more years, you might never die. I think I've been hearing that for 50 years.

Meanwhile, the Texas Democrats who went rogue and left the state so that they wouldn't have to vote on the gerrymandering proposal in Texas, they have returned. And did they gain anything? And once again, we see that they didn't have any leaders because you can't name anybody who was associated with it, right? There's no leader. And they didn't have any ideas other than running away. That's not really an idea. And the only thing they got out of it was the theater. The fact that they put on a little play, a little skit, and then the news covered it, and then they did a little social media hits. It was pure theater, but it wasn't even useful theater because lots of times, especially when Trump does it, the theater is functional, like it's accomplishing something or it's drawing attention to something. What good did this do? Didn't it just make the Democrats look like losers? And maybe it made the fight bigger, but it kind of looks like the Republicans had the better hand because there are more Republican states that have not yet completely gerrymandered than there were Democrat states. So, they're not going to win in the long run. They didn't win anything in the short run. And the people who had to go to work every day said to themselves, "Aren't we paying them? I think we're paying them to show up. Maybe they should show up." So, that was a big fail for Democrats.

I saw on Fox News Steven Miller was estimating that in addition to the undercounting of the census between blue states and red, the 2020 census inclusion of illegal aliens gave Democrats 20 to 30 extra seats in Congress. Now, you could debate whether that was what the Constitution intended, but whether it intended it or not, it was a 20 to 30 seat difference. So, if that goes away, it's going to be tough to dislodge the Republicans from power.

I saw a post by Stephen A. Smith, who said that all of the recent Russian aggression came because of three Democrat presidents. Do you ever think about that? I've never thought about this. But here's what Stephen A. Smith points out. He said we ain't going to act like Trump caused this now. It's Democrats in office. He said it was Biden in office when Putin moved into Ukraine. So that's on Biden. It was Obama who was in charge when Russia invaded Crimea. So that's another Democrat. And he points out that Clinton was in office when he made a deal to disarm Ukraine. So Clinton disarms Ukraine and then Obama's in charge when Crimea is lost and then Biden's in charge when the rest of the country is under attack. Yeah, it's kind of hard to imagine the Republicans wouldn't have done a better job.

Now, one of the things that I'm loving is that Trump says over and over again, "The war would have never happened if I'd been president." Now, I don't know that you could prove that, but it's a claim that is reasonable enough that if you hear it enough, you're going to think it's true. And he certainly says it enough, but now you're hearing other people repeating it. It's now becoming more common sense that if Trump had been in charge, it wouldn't have happened. And that's what the Stephen A. Smith post does. It kind of just turns it into common sense. When the Democrats are in charge, Putin gets aggressive because he knows there's a difference between the Republicans in charge and the Democrats, especially Trump.

Well, let's speak about Ukraine. As you know, there were seven major leaders of the European countries and that included NATO plus the European Union. So, they all showed up at the White House along with Zelensky. Now, the important things are that Zelensky wore a suit, but a weird looking suit with no neck tie, but still it made Trump happy that he had put some effort into it. And here's one of the persuasion tips about Trump that I've told you before, but the more examples you see, the more it will stick. Trump is the expert at making the biggest difference between making him happy and making him not happy. So when Zelensky didn't wear the right clothes the last time he visited, Trump made sure that he acted really unhappy. And then when Zelensky wears a respectful nice suit, Trump treats him well and laughs and says, "Yeah, you look great. You look amazing." So he doesn't just say, "All right, well that's better." He makes this really big gap between making him happy wearing a nice suit versus not making him happy. So that is persuasion lesson one. The biggest gap between making him happy and not making him happy. And he does that consistently. Does it really well, better than I've ever seen really for a leader.

But the question is, was any progress made? Well, I don't know if you'd call it progress, but some things happened. One is that Ukraine apparently is signing up to buy a hundred billion dollars worth of weapons from the US that would be paid for by Europe, I guess. And if that kept up, the US would very quickly make up all the money that has spent so far in Ukraine. It wouldn't take long. Now of course it wouldn't, you know, the weapons makers are not the taxpayers, but at least it would be coming back to the homeland. So, that's good. And a lot of that, I guess half of that is for drones. $50 billion for drone production. Wow, that's a lot.

There is a report that Putin has agreed that a United States could be part of a peace settlement or security guarantee. Now I'm not sure that Putin has really agreed to that or maybe there's some details we don't know about that. But would Putin really agree to a NATO like or a NATOish situation when his biggest problem is he doesn't want NATO there? Oh no. As long as you don't call it NATO and they don't pay any dues. Oh, that's fine. So, I'm having trouble believing that Putin would really agree to Americans having such a presence there that they were the security guarantee. Now, that doesn't mean that we would have troops on the ground, but it does mean that we would commit to respond if Russia went deeper into Ukraine. So, do you believe that Putin has said yes to that? That'd be a weird change. I'm gonna say I'm skeptical that Putin's okay with that. We'll see.

And I would still say that the best way to resolve the territories that are in dispute is with a referendum. But I'm going to add a little nuance to that. You don't have to have the referendum done right away. Suppose you said, "All right, Russia, we're going to have a referendum and then the people who live in these disputed territories. Only the residents will get to decide if Russia or Ukraine owns them." But and then you say, "But we don't have the right situation to do the referendum because there's too much, you know, war torn problems there." So, we're definitely going to do a referendum, but we're going to plan it for a year from now. So, we can stop fighting right away and then later separately, we will very peacefully decide through a referendum where this land goes, but it doesn't have to be right away. Now, what is Russia going to do? Are they going to say, "No, if the residents want to go to Ukraine, we're not going to let them." Well, that would not be consistent with how they tried to frame their involvement. You know, they tried to frame it like they're saving the residents, but it would allow us to do an end to the war even if that referendum never happened and it just kept getting pushed down the path.

The other problem that Zelensky says is that the Ukrainian constitution doesn't allow him to trade land for peace. But it seems like that would be easy to get around. And the way to get around it would be to say it's no longer your territory. It would be one thing if he gave away land that he owned, but he doesn't own that land. You can't give away something that somebody already has. So, I feel like they could get around that constitution thing by saying, "All right, we already lost that land, so it's not ours to give away or not give away. It's already gone." And then you go from there. So, I feel like the constitutional thing you could just define it away basically.

Trump says according to Just the News that the Russia Ukraine war if he can get it solved is the last conflict he needs to resolve. Do you see the beauty of that statement? It's the last conflict he needs to resolve. The beauty of that is that he's making you think past the sale. The sale is