Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, RuFF said:

Los Angeles is more open to the possibility because the bid is attempting to portray itself as a partner of the IOC and not throw an ultimatum. 

Wasserman: LA 2024 an ‘Opportunity, not an Ultimatum’

Quote

LA offers the Movement a “no surprises” plan that can help restore the credibility of the Games, ensure financial stability for the Olympic Movement and create new opportunities to engage with young people around the world. LA’s vision for 2024 is relevant now, and cannot wait until 2028. Those of us who love the Olympic and Paralympic Movement can’t afford more of the same.

By Casey Wasserman

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RuFF said:

That, or in order to soften the blow to Paris Los Angeles, there is an attempt to issue a double award.

You're right.  This is about both cities and letting them both walk away from this as winners rather than losers.  If you want to continue to convince yourself that it's all about LA and pretend that Paris is some sort of afterthought, you go right ahead.  But I can guarantee you the IOC won't see it that way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RuFF said:

And here LA is playing the partnership role again. LA2024 has integrated good sportsmanship into their bid, hence this tweet and being open to 2028, even though they want 2024. They're painting a contrast that stupid people (like Quaker) would miss. I admit, however, that it's a dangerous line to walk for LA because stupidity might actually perceive it as LA2024 will take 2028, even though both cities would likely take 2028.

LA 2024‏Verified account @LA2024 5h5 hours ago
Best of luck to @Paris2024 during their Evaluation Commission visit. Out of respect, we will not promote #LA2024 during the IOC's visit.

Those are some mighty powerful beer goggles you've got there.  That or some mighty powerful drugs.  Must be nice to hear voices in your head that constantly tell you exactly what you want to hear.  It's like you're having a conversation with yourself.  But no, I'm the stupid one because I'm not seeing the same hallucinations that you are.  Or the IOC is stupid because they might not get the right message from LA2024.  Yes, everyone is stupid but LA2024.  They're smart and perfect and everything they touch turns to gold.

But whatever.  Keep selling yourself on these delusions you have and pretend like the IOC voters - you know, the people whose opinion actually matter - are looking through the same beer goggles that you have.  Good luck with that.  Loser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

NY Times is reporting that LA Mayor Eric Garcetti may run for the White House in 2020.

Imagine he opened a 2024 Games in LA?

****, we need orange cheeto out like today.

Baby steps, Eric.  Go for governor of California.  Not sure how much of a national following Garcetti has.  Plus, how many politicians have gone from running a city to running the country?  Don't know that he's positioned to make that leap.  But make an in-between step of being a governor and then I like his chances a lot better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Quote

LA offers the Movement a “no surprises” plan that can help restore the credibility of the Games, ensure financial stability for the Olympic Movement and create new opportunities to engage with young people around the world. LA’s vision for 2024 is relevant now, and cannot wait until 2028.Those of us who love the Olympic and Paralympic Movement can’t afford more of the same.

By Casey Wasserman"

And/or the - "the IOC 'must' choose L.A. for 2024 in order to 'activate' the L.A. 'saving' plan" line. 

Casey talks like he's some sort of Transformer bot or something. :lol: The "ultimatum" hypocrisy & the "L.A. partnership role" mumbo-jumbo is so.. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Baby steps, Eric.  Go for governor of California.  Not sure how much of a national following Garcetti has.  Plus, how many politicians have gone from running a city to running the country?  Don't know that he's positioned to make that leap.  But make an in-between step of being a governor and then I like his chances a lot better

Not that I care about Garcetti making a run or not, but Obama comes to mind who hardly had any political ties to running a city or state before becoming president. And Trump had none. So, I probably wouldn't rule it out so easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Not sure how much of a national following Garcetti has.

Well, just as a side "note", I made a non-scientific poll with a couple of people just now. And they never even heard of Garcetti before. And when I mentioned that he's the current mayor of L.A. & the NYT is reporting that he may be running for president, they said "well, that's a 'drawback' right there", lmfao. But that aside, again, how much national following did Obama have before he annouced that he was making a run for the President. And after four years of Frumpy, I think many will be open to whomever just to get Cheeto Toupee outta office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, FYI said:

Not that I care about Garcetti making a run or not, but Obama comes to mind who hardly had any political ties to running a city or state before becoming president. And Trump had none. So, I probably wouldn't rule it out so easily.

With 24-hour news outlets and social media, I think one can build a national brand/identity with momentum in two months' time.  It takes 48 hours to dash a reputation as well.  And as you said, with Trumpy as the alternative, a rising rival will get more than equal face-time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

With 24-hour news outlets and social media, I think one can build a national brand/identity with momentum in two months' time.  It takes 48 hours to dash a reputation as well.  And as you said, with Trumpy as the alternative, a rising rival will get more than equal face-time.  

Better yet, what about Antonio Ramon Villaraigosa (former mayor of L.A). Certainly much better known nationally already (he was even featured in a Time magazine story before) than Garcetti is. And he would also be the first "La"H-tee-noo President, too!! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FYI said:

Not that I care about Garcetti making a run or not, but Obama comes to mind who hardly had any political ties to running a city or state before becoming president. And Trump had none. So, I probably wouldn't rule it out so easily.

Uh huh.  And how many times did Atlanta show interest before they showed up 1 day and won themselves an Olympics?  How many US cities used that to think they could bid for an Olympics themselves?  Much like many parents tell their kids they can grow up 1 day to be president.  Well, Fred and Mary Anne Trump probably told their kids that as well that and look where that got us!

I'm not ruling anything out (typical GamesBids response to say that).  Just giving a reason I don't think it's likely to happen.  You gave another reason as well.  This shouldn't be a case of let's look at the least qualified president ever (which we have now) and say that anyone with more experience in politics should be considered.  Much like the similar example with Atlanta and the Olympics.

Just because there's a burning to end the Trumpster fire doesn't mean "whomever" with greater political aspirations will be the guy.  And in comparison to Obama.. Garcetti is a mayor whose city and whose state right now is trying to disassociate themselves from the Trump administration and all those related to Washington.  That's why I'm saying maybe he's not the guy the Democratic Party is going to bring to the forefront when there's such animosity against Trump and almost anything will look like a better option next to him. 

As for Obama, yes he was inexperienced, but he was a senator from a fairly populous state.  So that gave him connections and ties to Washington that Garcetti would lack as a mayor.  Which is why I suggested maybe the path for him is to run for Governor first and then set his sights on the White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^"Uh huh" - coming from someone who enjoys playing devils advocate.

However, I'm not disagreeing with any of that, though. But the operative in much of your post there is "maybe". And considering since there is no one on the Democratic side that's glaringly sticking out at the moment, "which is why" I previously said that I wouldn't rule him out so easily just yet. It's still early in the game yet to rule anyone in or out for White House 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, FYI said:

^"Uh huh" - coming from someone who enjoys playing devils advocate.

However, I'm not disagreeing with any of that, though. But the operative in much of your post there is "maybe". And considering since there is no one on the Democratic side that's glaringly sticking out at the moment, "which is why" I previously said that I wouldn't rule him out so easily just yet. It's still early in the game yet to rule anyone in or out for White House 2020.

So if I brought up that LA is a candidate for the 2024 Olympics and you said "I don't see it happening," should I respond with "I probably wouldn't rule it out so easily"  If some other poster said "LA should forget about 2024, I like their chances better for 2028," should the response be "don't rule them out for 2024?"   Again, you have clearly spent way too much time on GamesBids! :rolleyes:

I'll say it one more time in case you missed it the first time..  I haven't ruled out anything.  You know that.  Just gave an opinion on why I don't think it's going to happen, not why I think it CAN'T happen, as if I'm dismissing it completely.  Big difference between the 2.  And we wouldn't even be talking about if not for a report from the NY Times. 

Of course no one is sticking out at the moment because we're 3 1/2 years away from the next election.  Like you said, it's early in the game.  To be fair, I've seen a couple of lists of speculative candidates and Garcetti does appear on a couple of them.  Still, much like if we were speculating for who would bid for a future Olympics, we don't know who will or will be in the running, let alone who might eventually win.  But we can certainly make some educated guesses as how we see it playing out.  I don't see Garcetti factoring into the race.  That's how I see it now.  Maybe 2 years from now or even 2 months from now I'll feel differently.  At which point, since this website is essentially just a high school locker room, I'm sure you'll jump in to tell me how I ruled out Garcetti as a candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

You have clearly spent way too much time on GamesBids! :rolleyes:

OMFG - if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, since you live on GB's day in & day out! :wacko: That's like Truffmp calling someone a troll! 

giphy.gif

42 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

At which point, since this website is essentially just a high school locker room, I'm sure you'll jump in to tell me how I ruled out Garcetti as a candidate.

Yet for all your bemoaning about this website, it's a high school locker room that you still enjoy making frequent trips to. Go figure. :rolleyes: Perhaps you secretly enjoy those dirty jockstraps. :lol::P

Like I said earlier, I don't give a flying fu@k one way or another about Garcetti. But apparently you do to try & make one of your redundant points, so whatever. I'm done with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, FYI said:

Like I said earlier, I don't give a flying fu@k one way or another about Garcetti. But apparently you do to try & make one of your redundant points, so whatever. I'm done with this.

Can't believe I'm taking a point out of herpes' book, but..

54953331.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Baby steps, Eric.  Go for governor of California.  Not sure how much of a national following Garcetti has.  Plus, how many politicians have gone from running a city to running the country?  Don't know that he's positioned to make that leap.  But make an in-between step of being a governor and then I like his chances a lot better

Two issues... does having more government experience help you do the job as POTUS vs does it help you get elected. There is apparently a large group of people in the US who feel government experience is a negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

Two issues... does having more government experience help you do the job as POTUS vs does it help you get elected. There is apparently a large group of people in the US who feel government experience is a negative.

And that's not exactly a just "American" question... Guatemala has a comic actor as president, Haiti had a hip hop singer, Chile had a multimillionaire (Which can be reelected), the first Ladies of Mexico and China were telenovela actresses... This question is like the egg and the hen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you & alan sharing those same hallucinating drugs? For the umpteeth time alan, "the Village" is going up regardless of the Olympics in Paris! AbraTwatson is just regurgitating the same sh!t over & over again.

Tell us alan, if the village is such a problem for Paris in 2024, then why would 2028 be any better?! Bcuz that would mean that L.A. would then have 2024?! Can you say the word HYPOCRISY, alan?! 

Alan may have "20 years" commenting on the Olympics, but it all gets thrown out the window when he's touting for the very bid that he "wants" to see get elected for 2024. So, bye, Felicia! :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Awesome you brought that up, he's written a piece directed at Mayor Hidalgo.

http://www.3wiresports.com/2017/05/14/whos-got-next-mme-hidalgo/

i can definitely see the political nightmare Mayor Hidalgo is busing for herself.

Bitch-please-GIF.gif

Again with this sh*t? Abrahamson may have 20 years of experience, but he's widely known for his clear bias for his favorites and this isn't the first time. And then making Anne Hidalgo as a hateful woman for envy and anger against Macron. His levels of pettiness and arrogance couldn't hit more low levels (And coming from you, Ruff which always put LA bid as ethical, unbiased and nice, this is even desperate). 

Maybe you need to leave the Abrahamson circle of adoration and stop wanting anything to put down. I know Miss Hidalgo and she was always a smart, wonderful and dilligent woman, who even can leave her personal aspirations for team objectives related to the work as public service. She did the same thing with Miss Valerie Pecresse (Even when both have different parties) and after Macron's investidure, she spoke to him and discuss beyond their differences related to the prospect of the Olympic bid. 

What Abrahamson did there not only is personal bias, it's simple unethical as a journalist and a pathetic attempt to secure the Olympics for dirty tricks (Which ironically he accused the French team for the Facebook "allegedly" competition). But my respect to him can't go anywhere low, because he's capable to create a feud in spaces where no one had. 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...