Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Going back to the topic of Mexico and the US.

While the Mayor of Mexico City signed the letter of support for Paris, there is absolutely no denying that Los Angeles is supremely more important to the COUNTRY of Mexico than the city.

Just go to Los Angeles and try to go 1 minute without seeing a person of Mexican descent. It's influence on that city is everywhere. The food, the Chicano culture, the spanglish on the streets, the art scene, the street vendors, etc.

The mayor of Mexico City may have signed for Paris, but LA is the Ellis island for so many Mexicans  and has been  sanctuary for millions of Mexicans for over a century.

This riff with the president is exactly that, the president. Relations with LA and Mexico are probably more important and stronger now than ever, especially with Garcetti and Villaraigosa both coming from Mexican roots.

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

12 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

Going back to the topic of Mexico and the US.

While the Mayor of Mexico City signed the letter of support for Paris, there is absolutely no denying that Los Angeles is supremely more important to the COUNTRY of Mexico than the city.

Just go to Los Angeles and try to go 1 minute without seeing a person of Mexican descent. It's influence on that city is everywhere. The food, the Chicano culture, the spanglish on the streets, the art scene, the street vendors, etc.

The mayor of Mexico City may have signed for Paris, but LA is the Ellis island for so many Mexicans  and has been  sanctuary for millions of Mexicans for over a century.

This riff with the president is exactly that, the president. Relations with LA and Mexico are probably more important and stronger now than ever, especially with Garcetti and Villaraigosa both coming from Mexican roots.

Okay, & your point with all this is? Do you think that any of that will matter in the grand scheme of things? Like you pointed out with that Canadian article was from 2016 & your encounter with "brutal Canadian customs" was back in 2014, the troubles with INTERNATIONAL relations with the Trump administration are HERE & NOW, not from some history books. 

L.A. may have "strong" relations with Mexico, & have had 'historically' speaking, but all that means very little when L.A. is running a bid together with the *United States* Olympic Committee & therefore, in essence, is representing the *United States* of America.

That's how L.A.'s bid will be viewed & voted upon (or not). If L.A. wants to seperate themselves from all that (& Trump), then the petition for Calexit needs to start, then you guys can say that you only represent L.A. (& everything else associated with that representation) & California.

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

I can certainly understand that Mexico is poor relations with Washington. But with Los Angeles, California, Eric Garcetti and Jerry Brown its quite a different story. In many ways Los Angeles means more to Mexico than the United States does. 

Mayor Garcetti made note of this in the Pacific Council. If California were to succeed secede from the Nation its number one trading partner would shift from China, and other parts of the US to Mexico. And Mexico's number one trading partner would shift from the United States to California. 

Um, I do find this a bit disingenuous. I distinctly remember you previously touting as a great LA selling point that it was "America's Bids", a bid for all America and one that would engage and benefit the whole USA. Now suddenly when that doesn't sound such a good tune, it's California Uber Alles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Um, I do find this a bit disingenuous. I distinctly remember you previously touting as a great LA selling point that it was "America's Bids", a bid for all America and one that would engage and benefit the whole USA. Now suddenly when that doesn't sound such a good tune, it's California Uber Alles.

Yes, thank you. (And not just for correctly spelling *secede*, I caught that one too)

It's an unfortunate Catch-22 that LA has to do with.  Either they try to make it a more national bid, but then they have to deal with all that headaches that are associated with the Trump administration.  Or make the big more locally-focused on LA, but then lose some of the national appeal that comes along with it.  Can't cherry pick the best of both sides to only show the bid in the best possible light though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys/gals, BS aside.

Valentine's Day in Latin America is called "Dia del Amor Y Amistad" which translates into "Day of Love and Friendship"

I am very appreciative of being a part of this thread, however scandalous and silly at times. 

Before finding this forum I felt like a weirdo being the only one being excited over Olympic bids, but here, its the norm, and while we often disagree, I felt welcomed.

:)

 

We don't know each other personally, but I am glad there are people out in the world as "weird" as me.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RuFF said:

I this as opposed to the Mexico City mayoral relationship without Donald Trump or Los Angeles? 

I find it odd that the Mayor of the worlds most populated city with Mexicans would have a stronger relationship with Paris than it would with Los Angeles, the worlds most populated city with Mexicans outside of Mexico City proper. If I am not wrong there are more Mexicans in Los Angeles than any other Mexican city outside of Mexico City itself. 

 

And so? L.A. is a full multicultural city and like you said, LA is full of Iranians but that didn't stop of Iran banning Americans. 

Unless you're living in a rock, you are severely understimated the impact of Trump's politics around the world. Right now, the perception of USA in many Latin America is at the bottom (Especially in Mexico, which not only humilliate the president, but also threat to send militar forces inside Mexican territory and sending the message of all the Mexican people living in USA are not welcome and must return ASAP). In perspective, it's not odd that ideal when you compare the current issues of foreign relations among some countries: Turkish communities in Germany, Ukrainians living in Russia or even Koreans living in Japan.

Just because LA has the biggest Mexican community in the world (Outside Mexico), doesn't mean Mexico City must support a bid for a country which the president was a full threat of Mexican sovereignity.

And let's not forget, historically, Latin America (Especially the elite society) have strong ties with the European culture, especially with France. For a long part, as part of cultural antagonism against USA, Mexico approached many aspects of the French identity including law and administration. So, historically, Mexico has also that relationship with France. 

 

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

Okay, & your point with all this is? Do you think that any of that will matter in the grand scheme of things? Like you pointed out with that Canadian article was from 2016 & your encounter with "brutal Canadian customs" was back in 2014, the troubles with INTERNATIONAL relations with the Trump administration are HERE & NOW, not from some history books. 

L.A. may have "strong" relations with Mexico, & have had 'historically' speaking, but all that means very little when L.A. is running a bid together with the *United States* Olympic Committee & therefore, in essence, is representing the *United States* of America.

That's how L.A.'s bid will be viewed & voted upon (or not). If L.A. wants to seperate themselves from all that (& Trump), then the petition for Calexit needs to start, then you guys can say that you only represent L.A. (& everything else associated with that representation) & California.

And this is the other point in highsight. Great to having Garcetti and other LA politicians supporting the Mexican community, and again, this isn't a full criticism to the Americans, but at the end of the day, California still is part of a federal sovereign State named "the United States of America", Mr. Donald Trump was elected as President of this federal state (A Chief of State which representates the interests of this sovereign state, for better and -Most likely- worse) and California doesn't have international recognition as an international actor yet (Beyond the limited space from the USA federalism). Garcetti's factical powers will be limited for one way or another and his field of influence only came until it became possible. 

Albeit this bid is related to one specific city, the Olympics came as a figure of the COUNTRY. Los Angeles will need the money and help of the federal government (Security, legal issues), and LA 2024 is still promoted as an "American bid". Even if LA is a multicultural city with open arms to all communities, the reality in consideration is a federal government which implemented a restrictive ban for nationality and religion (Even if overruled, the damage is done), a President which moans, dismiss and threats some of the most historical allies of USA (Like Mexico, Germany, Japan, Australia) and a general escalation of anti-Americanism in recent weeks around the world.

As mentioned again, great for L.A. for having a multicultural community and rational politicians. Unfortunally, their factical powers are limited and the federal government isn't making favors to them.

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

Hey guys/gals, BS aside.

Valentine's Day in Latin America is called "Dia del Amor Y Amistad" which translates into "Day of Love and Friendship"

I am very appreciative of being a part of this thread, however scandalous and silly at times. 

Before finding this forum I felt like a weirdo being the only one being excited over Olympic bids, but here, its the norm, and while we often disagree, I felt welcomed.

:)

 

We don't know each other personally, but I am glad there are people out in the world as "weird" as me.

Hear, hear! Welcome to the asylum! It'd be a boring place if we agreed with each other all the time.

Feliz Dia del Amor y Amistad!

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I wonder if backing out of the Americas bid is a good idea for LA2024 to do? Either way California and Los Angeles are well poised to work either way. It just happens to be a luxury afforded to global cities. 

Paris is a great example, as Paris itself is more important to most countries than the Country in which it resides. 

So im sorry to break your bubble, but being able to have both ways is something LA can do. There is precedent, too. And if you examine Californians well you will find that they genuinely believe they are the new, better America. 

Good to know. Too bad in the real world aka outside LA won't matter what "angelinos" think about this, unless you can take an option. "You can't serve two masters in the same good way because there will be terrible results", and that's a full reality in life. Thinking otherwise is a full delusion. 

Also, yep, Paris bid didn't matter the country, that's why they didn't consider which cities play for second hosts for other events, even if this was a political decision and call for national unity and identity with this bid. Sure Jan.gif.

Anyway, maybe it's 100% true saying the Olympics are only for global cities. Too bad LA is competing with one of the 4 historical top/elite global cities right now. 

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

So im sorry to break your bubble, but being able to have both ways is something LA can do. There is precedent, too. And if you examine Californians well you will find that they genuinely believe they are the new, better America. 

No, it's not something they can do.  And if they try it, they're going to fall flat on their faces.  So which one is it?  Is it LA and California making this about them and not necessarily how it benefits the entire country (not an easy task, but one that as Rols noted, you were confident LA could sell)?  Or is this about LA representing the entire country?  But if you're talking about the "new, better America," too many people around the world right now associate that with Trump and therefore it's going to have a bad connotation.  Not to mention that it reeks of arrogance for Californians to think they are "better."  

Good for Californians for thinking that.  Now try selling that to a heavily politicized international organization in an attempt to win votes to have them award you their top prize.  Paris is in a position where they are unquestionably the dominant city in France.  And I know there are some folks (including a couple here) that hate the notion that Paris represents their entire population, but they know there's no other city that can compare.  That's not the case in the United States.  LA may be a global city, but there is no argument to be made that they are THE dominant city in this country.  To believe they are is to dismiss the rest of the country and you're somewhat doing it yourself talking about LA as the face of America tomorrow.  Not even the LA organizers believe that, even if that's what you're getting from their marketing.

Again, let it be said that what LA is selling about themselves and the city undergoing an urban renewal is probably more fact than fiction.  But don't take that so far to where Los Angelinos somehow have this inflated sense of self-confidence (which is probably somewhat deserved on their part) that comes off as arrogance.  That's going to be a turn-off to voters.  Either way, as much as I know you believe LA can "control the conversation" (yes, I'm choosing what context to use that phrase here), you can't expect the rest of the world, especially the IOC voters, to only see what you want them to see and to ignore the reality of what's going on around them, i.e. with the president of the country that is half of the parties involved in this bid.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't verify if this info is true or just an invention of you know whom, but then keep this easy solution:

-2024 Paris

-2028 LA

Two for the price of one. Emergency meeting in Lima and done. Then you can verify for granted Trump and his policies won't be a threat by 2028 and perhaps the international goodwill of the United States (Especially for the American allies) can be restored without compromising political reasons and financial issues. Budapest can be happy with the YOG.  The most unrisked and salomonic decision of all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Paris is a great city, Paris lost a few times before, but it's not commercially so important for the structure of the IOC". 

I call BS on this. If Paris is such a "throw away" bid, then why is the IOC in a dilemma here in the first place. Why is Bach wanting everyone to be "winners" here. You can very damn well bet, if it was only between L.A. & Budapest (& or Baku-koo), this "there are too many losers in the process" discussion/'idea' would not be taking place to begin with. Another strong & very desirable candidate like Paris is why the IOC is having a hard time deciding on all of this.

Plus, that statement also ingores the fact how Europe is in DIRE need to be reconnected with the Olympic Movement, considering how many European cities have been rejecting the IOC as of late. So in that sense, Paris is VERY important for the structure of the IOC.

"Bach cannot afford to risk upsetting & 'destroying' the one market the IOC is totally dependent on."

This is hyperbole, to say the least. While, yes, the U.S. is a very important player to the IOC, it's not going to "destroy", however, that important market by not selecting L.A. this time around.

Again here, is also neglecting the fact how much difficulties the IOC is having in Europe right now, another important (& their home) market, where there I'd much more say is on the brink of being "destroyed" by so much anti-Olympic Movement & mindset. For being some 'expert' marketing person, those are some pretty off-the-wall statements there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a double award would also be very symbolically important & positive - it'd show that the IOC are willing to do something different, & to react to the specifics of a particular race rather than keeping the same procedure no matter what. It'd also perhaps make bidding more appealing to cities by saying that there doesn't have to be only one winner. Bidding is an expensive business, so anything that either lowers that cost or increases the likelihood of getting some reward for that investment (or, in an ideal world, both) is surely going to be welcomed by possible bidders. 

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

I believe the article mentions Madrid is likely to bid should 2024 not be awarded to Paris. But let's be clear, North American cities are taking pause as well. While Boston isn't really considered it did after all drop out for the same reasons that Rome and Hamburg did, and the list of cities for 2022. Where else do you do in the US if it's not Los Angeles, and while Toronto is a possibility, and I don't mean to demean that city because it also in its own right is a great center, is it really anymore secure than Madrid? 

The argument that it's only Europe is great, but it's really not. The IOC has a brand to protect well beyond the borders of Europe.

And remind us again how much money NBC pledged to the IOC with no knowledge of where the Olympics will be held for a decade?  That money will be flowing in for the next 15 years regardless of where the Olympics are held.  No, North American cities are not taking pause.  1 North American city did and it's one that should never have been selected in the first place.  That was less about Boston rejecting the IOC so much as the realization that they couldn't put together a sensible plan that worked for the city.  Contrast that with what's going on in Europe where cities are dropping out left and right.  Rome, Hamburg, possibly Budapest, plus all the cities on the winter side.  And if you're going to talk about Boston, look how quickly the USOC had a backup plan, almost as if they saw that coming.  Plus, who's to say that LA is one and done should they lose to Paris.  I don't buy into this notion that a city that always seems ready to play the game would lose one and then decide to give up.

So again, it's not "only Europe is great," but that's where the IOC needs protect their brand more than anywhere else.  Paris and France alone are not as significant as the United States, but take Europe as a whole and now you're talking double the population of the United States.  You don't want to alienate that entire market either.  And their TV deal with Discovery only goes through 2024.  Imagine how hard it's going to be to negotiate a new TV deal without having had an Olympics in Europe in that span.  As opposed to the NBC deal which runs through 2032, so they have more time to make good on getting an Olympics to the United States in that time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And btw, not for nothing.. what happened to the notion of LA's bid distancing themselves from being considered a part of the US and the possibility of Calexit?  Suddenly now it's beneficial for LA to be a part of that lucrative United States market, so they're back on board with the U.S. and not trying to position themselves as a separate entity?

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

I believe the article mentions Madrid is likely to bid should 2024 not be awarded to Paris. 

An article mentioning that Madrid "is likely" to bid, doesn't mean that it will in the end. The Madrid mayor said after their last (2020) loss that the city is not bidding again for quite some time. But since you bring it up, also take notice that's the only European city that the article mentions. 

Furthermore, & much more importantly, Madrid has bid three *consecutive* times, & lost every single one of those attempts. And their last attempt for 2020 was very plausible for them to win had it not been for all their turmoils that they were going through while the campaign was going on (i.e. bad economy, doping scandal, etc).

And while Spain has recouperated somewhat from their finanacial troubles, they still have a lot more to do. So I wouldn't count on an (iffy) bid to be "likely" four years from now when the IOC has a rock-SOLID European bid right in front of them right now! That's very much akin to saying, "Toronto is likely to bid for 2028" while L.A. is bidding for 2024. It's silly. 

1 hour ago, RuFF said:

Where else do you go in the US if it's not Los Angeles, and while Toronto is a possibility, and I don't mean to demean that city because it also in its own right is a great center, is it really anymore secure than Madrid? 

In comparison to Madrid? I'd say Toronto would be quite secure. And I'd add that Toronto would be more secure than Madrid right now, cuz again, Spain's economy is still in recovery mode, while Canada's in comparison is sound.

1 hour ago, RuFF said:

The argument that it's only Europe is great, but it's really not. The IOC has a brand to protect well beyond the borders of Europe.

The opposite holds true, too, ya know. The IOC also has a brand to protect well beyond the borders of the United States.

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

And btw, not for nothing.. what happened to the notion of LA's bid distancing themselves from being considered a part of the US and the possibility of Calexit?  Suddenly now it's beneficial for LA to be a part of that lucrative United States market, so they're back on board with the U.S. and not trying to position themselves as a separate entity?

Yeah, really. Gotta luv the truffinism. :lol:

2 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Great argument Quaker, but Europe put up 4 bids for 2024 because it has many more NOC's. If you could do that in the US we would have the likes to Tulsa Oklahoma dropping out. 

Which all those NOC's should illustrate to you just how important Europe is to the IOC. I also wouldn't compare Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Rome, Oslo, Stockholm & Budapest to the likes of Tulsa, cuz now you're just being silly, to say the least.

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

Great argument Quaker, but Europe put up 4 bids for 2024 because it has many more NOC's. If you could do that in the US we would have the likes to Tulsa Oklahoma dropping out. 

Put up 4 bids, and only 2 remain, possibly 1 by the time we get to the vote.  This after there were multiple bids for 2022, of which exactly 0 made it to the vote.  You can't throw out Boston and say that 1 drop-out is the equivalent of the numerous cities that dropped out from Europe and then try and argue it's the same.

2 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Adding to that list:

New York City

San Francisco

Philadelphia

Who knows, maybe Washington would have stayed in it to win it. But being as Washington has a negative effect on Los Angeles some 3,000 miles away. 

But even more perspective, double the US population Europe has also hosted Athens, Torino, London, and even Sochi serving that viewership while on the same time span Salt Lake City and Vancouver. 

The card you lee playing is great, but there's a part of a story card, and a whole story card. 

Oh RuFF, you make it too easy.  You are Mr. "part of a story card."  You want to put out there what makes LA look good and makes Paris maybe look not as good and then ignore the rest as if that's all that people will see and hear.  That's not how this game is played, less you think the IOC voters are a bunch of idiots.  You're right that Europe has had all those cities in recent times.  And what have they had since then?  A bunch of drop-outs and a growing animosity towards the IOC.  That's alarming and it's not nearly the same as the 1 city here that rejected the Olympics, more because their own city was inadequate for the job than what we're seeing in Europe where countries are allowing their citizens if they want the Olympics and they're largely saying no.

But no, go ahead and reject the 1 European city that's still in it right now and roll the dice and take your chances.  An argument can be made both ways about which of Paris or LA would be least likely to return (as if that's going to be the deciding factor.. hint: it won't be).  It's not so one-sided as it's made it to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but which city outta all of those always comes out to play in the sandbox. That's L.A. & the IOC knows that. All of L.A. plans are happening regardless of the Olympics (as you like to tout), so none of that stuff will be an issue with them. And of course there's still Toronto as well. 

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

The crazy part about the US Bids is that they are privately funded, and while Boston was selected, at first, the invitation went out to 35 cities, 4 of which responded. Boston is obviously out, and Washington appears to be moving forward with their Olympic Plans in the form of Urban Renewal, taking the proposed space for an Olympic Park for other uses and perhaps effectively killing the possibility of their return. That, and its Washington, the center of the political mess that threatens LA's bid. So that leaves San Francisco, who doesn't have a need for an Olympic Stadium in pay to play California... where no IOC or NFL are taxpayer funded. Would Washington and San Francisco meet your criteria? How about New York City? I'm not sure why it's not pretty clear to you that the threat exists just as strong in North america as it does in Europe.

The craziest part (actually, probably not unexpected) about this post is that it's factually incorrect. Far more than 4 cities responded. That's just who made it to the USOC's final short list of candidates. There were other cities that expressed interest (Dallas among others) that the USOC decided they weren't interested in working with. It wasn't just the 4 who wanted to submit a bid and none of the others wanted to give it a shot. It was a prevailing topic here for a while about how the USOC changed it's process of vetting domestic candidates rather than openly receiving bids, which in the past had led to the likes of Tulsa thinking they were worthy

I give you grief sometimes for not expanding your horizons beyond this LA 2024 thread, but this is one of those times that if you had been around these forums for longer, you would have better insight than to present facts that simply aren't true

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, ten cities actually wound up being vetted by the USOC before they got down to their final four. The other six were Dallas, San Diego, Philadelphia, Miami & a couple of others.

And that doesn't include the cities that the USOC just brushed off right from the get go that were also interested like Charlotte, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Orlando, Tampa & Vegas, & even Atlanta was comtemplating another run. So none of that compares to what's going on in Europe right now.

And while New York City wasn't interested in 2024, that one had more to do that the city just *moved on*, versus that they just don't want anything to do with the Olympics. That can also apply to Washington D.C. if they're going ahead with their urban renewal plans nontheless.

Neither of those cases have anything to do with anti-Olympic movements. It's simply just continuing on from a failed endeavor, unlike places like Oslo, Munich & Hamburg, etc that have downright told their respective NOC's a flat out NO on the Olympics. Especially Oslo in the end, where even their government finally told the IOC to just f@ck off. 

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...