Jump to content

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Ansem said:

No, I said that Montreal had won the games, there was nothing about superiority. American cities aren't invincible. If Rio can beat Chicago, then a Canadian city can edge an American city as well.

No sh!t American cities aren't invincible.  But there was a reason Montreal won for 1976.  There was a reason Rio won for 2016.  What reason would present itself for Toronto (who couldn't even beat Atlanta) to beat LA?  I know you're trying to build a hypothetical here, as seems to be your thing, but stop trying to build an argument against one no one else here is making.  If you're trying to tell us that Toronto could win, no one is disagreeing with that.  But the rest of us are interested in advancing that into discussing why Toronto would win and comparing them to the competition.  Not our fault that you seem to have little to no interest in that element of this, even if we're all just spitballing here.  And last I checked, "livability" (whatever that means) is not something that the IOC has evaluation scores for.  

12 hours ago, Ansem said:

Have you been to Casablanca? It's actually pretty impressive and they've builded up their infrastructure a lot. Again, Casablanca wouldn't be a stronger bid than most of the western world cities but a bid meeting all the criteria would give them a strong case to bring the games to Africa for the first time. Yes, South Africa will always be the better choice for Africa, but that continent is developing rapidly.

Have YOU been to Casablanca?  I haven't, so I can only go off what I've read.  But here's another hypothetical from you.  Do they have a bid that would meet the criteria to give them a strong case?  Or is this another one of those "if they have a strong bid" and pretend like we don't have any insight into answering that.  Because this could well be another bid that goes the way of Doha or Baku and gets cut off at the pass by the IOC.  At which point they would be Casa-blank (does that work, FYI? :D)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, FYI said:

Meanwhile, within that time, the USOC is now on their third bid (& if need be a fourth one for 2028, & L.A.'s 2nd & continuing already ongoing IOC relations), have finally come to an agreement with the IOC on a revenue sharing deal which undermined their last Olympic bid, & NBC has paid billions to the IOC for the broadcast rights until 2032, so I'm sure that they'd like to see a U.S. Games within that timeframe. And if Rio 2016's low ratings is any indication, those expensive right fees may be coming to an end if that trend continues for future Games. 

5 minutes ago, Ansem said:

All of the above is an interesting analysis based on your opinion. So I won't tell you that you're right or wrong to think that. Only that I see your point of view without agreeing with it. I certainly disagree that the NBC deal makes it more likely for Los Angeles to win the games. IOC makes their money regardless, if NBC wasn't going to pay up, another broadcaster would have, and by the way, NBC isn't this planet only broadcasters...just FYI

2 things here..

1) Despite TV ratings drop, NBC says the Rio Games was still a financial success.  Now I don't know if NBC cooked the books on that one a little or what it means going forward, but apparently they succeeded in spite of low ratings.  Will be difficult to do that again going forward and who knows what the marketplace will be a decade from now, but NBC essentially got a discount on the 2022-2032 package, so that will help.

2) That all said, while NBC's long-term commitment may or may not sway the IOC voters into awarding an Olympics to the United States, it certainly won't hurt matters, especially when 2028 might be right around when they're looking at the next TV rights deal and wouldn't it be a big help to have the boost of a home soil Olympics to perk up their profits.  We're aware NBC isn't the only broadcaster out there, just as we know you're aware they account for a very high percentage of the IOC's total broadcast revenue.  But no, absolutely not the case where the IOC would make that money anyway.  When NBC bid for the 2014-2020 package, they offered $4.38 billion.  Next highest bid was in the mid-$3 billion range.  That's how big the gap was if NBC wasn't willing to pay up.  So quit giving up the American exceptionalism line.  We're not discounting the rest of the world with these things, but by the same token, we're not wrong when we point out what the United States offers in comparison to other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

No sh!t American cities aren't invincible.  But there was a reason Montreal won for 1976.  There was a reason Rio won for 2016.  What reason would present itself for Toronto (who couldn't even beat Atlanta) to beat LA?  I know you're trying to build a hypothetical here, as seems to be your thing, but stop trying to build an argument against one no one else here is making.

You say American cities aren't invincible but you talk like it and you're quick to make excuses for when they get beat. Why are you making excuses for Chicago? Granted there were reasons for Rio winning 2016 and for Montreal winning 1976 but why aren't you elaborating on why Chicago got less votes then Tokyo (a previous host) or Madrid (financial crisis)? 

I can elaborate on Toronto. That city went into a complete metamorphosis during the years 2000. Atlanta won because their bid was superior. End of story and I'm big enough to say it. Toronto was not a world class city in the 90s and they were changing in the year 2000. Canadian media and the COC admitted their bid was wrong and Toronto wasn't ready  during the 2008 bidding process. The new Toronto started around 2010 where the entire waterfront was redone, infrastructure upgraded and true prosperity had arrived, with the city having more skyscrapers planned or under construction than New York, LA, Mexico and Chicago "combined". Livability went up and we were the only financial centre that didn't crash during the 2008 financial meltdown, no bailouts, no bankruptcy, no crisis. Toronto became a world class city around that time.

So this was just a glimpse on why a future Toronto bid would be radically different then the 2 previous bids and it would be of great quality. That's all I'm saying and been trying to say but you seem unsatisfied with that and need to bring your point across that L.A or American Cities can't lose unless there's some circumstances explaining it. I just explained why Toronto lost and I could even go into Quebec City 2002 on why they lost to Salt Lake City... not having a mountain nearby will do that.

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

And last I checked, "livability" (whatever that means) is not something that the IOC has evaluation scores for.  

Performance markers such as infrastructure, safety & security, transportation, finances, environment and government are used to evaluate both the livability list and IOC bids. So that argument is relevant to the debate. Toronto is now #4 while Los Angeles is #51. I won't compare both cities based on opinion but Toronto is safer and the TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) is North America's 3rd transit organization after only Mexico and New York.

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Have YOU been to Casablanca?

Yes, twice. I highly recommend it and they've been building up their infrastructure for years. Can they submit a strong bid? Perhaps, I have no doubt they can but it remains to be seen

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

So quit giving up the American exceptionalism line.

Hey, don't blame me, your politicians use that line over and over and act by it. It's actually studied in political science classes around the world as an American doctrines/ideology. Books, articles and essays have been written on the matter but it's ok... I understand this determination to convince the rest of the world that America is better comes from.

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

We're not discounting the rest of the world with these things, but by the same token, we're not wrong when we point out what the United States offers in comparison to other countries.

I rest my case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy!! This one here sounds JUST like Truff 2.0! The "new Toronto" & yada, yada. Where have we heard that before - the "new LA" & yada, yada. Where is Truff when you need her! :lol:

40 minutes ago, Ansem said:

The new Toronto started around 2010 where the entire waterfront was redone, infrastructure upgraded and true prosperity had arrived, with the city having more skyscrapers planned or under construction than New York, LA, Mexico and Chicago "combined". 

Well, it's settled then! Whichever has the MOST Skyscrapers by 2028 gets to host!! The "new LA" or the "new Toronto"! :lol:

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

At which point they would be Casa-blank (does that work, FYI? :D)

Yeah, absolutely! :lol:;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Oh boy!! This one here sounds JUST like Truff 2.0! The "new Toronto" & yada, yada. Where have we heard that before - the "new LA" & yada, yada. Where is Truff when you need her! :lol:

Well, it's settled then! Whichever has the MOST Skyscrapers by 2028 gets to host!! The "new LA" or the "new Toronto"! :lol:

Yeah, absolutely! :lol:;)

No idea who Truff is.

I spoke of the new toronto as a city in lived in for the last 8 years. I saw the transformation. It's a new city as it expanded by merging with its surrounding  cities to become the metropolis it never was. It is indeed a new Toronto.

The skyscraper example was to demonstrate how much the city changed since the past decade in regards to growth and the economy.

No need to be rude. You have a right to disagree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ansem said:

Yes we would have build more. But that's just one category: "Existing facilities vs new facilities". Granted LA has an advantage there, that still won't guarantee a victory has Toronto has edges over Los Angeles in other categories.

May I dare speculate that the IOC are not know to care about a country willingness to spend.

Here too, never said that L.A. would have a "guaranteed" victory because of their better preparedness. You asked me to "elaborate" on *sustainable*, so I did. Period.

Yeah, the IOC may not care about a country's willingness to spend, especially in the past they haven't, but if they don't want to see more & more cities drop out like flies from even bidding for their Games (i.e. Munich, Oslo, Stockholm, Kraków, Boston, Hamburg & Rome [twice now]) - over "costs", then perhaps it's in their best interest in the long run to start caring about that now.

4 hours ago, Ansem said:

We're just going in circles so let's not continue that "my city can edge yours" argument. We can beat each other in different things any given days. If Los Angeles lose 2024, North America will have been the continent who will be the most overdue to hold the games, outside of Africa who never held them. 

Not really. You're just being disengenuous, to say the least, when citing that Rio beat out Chicago, even being an "invincible American" city. As if Rio's location in South America (which as an entire continent that never hosted before), didn't have a major role to play in that. 

And yeah you're right when you say, if Los Angeles loses 2024, that'll mean 2028 would be ripe for North America, but that doesn't mean that Toronto would be on an equal footing to Rio simply because they never hosted before. Last time I checked, Canada (the country) has hosted three Olympics to South America's (the *continent*) zero Olympics before 2016.

4 hours ago, Ansem said:

We'll see what happens for 2024 first and see who ends up bidding for 2028. You'll forgive me if I say that a Trump reelection would be very bad for 2028 as well..

Agreed. But remember, you're the one that started this topic by intially saying in this thread - "to potentially face Toronto? I think the U.S. would have a better chance with New York City". And then it went from there.

As for Donald Duck, he wont even be president anymore by 2028 anyway, even if the loon did win reelection. So that's a moot point.

34 minutes ago, Ansem said:

No idea who Truff is.

(T)Ruff is a character that's been roaming around (mainly) this thread over the past year & pretty much going ON & ON about "the new L.A." & how "exciting & innovated", etc, yawn, not this crap again, it has become over the last couple of decades. New work projects, civic improvements, yada, yada, yada & how all of that benefits the L.A.'24 bid, while at the same time trying to undermine the Paris 2024 bid & its chances. Pretty much the same thing you're trying to do now with Toronto, in a hypothetical 2028 bid. Quite frankly, I'd luv to see the two of you square off in a couple of years in the "2028 thread". :lol:

43 minutes ago, Ansem said:

No need to be rude. You have a right to disagree

Not being anymore 'rude' then you are. And thank you. I will disagree if I see that there's something to disagree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, FYI said:

Here too, never said that L.A. would have a "guaranteed" victory because of their better preparedness. You asked me to "elaborate" on *sustainable*, so I did. Period.

Yeah, the IOC may not care about a country's willingness to spend, especially in the past they haven't, but if they don't want to see more & more cities drop out like flies from even bidding for their Games (i.e. Munich, Oslo, Stockholm, Kraków, Boston, Hamburg & Rome [twice now]) - over "costs", then perhaps it's in their best interest in the long run to start caring about that now.

Not really. You're just being disengenuous, to say the least, when citing that Rio beat out Chicago, even being an "invincible American" city. As if Rio's location in South America (which as an entire continent that never hosted before), didn't have a major role to play in that. 

And yeah you're right when you say, if Los Angeles loses 2024, that'll mean 2028 would be ripe for North America, but that doesn't mean that Toronto would be on an equal footing to Rio simply because they never hosted before. Last time I checked, Canada (the country) has hosted three Olympics to South America's (the *continent*) zero Olympics before 2016.

Agreed. But remember, you're the one that started this topic by intially saying in this thread - "to potentially face Toronto? I think the U.S. would have a better chance with New York City". And then it went from there.

As for Donald Duck, he wont even be president anymore by 2028 anyway, even if the loon did win reelection. So that's a moot point.

(T)Ruff is a character that's been roaming around (mainly) this thread over the past year & pretty much going ON & ON about "the new L.A." & how "exciting & innovated", etc, yawn, not this crap again, it has become over the last couple of decades. New work projects, civic improvements, yada, yada, yada & how all of that benefits the L.A.'24 bid, while at the same time trying to undermine the Paris 2024 bid & its chances. Pretty much the same thing you're trying to do now with Toronto, in a hypothetical 2028 bid. Quite frankly, I'd luv to see the two of you square off in a couple of years in the "2028 thread". :lol:

Not being anymore 'rude' then you are. And thank you. I will disagree if I see that there's something to disagree with.

Pretty sure I said the bid had to be high on quality. A poor bid would be a none starter.

The NYC comment was an opinion. Last time I checked, I was entitled to my opinion. NYC is easily one of the most popular cities on the planet. Excuse me for complimenting NYC, or is it a East Coast vs West Coust thing.. :lol:

Oh please, Toronto was being undermined ever since I speculated on a 2024 bid. the only thing I said about LA is that they already hosted the games in 84. But hey, you can't stand a simple critic while.you can bash all the others...

But anyways. this is a 2024 thread, not 2028. Good luck to LA but my opinion remains that Paris wins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ansem said:

You say American cities aren't invincible but you talk like it and you're quick to make excuses for when they get beat. Why are you making excuses for Chicago? Granted there were reasons for Rio winning 2016 and for Montreal winning 1976 but why aren't you elaborating on why Chicago got less votes then Tokyo (a previous host) or Madrid (financial crisis)?

No, I don't talk like American cities are invincible.  You're saying that, not me.  I'm just trying to evaluate what might be out there, not what cities "if they have a strong bid" will be competitive?

And I'm not making excuses for Chicago or for LA in 1976.  I don't need to elaborate on Chicago because that's all been discussed many times before.  Doesn't need to be re-hashed again.   You're the one who is making a case for causality here.  What happened in 1976 or 2016 has absolutely no bearing on a future bid.  It's said here a lot that there are always particular circumstances that define a bid.  They change every time.  It's not some sort of precedent that should be set where because something happened before, therefore something unrelated is possible later on.  Plus, if we're going to talk vote totals (which don't really mean much past the winner), maybe you can offer some insight on why Madrid got more votes than Tokyo for 2016, then finished well behind them for 2020.  Not to mention that geopolitically, a European city would have had a much better shot at 2020 than 2016.

4 hours ago, Ansem said:

You say American cities aren't invincible but you talk like it and you're quick to make excuses for when they get beat. Why are you making excuses for Chicago? Granted there were reasons for Rio winning 2016 and for Montreal winning 1976 but why aren't you elaborating on why Chicago got less votes then Tokyo (a previous host) or Madrid (financial crisis)? 

I can elaborate on Toronto. That city went into a complete metamorphosis during the years 2000. Atlanta won because their bid was superior. End of story and I'm big enough to say it. Toronto was not a world class city in the 90s and they were changing in the year 2000. Canadian media and the COC admitted their bid was wrong and Toronto wasn't ready  during the 2008 bidding process. The new Toronto started around 2010 where the entire waterfront was redone, infrastructure upgraded and true prosperity had arrived, with the city having more skyscrapers planned or under construction than New York, LA, Mexico and Chicago "combined". Livability went up and we were the only financial centre that didn't crash during the 2008 financial meltdown, no bailouts, no bankruptcy, no crisis. Toronto became a world class city around that time.

So this was just a glimpse on why a future Toronto bid would be radically different then the 2 previous bids and it would be of great quality. That's all I'm saying and been trying to say but you seem unsatisfied with that and need to bring your point across that L.A or American Cities can't lose unless there's some circumstances explaining it. I just explained why Toronto lost and I could even go into Quebec City 2002 on why they lost to Salt Lake City... not having a mountain nearby will do that.

Wow, FYI wasn't kidding that you do sound a lot like Ruff with talk of "the new Toronto" and skyscrapers.  Last I checked, the Olympics don't live in Toronto.  They come to visit.  Toronto is everything you say it is, so I wouldn't try to downplay it as an important world class city.  But all of those things you mentioned may or may not contribute to their ability to bid for an Olympics.  Because it's not always about the city.  Or else, how to explain why Atlanta has hosted an Olympics while New York and Chicago have not.

4 hours ago, Ansem said:

Yes, twice. I highly recommend it and they've been building up their infrastructure for years. Can they submit a strong bid? Perhaps, I have no doubt they can but it remains to be seen

I have doubts.  Many of them.  From what I've read, there are plans in the works for a big new national stadium, so they'll have that.  Still, this is a city and a country that doesn't have a lot of experience hosting large scale sporting events.  South Africa does, so it's easier for them to make the jump to hosting an Olympics in comparison to Morocco.  Things can change in time, but I'll believe there's a strong bid there when I see it.

22 minutes ago, Ansem said:

The NYC comment was an opinion. Last time I checked, I was entitled to my opinion. NYC is easily one of the most popular cities on the planet. Excuse me for complimenting NYC, or is it a East Coast vs West Coust thing.. :lol:

Okay, here's the thing and I've lived my entire life in NYC, so unlike the American exceptionalism stuff (which you attribute to others moreso than us), if you want to label me as an arrogant New Yorker - as others here have - I'll gladly accept that and wear it as a badge of honor.

For you to say you think the US would have a better chance with NYC ignores the reality of what New York can or at least is likely to put up in terms of an Olympic bid.  2012 was largely a 1-shot deal in terms of a bid.  The city lost and moved on rather quickly.  This goes back to your line of thinking where "if NYC were to put up a strong bid."  That's highly unlikely to happen anytime soon, let alone for 2028.  So your opinion is based more on a generic overview of the city and less about an actual Olympic bid.  It's where dealing in hypotheticals delves into a gray area.  As much as the purpose of these boards is to speculate about "what if" possibilities like that, most of us aren't going to look at a city and pretend they're going to offer a good bid for the sake of discussion.  What would they actually offer is the question.  For everything I could boast about NYC, a strong Olympic bid is not something I think they've got a realistic shot at offering.  Certainly not an insult against the city to say that.  It's just not in the cards, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Ansem said:

The NYC comment was an opinion. Last time I checked, I was entitled to my opinion. NYC is easily one of the most popular cities on the planet. Excuse me for complimenting NYC, or is it a East Coast vs West Coust thing.. :lol:

Of course you are. Doesn't mean, though, that they're an automatic choice for a 2028 bid if it's not going to be of top quality (or if the city is even interested again in the first place). Cuz remember, New York did afterall bid for 2012, yet still came in 4th, despite being one of the most popular cities in the world.

And no, it's not an east coast, west coast thing. For the record, I could care less if L.A. gets 2024 or 2028. Doesn't mean, though, that I still can't have an opinion on their chances. Cuz "last time I checked, I was 'entitled' to my opinion". :P

44 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Pretty sure I said the bid had to be high on quality. A poor bid would be a none starter.

The NYC comment was an opinion. Last time I checked, I was entitled to my opinion. NYC is easily one of the most popular cities on the planet. But hey, you can't stand a simple critic while.you can bash all the others...

Pot meet kettle. This is another Truff characteristic. So you sure you don't know who they are?! :lol:

46 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Good luck to LA but my opinion remains that Paris wins

In case you forgot, I already told you that I concur with you on THIS 2024 race. It's in your hypothetical 2028 stance where I don't necessarily agree with you, which again, like you, I am "entitled" to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

But hey, you can't stand a simple critic while.you can bash all the others...

Pot meet kettle. This is another classic Truff characteristic. So you sure you don't know who she is?! :lol:

28 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Wow, FYI wasn't kidding that you do sound a lot like Ruff with talk of "the new Toronto" and skyscrapers.  

Right?! Those two should start a petition now to rename their respective "new" cities in time for the 2028 campaign! "New" L.A. vs "New" Toronto. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking LA won't get 2024.

 

And this is for the Donald; I'm sure this is the embodiment of the people he and his voters like to hate on, huh?

BTW the glittery sparkles give me a headache.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

I'm thinking LA won't get 2024.

 

And this is for the Donald; I'm sure this is the embodiment of the people he and his voters like to hate on, huh?

BTW the glittery sparkles give me a headache.

 

 

 

Yup, more of that and that'll give Donald Duck a full 8 years in Washington.  And believe me, you don't want Pence as the CEO.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/11/2016 at 9:17 AM, Rob. said:

Yep, he won by a huge margin of -200,000 votes! ;)

 

On 10/11/2016 at 4:38 PM, FYI said:

I haven't bothered checking yet, but that was the final tally? What a fricken joke! "Electoral college" - it's time for you to fu@king go!! :rolleyes:

Actually, it now looks like Clinton may have got 2 million more votes by the time the final counts are in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, RuFF said:

The electoral college going is a poor choice. It gives rural and suburban America a voice. Abolishing it would give California and other blue states a disproportional vote in Washington. In California I believe Hillary won by over 2.5 million votes. While I feel strongly that's urban America is important, I don't think that it's so important that it should drown out rural be suburban America.

You're speaking of states as if they are people and urban/rural as if it's the only dividing line (and as if each group is a homogeneous block!). Maybe there should be another change made to give black America a stronger voice against a different white majority, or another change so that young America has a stronger voice versus a different older majority etc etc. You can always find a minority that could be outvoted by a majority, it just depends how you decide to slice the cake. Why design your electoral system around just one of these dividing lines (I know the historical reasons, but they seem no longer relevant)?

I'll flip it; what about Democrats in Texas or Republicans in California? They KNOW every election their votes count for zero. These shitty FPTP systems where votes are counted in blocks and loser piles are discarded as an irrelevance need to go.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rob. said:

You're speaking of states as if they are people and urban/rural as if it's the only dividing line (and as if each group is a homogeneous block!).

In fact it is. The vast majority of major cities vote Democrat and rural areas lean heavily Republican.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/red-state-blue-city-how-the-urban-rural-divide-is-splitting-america/265686/

I would also point out that UK politics is basically the same:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Brexit-Map-363x570.png

And the reason is simple. Although progressives argue that voting comes down to bigotry and racism, most people really vote on economic factors. Globalization has benefited urban areas and punished rural communities. So the rural communities are opposed to further integration while urban areas are in favor of it. Cities with big banks doing business in Europe vote for European integration and rural communities who have been hurt by wage competition from Poles vote against it.

6 hours ago, woohooitsme83 said:

#Calexit?

We decided this issue in 1856. Why do people keep discussing it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2016 at 5:12 AM, Rob. said:

I'll flip it; what about Democrats in Texas or Republicans in California? They KNOW every election their votes count for zero. These shitty FPTP systems where votes are counted in blocks and loser piles are discarded as an irrelevance need to go.

The electoral college's modern issues haven't really come up until the 2000 election. In most modern elections, since 1900, the winner of the popular vote also won the electoral college. Only twice in the past 100 years has that not happened. Trump will loose the popular vote by only a million or so votes and will still have more votes than Mitt Romney and around the same number of votes as POTUS Obama.

It is rare that the electoral college winner does not also win the popular vote. The only time it happens in modern politics is when turnout is higher in states like California and New York. Which, while large states, are far from being an accurate representation of the feelings of the American population. America is a constitutional republic, the President is not chosen by the people but chosen by the states. America was not meant to be a direct democracy. 

The only change I would make to the electoral college is for every state to be like Maine where 2 votes go to the overall popular vote winner in the state and the remaining votes being decided by individual districts. 

  • Like 1
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...