for the team. I didn't vote for Trump because that wasn't even what was offered. Did Trump ever say I'm going to do it all myself? I don't remember that. Don't remember that at all. When you voted for Trump the first time weren't you a little worried he couldn't hire the right people? And then it turns out you were right to be worried about that because he didn't have access to as many people as a normal president would. But now he seems to have that fixed. He has more access than anybody would even predict. So I voted for the team and I did that consciously. I did that completely with full transparency. So yes technically I only voted for Trump and Vance but as a practical matter no I voted for all of them. And I voted, I also voted for the pick he hasn't made yet. I voted for his next pick who also won't necessarily be approved by anybody or voted by anybody. I voted for that. So to say we didn't vote for it is just technically correct. It's not real world common sense correct. So here's that common sense thing again. If you just apply common sense to it it's like this is exactly what we voted for. It's not even slightly off base. It's precisely what we voted for. So that's the frame I would put on it.

Do you remember when Bill Clinton was running and people said hey Hillary's pretty solid too and Bill Clinton sold his presidency as getting two for the price of one? Do you remember that? He would say of course of course I take counsel from Hillary. Like why wouldn't you? She's very smart. She's connected. She understands the topics. I married her. Of course I take it. Of course I would take advice from her. To which that was brilliant. You know he could have run away from that and say no no I'm not listening to the little lady. I'm running my own show. No you're voting for me. But he went the other way and I thought that was brilliant. He just of course of course she's very strong of course I would listen to her. That was the right answer. And by the way no matter what you think about Hillary Clinton she's very smart. Can we agree on that? You can't take that away from her. She's really smart. So yeah of course I would have listened to her too. So that's the same to me. We didn't vote for Hillary but we kind of did right? If you voted for Clinton and he said I'm a pair, yeah you voted for Hillary in effect.

Putin says that Trump has expressed interest in a meeting and Putin says he wants to do it as soon as possible. So I'm going to say this same thing about Russia I said about China. Is Russia in a perfectly strong situation where their economy can work just fine and they figured out ways around all the tariffs and whatever and they don't mind killing lots of people and they've got North Korean soldiers and equipment and they've got good manufacturing so they can manufacture more weapons and stuff? Is that true or are they on the verge of collapse? Because I've heard both and I don't have an independent way to know which one is true. I would guess they're nowhere near collapse because I think Putin has such a strong control. But are they weakened? Are they weakened? They're definitely weakened militarily but they also might be stronger in a number of ways meaning that you know they may have made more of the weapons that they're not using in Ukraine. They may have beefed up things we don't know about. They may have learned things about drones that they didn't know before. So I can't tell if Russia is getting stronger or weaker. Can you? Like in the comments tell me do you think Russia is weakened or yes it has some problems but not really anything that's going to change their trajectory. So I'd like to see your opinion on that.

Meanwhile Trump, remember Trump said he wanted to maybe take over the Panama Canal because it's expensive to go through it and we built it and 35,000 Americans died from the mosquitoes building it and we sold it to Panama for one dollar and now maybe they're not doing the greatest job. But apparently China operates the canal and they have a virtual monopoly on it and it kind of makes sense now. You can see Panama would say you know we're not really canal experts but these Chinese engineers seem to be pretty good so why don't we just have a contract and let you run it. You know it'll still be Panama. It's still owned by Panama but you guys can run it. Now that seems to some people like a political or even military risk because it puts an adversary in charge of a choke point. Now I don't know how much risk that is because if that adversary is a bunch of engineers in the northern hemisphere they're going to do whatever our military tells them to do because they're in our hemisphere. It doesn't matter if they're hiding in Panama and China and they know they're Chinese citizens. If they're in our hemisphere and it's like fewer than a hundred people and they're some kind of defense risk to the United States we'll just go down and do whatever we need to do if we need that canal. So I don't know how much real risk it is but it could be a temporary risk. You could imagine some temporary problem.

However the "amuse" account which I talk about a lot, you should follow the amuse account on X, points out that the treaty where we sold the canal to Panama for one dollar it has in it a clause that we can take back the canal if it is under the control of a foreign power. Wait a minute is it under the control of China? Well Panama would probably say no because they would probably say well it's a contract. We just have to get rid of them. They have to do what the contract says. We can get rid of them. So Panama is still in control. But who gets to decide if Panama is in control or China's in control? I'm pretty sure that that's vague in the treaty which means that the president of the United States could say hey it looks like China is running that canal. That was not our deal. It has to be Panama or nothing. So we're going to take it back. Now this all could be negotiating too because it could be he wants lower prices. Maybe he just wants China not to be part of it. Might want both of those things. But either way he's persuasion perfect on this because he's not too specific about what he wants but he's laying down the general situation. So he's framed it in a way that his persuasion could be effective. So that's just a foreshadowing. Keep an eye on that one.

Now he also came out and at first I thought it was a joke and he but he said in one of those public announcements Trump did he said for purposes of security and freedom the US feels that the ownership of Greenland is a necessity. So Greenland is sort of independent but sort of owned by Denmark. Not sort of. Denmark owns Greenland but they operate kind of independently. However and then the argument I saw online was well Greenland is going to be important to control of the Arctic because if the ice melts in the Arctic there's going to be this control for the Arctic. You know so Russia will be all over t