Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, RuFF said:

Here we go with the bullcrap again. I said Garcetti is a divisive factor? 

What I say and what you guys hear are two worlds apart. I said he is an accomplished individual. I said he is an asset to the bid, and I said he gives any of the competing mayors, even without knowing their records, a good run for their money. He ha good presence, he is a musician, writes lyrics and music, a navy reservist, a Rhodes scholar, and has an extensive list of accomplishments anybody would admire and like to have. One that I think rivals that of any politician, not just because of political reasons, but as a human being. There is an excellent article about him by Columbia university, and he speaks what, six languages. He's a cultures human with plenty of admirable accomplishments which I believe is why it would be easy for people to like and admire him. 

Flip-flop a little?  Saying Garcetti is an admirable man because he writes music and has plenty of accomplishments is "worlds apart" from saying he's more accomplished than a 2-term president of the United States.  Maybe that's more about your feelings towards Obama than anything, but not going there.

Look, we all get it.. you think LA and everything about their Olympic bid is so indescribably wonderful, but I'm with Rob that the grandstanding is too much and reeks of arrogance when you say bullshit like how you assume LA is better without even trying to know anything about the competition.  So yea, what you say is going to continue to sound like "blah blah blah LA is awesome, blah blah blah no other city could possibly be better than LA."

dcd52fc19e5f986f8097f8e9e38c4dca4f4ff2c5

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RuFF said:

All I'm saying is that Garcetti has a pretty impressive record, one that I believe to be more positive that a vast majority of politicians. I believe it to be so strong that it would he head over heals over other politicians. That's how strongly I feel about him as an individual separate from Olympic Bids and other mayors. He's a likable guy and he has earned that. Whether that is true or not is subjective and up for debate all day long, but that's not what I'm saying. I am saying he's a very likable and accomplished human being and he would give anybody a solid run for their money. Without knowing any of the history of the other mayors just knowing what I know about him, I can say, he's an impressive person. Everything that it seems like I'm saying and all that jazz isn't what I am saying. I'm very direct in what I say, I don't seem to say anything, and i mean what I say. IF a few of these fellow forumers would read and take in what I am saying in a literal sense and extract their feelings about what I'm saying they would be reading something else. But that seems to be a problem here. It seems like you this and that. But what is really happening is that they're projecting their own feelings on me, rather than actually reading what I am saying. 

Well, when you write that this Garcetti guy  would put to shame all the other bids' mayors, what do you expect us to read?

Please tell us, cause personnally I can't wait to finally be able to speak your language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

Here's more of the "seems" like conversation. Pointing out a virtue of LA or LA's bid usually doesn't have to do much with LA being better. And many times it doesn't even point out whether another bid or city has similar virtues. But it seems that way, which is why Quacker and company are emboldened to argue their stupid points. 

Except that's exactly what you're doing here.  You're still pushing this narrative that not only is Eric Garcetti an excellent politician, but that he's more accomplished than Barack Obama, and you think he would put the other bid city mayors "to shame."  That's extremely arrogant, particularly when you admit you know nothing about them (as opposed to Obama who you're probably more familiar with).  If you want to put your guy on a pedestal because you think the sun rises and sets with him and you want to follow that, that's your opinion.  But if you were really going to bet that about Garcetti, you'd probably want to learn a thing or 2 about those other mayors just to be sure, wouldn't you.  And thank you for actually listing some of Garcetti's accomplishments/virtues as I requested B)

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

Let me quote myself. I said that he likely puts the other mayors to shame. 

So if I am allowed to speak for myself, I am that confident of his record. I think he is that likable of a guy. I can see why IOC members may be impressed by him. I am impressed by him and that's not something I say about politicians in general. And sure, I think Obama has a good track record, but there is a lot to tarnish his image. Sure,  he's a two time president of a political machine, but you might read that post, too. I said, that's my opinion. 

Garcetti is recognized as a humanitarian, he's an athlete, he is creative, modern, youthful, multi cultural, a mexican, italian, and a jew. He speaks different languages, even spoke to Japanese IOC members in Washington in their own tongue, Japanese. Columbia University Alum, Rhodes Scholar, engaged with USC, an all american guy who possesses a lot of qualities americans admire. There are plenty of reasons to like him and his brand is an asset to anything he is attached to. That is my opinion, and I'm not sure politicians in general are held in such high esteem, at least not by me. So that doesn't mean he actually puts other mayors to shame, but he has a solid footing and if it came down to it, I think he could do it. Regardless of affiliation to bids, large or small cities, national or local politics. I think he has developed himself well and his brand is strong. 

Do what?  How does a mayor put another mayor to shame?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RuFF said:

Garcetti is recognized as a humanitarian, he's an athlete, he is creative, modern, youthful, multi cultural, a mexican, italian, and a jew. He speaks different languages, even spoke to Japanese IOC members in Washington in their own tongue, Japanese. Columbia University Alum, Rhodes Scholar, engaged with USC, an all american guy who possesses a lot of qualities americans admire. There are plenty of reasons to like him and his brand is an asset to anything he is attached to. 

Recognized by who with all these qualities? The people of L.A.? Cuz I've certainly never heard of him (& I'm sure I'm not the only one) before he became mayor there. And how is he a "humanitarian, an athlete, creative & modern"?

As for the youthful part, Rome's mayor is actually even younger than Garcetti. And as for speaking many languages, while impressive, I think it's only more impressive to Americans, since most Europeans can speak multiple languages since the close proximity to many different countries & cultures within Europe.

But by listing all of Garcetti's supposed accomplishments, what is it exactly that you're trying to imply here, besides "putting the other mayors to shame" & that he's "likable", & if you claim that you're not indicating any of it to be a decisive factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JO2024 said:

The 3 cities would be Paris, Rome and LA. Apparently they recevied the media to visit their "bid house", which is considered promotion for the bid and forbidden by the IOC. The IOC sent an e-mail to warn the 3 cities. Nothing to worry about though.

Maybe it was deemed necessary by the 3 bid committeed despite the risk?

Hope it doesn't hurt their votes too bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...People can't seriously think that Garcetti's done more than Obama, right? Other than the $15 minimum wage, he hasn't particularly set the world on fire. He has some good ideas, and I'm hoping he can get another win with the Metro initiative in November, but so far, his administration has been fairly low-key. This is a good profile, if anyone's interested.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On August 10, 2016 at 3:20 PM, olympicdreamin said:

I agree with you that the test for Rio is going to be their legacy. London has developed a very sound legacy for their games and I think the success of London is what brought some European bidders back to the table in 2024. Even Hamburg was an initial bid for 2024. However, I disagree that Pyeongchang will have tons of white elephants. Their bid had lots of plans for the stadiums in Ganguang and around Korea. I do think the use of temporary stadiums and stadiums that can be relatively easily deconstructed and rebuilt in other cities has been a positive development in Olympic legacies due in large part, I feel, to Athens and Beijing's white elephants. The Olympics clearly have a problem with the scale of the games that most countries are unable to put forward a bid for political, economic, and public opinion reasons and the only nations bidding are the likes of Putin, Erdogan, and China. Rio has been really disappointing and I'm looking forward to finally moving past them and really focusing on Korea and Japan over the next 4 years. I expect Tokyo to show everyone that they should've hosted in 2016.

London had an excellent legacy plan. Paris seems to be following London's lead in that department. Concerning venues, their plan is similar though I predict Paris will go from two temporary arenas to just one if they win 2024. Los Angeles is following the concept of making the Olympics fit the city rather than the city fitting the Olympics. Some might say it's boring but in the long run I think it's going to be something the IOC accepts unless they just want to hand out bids to a handful of dictatorial countries who will splurge on spending where public opinion doesn't matter. Do I think the strategy is enough for L.A. to win 2024? No I still think geopolitics favors Paris, but L.A.'s current bid will position the city well for 2028. I disagree about Pyeongchang if for no other reason than the Koreans have a very poor record when it comes to white elephants. None of those arenas they've built for Pyeongchang look like they are easily going to be dismantled. Not too long ago there was talk about demolishing the new speed skating oval after the Olympics because they couldn't find a use for it. Now they say it will be kept but there's no firm legacy plan for it. Does anyone really think the ski jump and the sliding track are going to see a lot of use? Look at the 2002 World Cup. The Koreans could have easily given the 1988 Olympic Stadium some touchups  but they elected to build an entirely new stadium (total waste). Then there was the Asian Games in Incheon. The Incheon WC Stadium with 50,000 could've easily served as the ceremonies and athletics stadium but the Koreans decided to build a 60,000 seat stadium that they said would be downscaled to 20,000 after the games. That downsizing never happened. It's another white elephant. 

Los Angeles has a plan what some might call boring, but it's cost effective. Is it going to be enough to overcome Paris? Doubtful, but it sets up Los Angeles perfectly for 2028. Frankly, I could see Los Angeles using almost the same proposed venue plan for 2028 with a only a few minor changes. Perhaps by then the Los Angeles Clippers have their own arena. The City of Champions stadium will be completed by that time as well. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, stryker said:

London had an excellent legacy plan. Paris seems to be following London's lead in that department. Concerning venues, their plan is similar though I predict Paris will go from two temporary arenas to just one if they win 2024. Los Angeles is following the concept of making the Olympics fit the city rather than the city fitting the Olympics. Some might say it's boring but in the long run I think it's going to be something the IOC accepts unless they just want to hand out bids to a handful of dictatorial countries who will splurge on spending where public opinion doesn't matter. Do I think the strategy is enough for L.A. to win 2024? No I still think geopolitics favors Paris, but L.A.'s current bid will position the city well for 2028. I disagree about Pyeongchang if for no other reason than the Koreans have a very poor record when it comes to white elephants. None of those arenas they've built for Pyeongchang look like they are easily going to be dismantled. Not too long ago there was talk about demolishing the new speed skating oval after the Olympics because they couldn't find a use for it. Now they say it will be kept but there's no firm legacy plan for it. Does anyone really think the ski jump and the sliding track are going to see a lot of use? Look at the 2002 World Cup. The Koreans could have easily given the 1988 Olympic Stadium some touchups  but they elected to build an entirely new stadium (total waste). Then there was the Asian Games in Incheon. The Incheon WC Stadium with 50,000 could've easily served as the ceremonies and athletics stadium but the Koreans decided to build a 60,000 seat stadium that they said would be downscaled to 20,000 after the games. That downsizing never happened. It's another white elephant. 

Los Angeles has a plan what some might call boring, but it's cost effective. Is it going to be enough to overcome Paris? Doubtful, but it sets up Los Angeles perfectly for 2028. Frankly, I could see Los Angeles using almost the same proposed venue plan for 2028 with a only a few minor changes. Perhaps by then the Los Angeles Clippers have their own arena. The City of Champions stadium will be completed by that time as well. 

 

Clippers will have an arena before 2024 as their current contract with Staples Center would have expired by then.

City of Champions stadium will open in 2019 in time for Superbowl 2021 in Los Angeles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

I just hope they do not bring whoever wins the presidency. Bring the spouse though. Bill would be a much larger+ than Hillary.

Or maybe Mrs Trump can do a speech about how much she admires Paris?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JO2024 said:

Trump hates France, and many other countries. Should he be elected and should LA get the 2024 Games, I'm sure he would ban many national teams from those Games. Team USA would probably be the only team competing... ;)

...hating the French didn't stop England from allowing them to compete. And the US is competing in Brazil right now, I think they even won a few medals.

Regardless, the Olympics are a thing of the past that have been twisted into some arrogant self important money and people disposal that tours the globe and brings bad will and cheating in the disguise of the opposite. It attempts to get those same people who are being screwed to become it biggest cheerleaders saying how GREAT the atmosphere is, an experience they will always remember........and that makes it worth going into debt, screwing the environment, developing unneeded stadiums that go into disrepair, and pushing the weak and poor out of their homes and out of the way. They roll over cities with the help of corrupt governments and speculators and leave little to nothing that benefits anyone who actual lives in the cities.

There is not a "games model" currently that works. Nobody in the IOC is smart enough to chart a course for the future that makes sense.....the Germany president seems to be way over his head.

LA will not win so French supporters should just chill and try not to let your naturally nasty side show.

Edited by paul
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, paul said:

LA will not win so French supporters should just chill and try not to let your naturally nasty side show.

LA will get the Games again eventually, and I just can't wait for it! No matter when, the nasty French will be there!

(How amazing would it be to have Paris handover the Olympic Flag to LA!)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, JO2024 said:

LA will get the Games again eventually, and I just can't wait for it! No matter when, the nasty French will be there!

(How amazing would it be to have Paris handover the Olympic Flag to LA!)

If the US elects Trump, please, please, please, vote for Paris in 2024.

And if he is re-elected in 2028 and he hasn't started World War III, elect someone else for 2028.

Maybe then LA can have its centennial in 2032 and I'll be old as dirt, maybe even dead, but at least I will die happy knowing that Trump never opened a games in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rob. said:

Or maybe Mrs Trump can do a speech about how much she admires Paris?

She'll have to wait for Michelle Obama to write it first!

tumblr_njmw2hpWr21qk08n1o1_500.gif

8 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

If the US elects Trump, please, please, please, vote for Paris in 2024.

And if he is re-elected in 2028 and he hasn't started World War III, elect someone else for 2028.

Maybe then LA can have its centennial in 2032 and I'll be old as dirt, maybe even dead, but at least I will die happy knowing that Trump never opened a games in the United States.

lol what country do you live in where the president/prime minister/dictator has a 12 year term???

If he wins in 2016 he'll be up for re-election in 2020, and if he miraculously wins in 2016 and the US and the rest of the world are still around in 2020, you can sure as hell bet that he won't win re-election.

But if we want the 2024 Olympics, our best chance to win is if Trump DOES NOT win this November. Can you imagine him making the flight to  Lima to encourage the IOC to vote for LA, like Obama did for Chicago? What a travesty that will be!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LatinXTC said:

She'll have to wait for Michelle Obama to write it first!

tumblr_njmw2hpWr21qk08n1o1_500.gif

lol what country do you live in where the president/prime minister/dictator has a 12 year term???

If he wins in 2016 he'll be up for re-election in 2020, and if he miraculously wins in 2016 and the US and the rest of the world are still around in 2020, you can sure as hell bet that he won't win re-election.

But if we want the 2024 Olympics, our best chance to win is if Trump DOES NOT win this November. Can you imagine him making the flight to  Lima to encourage the IOC to vote for LA, like Obama did for Chicago? What a travesty that will be!

Haha, whoops.

3 hours of sleep will do that to you.

2028 it is  then. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes LA is a close second right now to Paris and honestly they are doing a great job with this bid. They aren't slipping really but as much as they've done everything right, right now it is still a case where it is Paris' to lose more than it is for LA to surpass Paris. Having said that if Donald Trump is elected President of the US LA can kiss the bid goodbye. World leaders and representatives have already expressed concern to the Secretary of State, the POTUS and even the LA committee as reported by various news outlets. I would come to the conclusion that the IOC voting members too have major concerns over Trump so I'd say LA would be dead in the water if Trump is elected.

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...