probably going to lose the majority of the votes in Latin America. And that was supposed to be our largest support for an LA bid.

Rob.. did you happen to notice who made that post about certain Americans being butthurt and trying to spin Trump's election into a positive?  Knowing that, are you slightly less confused now armed with that knowledge?

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

Can the USOC deny him the chance of participating in Lima, or do they have no say in the matter and Drumpf can just show up and get LA votes if he feels like it?

Can you just imagine if the USOC told him that it wouldn't be a good idea if he went to Lima?! :blink: It would be an even BIGGER sideshow than when everybody was trying to figure "is Obama going, or not going to Copenhagen?!" I can just hear it now - "the USOC don't know what they're talking about. I'd be 'the biggest' assest they'd ever had. The biggest assest in Olympic history, believe me." :lol:

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

You're just noticing this "confusion" now. I remember the same people that you're referring about, squawking right before the election, that if Frump won that "L.A. should FOLD their bid & call it a day." That they "don't care" anymore if L.A. gets the Games or not, etc. Well, needless to say Donald Duck won & here we are with the "butthurt" analysis. The confusion (to say the least) has been a common theme in this thread for the past 16 months now! Trying to figure it out is futile, unless you rightly conclude that it's complete bias rhetoric.

Again, there's no confusion.  There's only 1 person here talking about anti-Trump protesters needing to stop crying and telling us how Trump could be a positive for LA because he's pro-business and would appeal to rich oligarchs like they have at the IOC.  Not only that but should elections in France go a certain way, that might make Trump's election less of a big deal.  Know when you're being trolled, fellas B)

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

Trump isn't going to Peru. And he's not going to beg for the Olympics to come to the US. The IOC needs to go to Washington and beg Trump to let them have the games in the US.

I'm not sure that's how this all works.  Agreed that Trump isn't likely to head to Peru or take any sort of active role in the bid (Obama did that because it was Chicago, not just because he was president.. now if this was New York, then maybe Trump would take an interest).  But the IOC doesn't have to beg.  They don't need Trump's permission to vote for LA.  At best, maybe they're asking him not to be a certifiable whackjob when it comes to policy and just opening his mouth in general.  But that's probably asking to much of him.

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

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

Not when you also have Paris on the ballot, that's for sure. The whole "the IOC should 'beg' Trump & Washington to have the Games here" is exactly the type of entitlement mentality that produces the exact opposite reaction.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...