ess Turkey would not be involved here. So it looks like it's not NATO but rather the countries individually and I'm guessing that because Turkey is not mentioned and I don't believe that Turkey would want to be funding weapons over there anyway. But Trump has said it's not going to be just defensive weapons like the Patriot. It's going to be everything all of them. So he's talking about offensive weapons that we have so far tried to not send there and now he's willing to send missiles that could reach Moscow. And there's some reporting, I don't know how reliable it is, that Trump is completely aware and checked that Ukraine would use new weapons to attack Moscow itself.

So here's what I think the play is. I think Trump is literally going to bomb Moscow, but he's going to do it through our proxy, Ukraine. Literally going to bomb, not bomb, but let's say send missiles and drones at a large scale. We've been sending offensive weapons for years now. Probably not the good stuff, though. So I think Trump is teasing that we may have held back some of the good stuff and that that would be the difference. But I take that correction. I would be surprised, very surprised if we've never sent them any form of offensive weaponry, you know, and it's also hard to define what is offensive and what is defensive. So I would say if we're selling them missiles that are meant to be shot at a foreign city as far away as Moscow, to me that feels like an offensive weapon. So I think that's what's going to happen. Anyway, so we'll see how that goes.

It feels like the odds of nuclear war are not that high just because Putin is not insane and the last thing he wants is a nuclear war. So it could be that Trump is just calling his bluff and saying, "You know what? There's no limit to what we're going to do to you if you keep doing this. There's no upper limit. We'll just keep ratcheting up. We're going to give Ukraine better and better weapons." And I'll say again that we're probably three years away from the front lines of this war being only robots and not even controlled by humans, but just robots, you know, nothing but robots because both sides are going to run out of humans on the front lines. They'll just be dead. And the robots and the drones and the AI will be the new battle. So do you think that Russia believes it could keep up with Ukraine if Ukraine has the full backing of the United States and the other countries to make as many drones and the most powerful ones they could possibly make? Is it possible for Russia to keep up? Well, they've got China on their side, right? So they could buy a lot of drones. And I guess Iran maybe. I don't know if they have anything left to sell, but it's going to be a robot only war because I don't think that Putin's going to back down and make peace. And I don't think he's going to quit. And I don't think Ukraine's going to quit. And now the US has turned it into a profit center where we're just selling our arms and somebody else is paying for it. So we're not going to quit. And Europe doesn't want to lose because they don't want Putin to roll through Europe, they think. So there's nobody who really has any chance of wanting to quit. So in three years the people will be mostly dead on the front lines and just be robots and then you're going to really see the future.

All right. Then Trump wants to put, let's see what else is he doing? Apparently if Trump puts a big tariff on Russian oil, that will make oil prices everywhere go up because Russia is a big enough exporter that if you crush their oil industry and reduce the supply, the entire world will pay more according to Bloomberg. So Wall Street and the stock market did not go down when Trump threatened to make oil prices go up by blocking Russian oil. Which means that, according to Bloomberg, that Wall Street doesn't believe he's going to do it. In other words, the investors don't believe that Trump will successfully do anything that would cut down on Russian oil sales. So we'll see.

There's a new poll, Harvard Caps Harris poll that was just released yesterday that says the Democratic Party's approval rating is at a new low. It dropped from 42 percent to 40. So four in 10 respondents approved of the Democrat party, which is down from June two points. So my question is this. It's the weirdest situation when the Democrats are at the lowest approval that we've seen, but at the same time, all the smart people are saying that the Democrats are probably going to pick up seats in the midterm. Now I know the reason for that is that everybody likes their own representative, but they think that the other ones are bad. So they vote for their own representative, and then next thing you know, you got a Democrat win when Democrats have the lowest approval level, like of all time. I don't know if it's all time, but it might be. So that's a weird situation. Obviously, that's a system problem.

But speaking of bad advice for Democrats, who would you say is the Democrat's smartest player? If you had to pick one person, the one experienced, smart, proven, brilliant messenger, not only a good messenger, but somebody who's good at coming up with a message. Who do you think would be the very best you could get on the Democrat side? I'm seeing Ro Khanna, Fetterman. I was going to say Obama. Don't we all believe that Obama was gifted in terms of political skill? Even Republicans say that. Even Republicans would admit, "Yeah, we don't like what he did, but he has skill." Like he was good at this politics stuff. Good at talking in public, good at having messages that resonated with people. Well, here is Obama's advice for Democrats. You ready for this? Here's their best guy, their best, smartest, experienced guy. He says, "Don't tell me you're a Democrat, but you're kind of disappointed right now, so you're not doing anything." No, now is exactly the time you get in there and do something.

Okay. So the first part of his advice is to do something. So did that help? Were there any Democrats who didn't know that doing something would be an advantage for them as opposed to doing nothing and continuing to suck? So that's a little bit generic. Obama, but there's more. He said that they should toughen up. Oh, okay. So they should do more and they should toughen up. Okay, that's a little bit generic, but is there more from their best wisest advisor? Yes, there's more. He also said they should do less navel gazing and that's it. Did he have a specific suggestion about some messaging that might work? No. No, he didn't. All he had was generic advice about toughening up, doing something, and having less navel gazing. Do you imagine that he could have been more worthless if it had been his intention to do it? It's almost like if he had a contest to see who could do the least useful thing for Democrats, it would be right here. He would win the contest of the most useless advice ever given. Do something, toughen up and less navel gazing. That's their best guy.

If you try to find the second best guy, and here guy means man or woman. So you know it's going to be somebody like Fetterman that even the Democrats are mad at because Fetterman keeps agreeing with common sense. Anyway, so that's pretty worthless.

According to Just the News, the reason that we're not hearing much from the Department of Justice on the Russia collusion investigation is that they're trying to make a RICO case out of it. Now RICO means that it's not just an individual bad behavior by any person or persons, but rather it's an organized ongoing plot to do something illegal. Now you tell me, do you think they could make the case that the Russia collusion hoax, which apparently was well known as a hoax because they knew the Steele dossier was fake, they knew that Hillary's campaign was paying for it from the start and that Brennan and Obama and Clapper, they all knew. So do you think that the Trump administration's people could make the case that would stand up in court that it wasn't just an isolated incident? It was an