Actually like going there now to eat at La Vespa (pricey Italian) but nice view...especially when trump name was stripped...
I've passed it several times out at the seafront. I was in the Marriott (now, thank god) when it was under the Trump name and the restaurants were dead, as was the gym on a Friday night/evening.
Not arguing against what you are saying, but haven’t there been some “Interesting” real estate transactions with former Democrat President(s)? … and down the line, for that matter? Shouldn’t laws either apply to all or not apply to any? It seems our political system is built upon politicians being “compromised” in some way so their “plug can be pulled” if they go too far outside of some third party’s expectations. This would require the media to be on board, of course. This third party can be broken down into subgroups according to political ideology. Including long established groups and a up and coming group or two. Many have said, including myself, that we don’t have a representative government in the United States. Perhaps this is why. As I’ve discussed before, the debate on which is more effective: the “Invisible hand” of all participants voting through their pocket books versus decisions made by a few smart elites continues. Judging by all the wars, drug use, homelessness, starvation, etc. in a world full of resources, I’d say things are not going well. This suggests our system has some deficiencies, does it not? Worse, there are a variety of existential threats, accessible to more entities as technology and knowledge of process continues to advance. We have major powers testing each others limits at an increasing frequency as well. We need to figure out how to get along. Like our lives depend on it. Because, obviously, it does. Including innocent children. And grandchildren. To get along, we need to agree upon a set of rules and follow these rules. In religion, this is known as the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. In law, agency outlines specific rules of conduct regarding relationships. In system analysis, meta analysis, a system’s actions can be predicted from the actions of another system upon it. Over and over again. As we have seen for thousands of years over human history. To get along, we need to address the fact that both parties have not followed the rules or its intent in search of political or personal gain. This should be publicly acknowledged by the rule breaker and such behavior renounced by him. Since such behavior is endemic, it is probably not practical to punish. To get along, our system must be hardened against future attacks by foreign and domestic belligerents who seek to add to their power outside the best interests of voters and society at large. To get along, we need to develop a deeper understanding how complacency creeps into those systems that have been successful. Again, a system can be an idea, such as perception of national identity, a group of people, a single person, etc. You are smart enough to know our present course isn't sustainable. AI will accelerate inter-systemic imbalance. In our extremely polarized environment, this will likely cause the system facing an existential crisis to attempt to restore balance using any means possible, including WMDs in their various forms. The biggest challenge against systemic reform is each major political philosophy has created a system of exploiting others for that system’s gains. This exploitation is beyond the mere workings of an economic system. It involves the behavior of some of the powerful. It creates undue economic and quality of life stratification. Stratification unjustified by relative contribution of various participants, it seems. Even resulting increasing non-participants. No easy answers, but we need to put our heads together before we end up mourning the loss of our favorite city or country. Or planet.
The perfect post to just have the AI respond: It is very meandering and reads like someone trying to sound profound while pivoting away from specifics into a kind of vague, philosophical, systemic lament. Here’s a breakdown of what’s actually going on in the response to Tuxan's post: Core Reaction: Whataboutism + Deflection “Not arguing against what you are saying, but haven’t there been some ‘Interesting’ real estate transactions with former Democrat President(s)?” This is a classic whataboutism. Rather than engaging with the specific allegation against Trump (betraying Epstein and laundering Russian money through a real estate flip), the responder diverts attention to alleged Democratic wrongdoing — vague, unspecified, and unlinked. This is a rhetorical move to blunt the impact of the accusation by suggesting everyone’s dirty, so no one is uniquely guilty. Soft Conspiratorial Framing “Our political system is built upon politicians being ‘compromised’…” Here they start to drift into meta-conspiracy territory — the idea that politicians are just pawns of “third parties” who hold their leash. No evidence, just vibes. This allows the responder to avoid taking a side on Trump or Epstein while asserting that all power structures are fundamentally corrupt. Abstract Systems Talk = Evasion “This third party can be broken down into subgroups…” “Meta analysis… system’s actions…” “Inter-systemic imbalance…” The language here becomes obfuscatory — it uses academic-sounding terminology ("meta-analysis," "systemic reform," "inter-systemic imbalance") but applies it to vague moral conclusions or predictions. This serves as a smokescreen for not taking a position, while trying to appear serious and insightful. False Equivalence “To get along, we need to address the fact that both parties have not followed the rules…” This is a blanket moral equivalence that says: "Yes, Trump might’ve done something dirty, but so has everyone else, so let’s not get into the details." It implies the solution is reconciliation, not accountability. This erases specificity, which is exactly what Tuxan’s post didn’t do. Philosophical Mush “Do unto others...” “No easy answers…” “We need to put our heads together…” At the end, the response settles into vague moralizing and doom-posting. It gestures toward threats like war, AI, and systemic collapse—but all in a way that bypasses the original topic. Summary in Plain Terms: "Yes, Trump might have done something bad, but haven’t other politicians too? Anyway, the whole system is corrupt, and everything is falling apart, and we all need to do better, so maybe don’t focus too much on this specific case.”
The problem with the US is we have so many traitors from both parties who have sold the US citizens out to foreign interests. They started by exporting good jobs abroad in exchange for cheap goods. Nobody benefits as much as the warmongers, profiteers and political hacks who sell their services for millions of dollars. Do they care what happens to the US? Even now, US warmongers continue to fund the Ukraine proxy war against Russia. That puts the lives of 300 million Americans at grave risk. What about the huge risks of nuclear war? They green lighted the attack on the Russian airbase housing long range bombers. That same Russian airbase housed nuclear weapons. Can you imagine if Ukraine managed to detonate a nuclear weapon? Russia would have attacked the US with nuclear weapons. The height of folly yet, the same warmongers continue their merry ways!
This hinges on the assumption that nuclear weapons exist in the form we’ve been told. But serious researchers—many quietly working in academia and defense circles—have long questioned the empirical basis for nukes. After all, we’ve only seen two alleged wartime detonations, both curated by the victors and reliant on 1940s cinematography. Every subsequent “test” has been on remote islands or desert areas, with footage indistinguishable from large-scale conventional explosives or early special effects. The Japanese government, post-WWII, found it more convenient to affirm the narrative of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as nuclear events, both for domestic control and international victimhood leverage.