Quaker2001 Posted August 29, 2014 Report Posted August 29, 2014 Ofan does have point about the crapiness that is Washington in general. But the real problem comes from the name of Washington itself, the "Redskins". It's a racist term for native americans, and over the past several months, there have been demands from the public (native americans most prominently) that they change the name. However, Snyder has cited it's part of their history, so he has rejected changing the name. As a result, a lot of people are PO'd at him. The team name is the least of it at this point. If the team was winning consistently, it wouldn't be a big issue, at least to Redskins fans. That they're not winning though.. it's yet another reason to be angry at Snyder.
binary Posted August 30, 2014 Report Posted August 30, 2014 well im bored, and the washington post has this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/redskins-olympic-backers-both-eye-new-stadium-at-rfk/2014/08/29/9557bcea-2ef2-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html
woohooitsme83 Posted August 30, 2014 Report Posted August 30, 2014 well im bored, and the washington post has this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/redskins-olympic-backers-both-eye-new-stadium-at-rfk/2014/08/29/9557bcea-2ef2-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html hopefully, "Independently" will turn into "collaborating", but that still may be rough at this stage
Quaker2001 Posted August 30, 2014 Report Posted August 30, 2014 well im bored, and the washington post has this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/redskins-olympic-backers-both-eye-new-stadium-at-rfk/2014/08/29/9557bcea-2ef2-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html Wow, this is a refreshing change.. an article that actually does mention the Olympics and provides us with some fresh news. Good find. So maybe DC is in this after all. As noted, the collaboration between Daniel Snyder and the city may or may not be the best thing here, but maybe this is what helps push DC along. Don't know if this partnership will be able to produce something that works for both sides, but at least there's an indication it's being looked into (in theory).
mr.bernham Posted August 30, 2014 Author Report Posted August 30, 2014 well im bored, and the washington post has this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/redskins-olympic-backers-both-eye-new-stadium-at-rfk/2014/08/29/9557bcea-2ef2-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html Wow, this is a refreshing change.. an article that actually does mention the Olympics and provides us with some fresh news. Good find. So maybe DC is in this after all. As noted, the collaboration between Daniel Snyder and the city may or may not be the best thing here, but maybe this is what helps push DC along. Don't know if this partnership will be able to produce something that works for both sides, but at least there's an indication it's being looked into (in theory). I would agree, but I still think the LA and Boston bids will be superior. However, if it does work out and they're able to produce something workable then I think DC's chances will go up tremendously.
aquaman617 Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 well im bored, and the washington post has this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/redskins-olympic-backers-both-eye-new-stadium-at-rfk/2014/08/29/9557bcea-2ef2-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html I just don't see how a DC bid can work. I have no doubt about the city's capacity, I just think coordinating two state governments, plus the District's city council, *and* getting a (superficially, at any rate) cost-conscious Congress all on the same harmonious page is a gargantuan feat.
baron-pierreIV Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 I just don't see how a DC bid can work. I have no doubt about the city's capacity, I just think coordinating two state governments, plus the District's city council, *and* getting a (superficially, at any rate) cost-conscious Congress all on the same harmonious page is a gargantuan feat. Exactly, DC's not going to happen. I don't even know why they try.
FYI Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 ^yeah, & that has been no secret throughout these boards. The political cohesiveness of a DC bid is questionable at best. Especially when they're in the middle of a mayoral race right now & the incumbant mayor will soon no longer be mayor anyway. The USOC only short-listed them just for the sake of doing so, & to hold on to some glimmer of hope, that besides L.A., there was at least one other worthwhile city to seriously consider.
mr.bernham Posted August 31, 2014 Author Report Posted August 31, 2014 ^yeah, & that has been no secret throughout these boards. The political cohesiveness of a DC bid is questionable at best. Especially when they're in the middle of a mayoral race right now & the incumbant mayor will soon no longer be mayor anyway. The USOC only short-listed them just for the sake of doing so, & to hold on to some glimmer of hope, that besides L.A., there was at least one other worthwhile city to seriously consider. That makes no sense, especially when they originally wanted to shortlist only three cities.
FYI Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 ^Precisely. They intially said "two or three", then they do FOUR. What happened that was so significant within a couple of months when they said as such to the actual announcement of their short-list. Besides not much. It makes 'no sense' as far as the USOC is concerned.
Athensfan Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 ^yeah, & that has been no secret throughout these boards. The political cohesiveness of a DC bid is questionable at best. Especially when they're in the middle of a mayoral race right now & the incumbant mayor will soon no longer be mayor anyway. The USOC only short-listed them just for the sake of doing so, & to hold on to some glimmer of hope, that besides L.A., there was at least one other worthwhile city to seriously consider. Ok, that's your hypothesis. The reality is that we have no factual information explaining why the USOC shortlisted 4 cities rather than two or three. We also have no factual information explaining why they shortlisted the cities they did and not others. Any theories about this reasoning are 100% guesswork and probably will never be proved or disproved. Personally, I'm inclined to think that the four shortlisted cities gave the USOC reason to believe they could produce feasible, electable bids. Now those cities either rise to that challenge or falter. Since the USOC does not report to anyone, they can change their mind and shortlist four cities if they want to. I don't understand the rush to worst-case scenario explanations. I suspect the USOC is delighted by LA's plans and is simply doing their due diligence. Such a thorough process will add weight and legitimacy to whichever city ends up the candidate.
FYI Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 Ok, that's your hypothesis. The reality is that we have no factual information explaining why the USOC shortlisted 4 cities rather than two or three. We also have no factual information explaining why they shortlisted the cities they did and not others. Any theories about this reasoning are 100% guesswork and probably will never be proved or disproved. We don't have to have any "factual" information on why or how the USOC does things. But we are getting some information from the cities themselves. Therefore, based on that information is where we can sometimes draw some "theories". Everything about Gamesbids is 100% "guesswork". We can all come up with hypothesis & conclusions, but in the end, no one is right & no one is wrong here. However, if some of us don't want to subscribe to the "wait & see" exercises, or the "there is no 'evidence' or factual information for you to come up with that conclusion", then that is clearly your issue. Some people actually take sides & refuse to constantly sit on the fence (which seems to be popular with a couple here). If that wasn't the case, then there would be absolutely no point in these "discussion" boards at all. Personally, I'm inclined to think that the four shortlisted cities gave the USOC reason to believe they could produce feasible, electable bids. Now those cities either rise to that challenge or falter. Umm, that's in essence what I said. So I don't see how that's "rushing to worst-case scenario explanations". Especially when I'm not the only one here with a similar view on DC's prospects.
baron-pierreIV Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 but in the end, no one is right & no one is wrong here. U're very wrong there!! I am always right...even when I'm wrong!!
paul Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 DC would be brilliant....the assclown government would figure it out, the mayor is a puppet position there usually.....just so beautiful and built for an international festival.....it's definitely the most international of all the US possibilities....and I'm talking folks of all classes and diverse origins(who are often visiting and not migrating), which is refreshing compared to California. However, LA will always be amazing.....and seem like the best place to fit an Olympics into the gigantism of the cities plans with the least risk of disruption or distraction. We can absorb the tasks and spit out any screw-ups or losses at the end without a much more complex routine than it is anyway to sweep problems under the rug........so OK........LA24 looks nice in caps.
baron-pierreIV Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 Of the 4 US "finalists," here is my sweltering/humidity index for a July-August time-frame SF - coolest; most comfortable LA - driest but could get a little warm 12noon - 5pm Boston - muggy DC - a fetid swamp!! Make your bed, USOC and IOC.
Usa2024olympics Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 Of the 4 US "finalists," here is my sweltering/humidity index for a July-August time-frame SF - coolest; most comfortable LA - driest but could get a little warm 12noon - 5pm Boston - muggy DC - a fetid swamp!! Make your bed, USOC and IOC. By Santa Monica it can get very cool like in the sixties. But as you go in land like you said, it can get pretty warm
Quaker2001 Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 Of the 4 US "finalists," here is my sweltering/humidity index for a July-August time-frame SF - coolest; most comfortable LA - driest but could get a little warm 12noon - 5pm Boston - muggy DC - a fetid swamp!! Make your bed, USOC and IOC. But which cities have a revolving restaurant!?
woohooitsme83 Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 ^^None. (well none that are working, anyway)
baron-pierreIV Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 But which cities have a revolving restaurant!? Actually, LA has the only one in operation, the BonaVista at the Westin Bonaventure. Which if LA is chosen and bids, only proves my theory that if you have a working revolving restaurant, your chances improve in the Olympics bid sweepstakes.
Team USA Posted September 1, 2014 Report Posted September 1, 2014 But which cities have a revolving restaurant!? Seattle at the Space needle or the CN Tower in Toronto
mr.bernham Posted September 1, 2014 Author Report Posted September 1, 2014 U're very wrong there!! I am always right...even when I'm wrong!! Just keep telling yourself that
runningrings Posted September 1, 2014 Report Posted September 1, 2014 lol a revolving restaurant index? Now I've heard it all.
baron-pierreIV Posted September 1, 2014 Report Posted September 1, 2014 lol a revolving restaurant index? Now I've heard it all. Actually, if you look at the prospective 2020/2024/2028 cities, it does have a bearing... for the 2020 race - only Tokyo had 1 or 2 active operating ones 2024/2028 - Paris and Rome do NOT have one. Baku, Dubai and LA do have at least one each. Apparently, a 2nd one, 1OAK, just opened in Durban. Durban's other RR is the "Roma."
paul Posted September 1, 2014 Report Posted September 1, 2014 ...isn't there one at that National Harbor development across from Alexandria?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.