All Episodes

January 14, 2025 36 mins
Why we think Pete Hegseth will get nominated. Armchair warriors vs. combat. Women in the military. Pow Wow Chow.

Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome in Tuesday edition Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Appreciate
all of you hanging out with us as we are
often running here on today's program. As you are likely aware,
Pete Hegseth, Trump's nominee to be Defense Secretary, has been
in front of the Senate for the Subcommittee of the

(00:22):
Senate for his hearing. As the Senate advises and consents
on the Trump cabinet nominees, that process officially underway. I
watched much of it this morning as I was doing
my reading and getting ready for today's program. And I'm
not surprised by this because people who make a living

(00:45):
on TV are usually pretty good at talking on TV,
which is what a hearing is. And Pete Hegseth sitting
at that table has I think solidified the fact that
he is going to be confirmed. At this point, I
would consider it to be shocking if he is not
Defense Secretary. I also think this ties in with Tulci

(01:06):
Gabbard and RFK Junior and Cash Pattel and anyone else
out there that might be a target going forward of attack,
as Matt Gates was earlier as Attorney General. I think
all these guys and gals are going to get confirmed.
I feel good about Trump being able to get his

(01:27):
people into positions that he wants them to be in. Now,
I do believe that it may get dragged out. There
will be a lot of lingering, a lot of whining,
a lot of rear guard action from the Senate Democrats
led by Chuck Schumer. But Buck, I think Trump's going

(01:48):
to get his guys in gals. I think he's going
to get the team that he has nominated.

Speaker 2 (01:52):
Again.

Speaker 1 (01:53):
I think there will still be some battles, But looking
at the way this is playing out, I think everybody's
going to get nominated. But certainly Seth has done well
for himself today, as both you and I anticipated that
he would, and I think he's going to be the
next Secretary of Defense.

Speaker 3 (02:07):
Well, there's certainly the front running of a lot of
the attacks that has occurred, and I think that that
means that the moment of panic, which is what they
usually use to try to derail a nomination, that's not
going to happen. We've already heard all the things that
they're going to that the critics of Pete Hegseth are

(02:27):
going to say. They're already out there the critics of
RFK Junior, the stuff that they've talked about, the bear,
the whale, you know, these different that's all out there
right never and also vaccines. I don't think that there's
anything that's going to come forward on these nominees that
will create that moment of oh my gosh, this person's

(02:49):
too much of a liability. And this is the game
that they've played in the past. We've seen this, you know,
the timing of it manipulated, whether it's for a nominee
Brett Kavanaugh among the most famous of all time, efforts
to submarine somebody at the last minute. But then also
even with Trump himself with the Billy Bush tape, you know,

(03:11):
the Access Hollywood tape, whatever you want to call it,
where they hold these things for maximum effect. This stuff
is already out there about these different nominees. And I
think that when you see the people that you need
to be rallying around you, particularly on the military side.
You just got a lot of war fighters lining up.
We're saying Pete's the guy, and I haven't heard anybody
come forward. I haven't seen anybody come forward from them.

(03:33):
The war fighter community, who is really opposed to Pete
in this role, So Clay, I think he's looking good.
I think all of these prominent nominees are are likely
to get through. The only ones that they're still making
some noise about. I saw this is well. The Washington
Post editorial board, hasn't you see this has endorsed every

(03:56):
high level Trump nominee except Taulsey Gabbard, Pete, hegg Seth,
RFK Junior, and Vaught.

Speaker 2 (04:04):
I don't know who's Vaught. I look, I think they're
all going to lose.

Speaker 1 (04:09):
I think one of the interesting ways to examine this
is you and I are both still angry over the
Kavanaugh hearings which were twenty eighteen.

Speaker 3 (04:22):
Just real quick, Vaught is the OMB nominee Office of
Management and Budget, that Russell Vaught. They have some problem
with him. I don't know that's a surprise. Apparently they'll
like him. But yes, you were saying the watcht.

Speaker 1 (04:32):
The Post not being in favor of someone being nominated
is actually probably the best endorsement Trump could see for
why they should be nominated. To be fair, but if
you look at Kavanaugh in eighteen and everything that they
threw at him in the fall of eighteen, if I
remember as he was attempting to ascend to the Supreme Court,

(04:55):
and you compare it with Pete hegg Seth six years later.
To me, Buck, it's an interesting window in that personal
peccadillos or attacks, it seems to me, are basically over.

Speaker 2 (05:12):
We had that me too, where it didn't matter.

Speaker 1 (05:15):
Remember when Matt Damon came out and said, hey, there
should be a difference between whether you raped somebody or
like you padded him on the butt at a bar,
and everybody was like, what is Matt Damon talking about?
All of that is the same, and he's like, actually,
there's pretty significant gradations of difference between like hitting on
someone maybe a little bit inappropriately and raping someone, and

(05:36):
everyone understands that.

Speaker 3 (05:38):
I remember Ezra Cline when he was really at the
peak of his bizarre powers, because I don't know why
anybody would listen to or like that individual particularly, but
he said on MSNBC, I'll never forget this that even
if there are some people who are innocent who get
caught up in these rape and sexual assault allegations, from
me too, that's on balance a good thing because we

(06:00):
need men to be afraid right now, and we need
them to be on their back feet. Basically, I'm paraphrais,
but he's like, look, if we get to make an omelet,
you gotta break a few eggs. A few innocent guys
got to go to prison for rape. That's the way
it's gonna be. And I mean this was the fact
that that that's like the most evil thing that I
had heard anybody say on TV. I don't know, maybe ever,
that's one of the most horrible things I've ever heard

(06:21):
somebody say on television. And I've seen this and this
was a feature of what what happened with me too,
was that there were people who did bad things and
everyone freaked out because the bad things have been covered
up for a long time. And then the machine, the
Democrat machine, decided, Oh, while everyone's freaked out, we can
mobilize and use this now against against specific targets, cover

(06:43):
for some attack others. That's the weaponization component. And the
Kavanaugh part. The Kavanaugh was the you know, that was
that was the that was the pinnacle of it.

Speaker 2 (06:51):
Now. I said this at the time.

Speaker 3 (06:53):
If you can say some guy grabbed me or did
something thirty years ago, I don't remember the day.

Speaker 2 (06:58):
Nobody was there, Nobody you can.

Speaker 3 (07:00):
Destroy anyone any for any man listening to this right
now could be destroyed because you can't defend yourself about,
you know, twenty five, thirty thirty five years ago at
a party.

Speaker 1 (07:10):
Where somebody accuses you at a high school party of
trying to make out with them, and that is disqualifying
for you to be Supreme Court justice forty years later.
There's almost no man in America who can say, man,
I you know, I can guarantee you that when I
was sixteen, I never tried to make out with a
girl and it didn't go awkwardly or whatever the standard is.
Particularly as your point is, there's no evidence of when

(07:32):
it happened, there's no evidence of where it was. You
don't even remember meeting the girl, you don't even.

Speaker 2 (07:36):
Know the dates.

Speaker 1 (07:37):
I mean again, if Kavanaugh hadn't had that dorky, be honest,
that supremely dorky calendar that he kept, where like basically
he was writing down all the things that he did
for his entire life going all the way back to then,
he might not be a.

Speaker 2 (07:51):
Spring Court justice today.

Speaker 1 (07:52):
But I do think in that six year window, America
has decided there may be reasons you don't want someone
to be in a position of prominence, but it's not
gonna be because of something in their background that you
don't like. And let me tell you this, Kamala Harris,
I mean, Kamala Harris does not have a sterling record.

Speaker 2 (08:13):
In my opinion. We talked about this on the show.
When you're in your.

Speaker 1 (08:16):
Twenties and you're dating a guy in your sixties, I'm sorry,
I think that's weird, and I don't think that's something
that most women in their twenties do, and I think
most of them kind of look askance at that. But
Kamala Harris didn't lose because of what she did when
she was in her twenties, or her thirties or even
her forties. She lost because she was a bad candidate.

(08:38):
And Trump didn't lose because of the allegations against him personally.
So when I see Hegsath sitting down at that table
and it seems quite clear to me that he's going
to be confirmed, I think I think we may be
moving outside of the politics of personal destruction era.

Speaker 2 (08:55):
And let me give you a little bit more of
a corollary here on this buck the.

Speaker 1 (08:58):
Younger audience, all of them are screwed because everything stupid
that they've done is on video when they were in
their teenagers year, teenage years.

Speaker 2 (09:11):
When they were in their twenties.

Speaker 1 (09:13):
Their past is solidified in video in a way that
virtually none if you're like our age or older, certainly,
I would even say forty probably has a cut off line. Now,
you didn't live primarily in a digital life when you
were growing up. Every one of the people who are

(09:33):
younger than forty now, I'm just telling you, there are
videos of them doing the dumbest things that they ever
did in their life. There's postings on social media of
them doing stupid things. It's like everybody has mutually assured
destruction in their past. I feel like culturally this may
be a big difference going forward. And remember buck to me,

(09:55):
and again, I'm a history nerd. Do you remember when
this really started, this idea of we're going to go
deep into people's backgrounds and we're going to destroy them
based on decisions that they have made. Bork, who are
you gonna go with here? Well, Bork is a good one.
The monkey business guy who got caught Gary Hart. Gary Hart,

(10:16):
A lot of people don't remember this story, but Gary
Hart was potentially going to be the nominee, I believe
for Democrats for president, and there were all these rumors
about womanizing in his past, and he asked people to
catch him, and they caught him and it basically destroyed
his political career. He was on a boat called monkey

(10:36):
Business with some cute girls. Like I think he was
the Senator at the time. This is a really interesting
story to go back and look at. It didn't happen
before then. JFK I was sleeping with everything that moved LBJ,
like all of these guys in their backgrounds, even FDR
the guy was in a wheelchair.

Speaker 2 (10:54):
He's having affairs. Nobody cared.

Speaker 1 (10:56):
It only started in like the eighties, and it ran
up into through the Clinton years, into the early two thousands,
and then on up to Kavanaugh. I feel like that
window is actually not representative of what historically has happened,
and now it feels like it's fading a bit. That
would be my bigger analysis of of what I'm taking
away from Hegseth's testimony today.

Speaker 3 (11:19):
Yeah, well, I also think that you look at Pete's
background and as much as they wanted to dismiss him
as a as a TV host, which you know as
radio hosts. I feel like, hey, you know, don't dismiss
people because they work in media. He's also a guy
who served his country in uniform and did so honorably
and went to I don't know how much people care

(11:41):
about impressive schools for these kinds of roles anymore.

Speaker 2 (11:43):
A lot of people go to impressive.

Speaker 3 (11:44):
Schools and their absolute morons, and I truly mean that,
So that doesn't really This is part of the legacy
of Dei as well, I might add, is that these
schools have increasingly that it's not just DEI, also legacy
and you know, different reasons for admission as well, although legacy,
he admits, usually have much closer SATs to the mean
than DEI admits to. People want to talk about that,

(12:05):
but that's the truth anyway. I think that Pete has
plenty of the skill set necessary to the job. I mean,
look at people who have had this job. Leon Panetta,
in what universe is Leon Panetta impressive? Because he's been
on Capitol Hill for like decades and was a congressman.
That that means that he somehow was you know, member
during the Obama administration. He was CIA Director and Secretary

(12:26):
of Defense. Okay, you know it's these are jobs that
are hard to They're hard to get, but there are
a lot of people who can do them. And I
think that we're seeing that play out right now where
there's plenty of reason to believe that the people that
Trump wants to have in these roles will do an
excellent job in these roles. Once again, Clay, I'm a

(12:47):
little taken aback by how little it seems that the
resistance is able to get going here.

Speaker 1 (12:54):
You know, I think you're one hundred percent right. I
looked at the pictures of the people that were anti Hegseth.
I don't know if you saw them like in thee hearing,
and I just thought to myself, can you imagine being
such a loser that you get dressed up to show
up in a committee room hearing accusing Pete Heggseeth of
of being you know, like.

Speaker 2 (13:12):
They gonna be misogynists. I think misogynist is what was yelled. Yes.

Speaker 1 (13:15):
I just looked at the picture of them and the
video and I thought, man, this is actually a good
advertisement for Pete hegg Seth because the people who are
protesting against him are such complete and total losers, And
you're right. I think that's why everybody's gonna get confirmed.
There is no real resistance that has emerged so far
against Trump.

Speaker 2 (13:35):
Well.

Speaker 3 (13:35):
I also think that in the classic Trump move would be,
if you try to block one of these nominees, he'll
just pick somebody who's even more of a fire breather
and drives them even crazier and see and you know
he'll he'll double down on somebody else. So I don't
think that they have any There's no benefit uh to
the people that would want to try to stop this
from stopping one or two of these nominees.

Speaker 2 (13:57):
I just I don't see that as having the intended effect.

Speaker 3 (14:00):
All right, Mark me DWN as a fan of Bear
Creek Arsenal, the firearms manufacturer out of Sanford, North Carolina
that is making some of the best value firearms anywhere
in this nation.

Speaker 2 (14:10):
Now. They've been an industry secret.

Speaker 3 (14:12):
For a while, but more and more people are learning
about Bear Creek Arsenal, including this audience, all of you.
When you try Barcreek Arsenal, you see this is an
all American, patriotic Second Amendment company that wants to give
you the best quality firearms for the price you're gonna
find absolutely anywhere. They've got no retailer in the middle
running up big prices. They're all about giving you value rifles, pistols,

(14:37):
upper receivers, lower receivers. I mean, it's really a one
stop shop for your firearm needs at Barcreek Arsenal dot com.
Go check it out for yourself. Go to bear Creek
Arsenal dot com. Stay updated on everything that they're doing,
all the different guns that they have on offer. When
you're online, make sure you sign up for their newsletter
to go to Bearcreekarsenal dot com.

Speaker 4 (14:59):
Saving America, I got one thought at a time. Clay
Travis and Buck Sexton. Find them on the free iHeartRadio
app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 2 (15:10):
All right, welcome back into Clay and Buck.

Speaker 3 (15:11):
We got Pete Hegsath testifying today in front of the
Senate in preparation for a vote on him as Secretary
of Defense. And one of the reasons I think that
we've seen so many people come forward from the military community,
and I use the term warfighter. Look, everyone who serves
the military serves honorably. That's your service. But some people

(15:34):
are in combat zones and see combat and others don't.
And I do think there's a distinction there. Pete served
in combat zones. Pete was a combat veteran, and given
what we've seen over the last couple of decades with
the deployment of military, the heavy reliance on war fighters
to do so many deployments, and the lack of strategy

(15:55):
and the lack of political reality from the top down,
that they've had to just deal with having somebody who,
as Pete says, has dust on his boots at the
helm of the pentagon. That's a change of pace that
warfighters want play.

Speaker 2 (16:09):
Three.

Speaker 5 (16:09):
Now, it is true and has been acknowledged, that I
don't have a similar biography to defense secretaries of the
last thirty years. But as President Trump also told me,
we've repeatedly placed people atop the pentagon with supposedly the
right credentials, whether they are retire generals, academics, or defense
contractor executives. And where has it gotten us? He believes,

(16:31):
and I humbly agree, that it's time to give someone
with dust on his boots the helm a change agent,
someone with no vested interest in certain companies or specific
programs or approved narratives. My only special interest is the warfighter.

Speaker 3 (16:49):
I think that says it right centrally summarize for everybody.

Speaker 1 (16:54):
Clay, I think again, the senators are actually losing to
a more talent communicator and a more talented TV guy. Honestly,
the Democrat senators come off as histrionic. And I watched Gillibrand,
and I watched Blumenthal, and I watched Mazie Horano. All
these Democrat senators that are trying to attack Pete Hagseeth,

(17:18):
they just come off looking really emotional and not particularly
intelligent or intelligentic relative to him. And I just don't
even think this is close. I think I can give
you a little bit of prediction. I think Fennterman might
vote for hag Seth. I think there may be a
Democrat or two once they're aware that heg Seth has

(17:38):
the votes, because I think if Republicans stay strong, some
of these Democrats pay attention to this that are in
states that Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, some of
them might end up voting for some of these Trump appointees.
I think that's an underdiscussed storyline. If Republicans stay together,
look if you're going into a new year looking for

(17:58):
ways to save money. One area for monthly savings on
your cell phone bill where you can save up to
one thousand dollars a year Puretalk. You could switch your
cell phone service to pure Talk right now, same quality
because Puretalk service on the same towers and network is
one of the big wireless companies. No need to spend
eighty five or one hundred bucks per person per month
on your wireless bill. Instead, how about thirty five bucks

(18:20):
a month with Puretalk unlimited talk text and fifteen gigs
of data with a mobile hotspot. You can do a
lot with an extra thousand dollars not spent on expensive
cell phone bills. Switch to pure Talk by dialing Pound
two five zero and saying the keywords Clay and Buck
Again from your cell phone, dial pound two five zero,
say the keywords Clay and Buck. My two teenage boys

(18:43):
sixteen and fourteen are on pure Talk. You can trust
them for your family as well. Plus you get an
additional fifty percent off your first month with Puretalk, America's
wireless company. We have got the Pete Hag set hearings ongoing.
I was looking Buck because my good polymarket I haven't
talked about the gambling odds in some time, and during

(19:05):
this commercial break we were on they actually have odds
on whether or not you can you expect somebody to
be confirmed, And everybody right now, with millions and millions
of dollars bet is expected to be confirmed. Up to

(19:25):
eighty percent chances for everybody. So the point on this
is not that this is one hundred percent accurate, but
if you believe somebody's going to get shot down as
a nominee, you can basically get four to one odds
that that's going to happen. In other words, you get
four times your money. And I want to just kind

(19:48):
of hammer this home because I haven't heard anybody else
talk about it yet. Watch as Democrats, recognizing that Republicans
are willing to stay strong, decide to also cast their
lot for some of these nominees. In particular, think about
the states that Trump won. There are a lot of

(20:09):
Democrat senators in those states. Fetterman, Michigan has two Democrat senators,
Wisconsin has one, and Georgia has two, which is crazy.
Arizona has two now Nevada has two. That's a lot
of targets out there in states that Trump won where

(20:33):
there are Democrat senators that I think as soon as
one of them says, hey, I'm voting, there will be
others jump on board. So what I would say to
anybody out there in the Republican Senate team is they're
looking for one of you to break. But if you
actually all stand strong and vote uniformly for the Trump nominees,

(20:54):
I think every one of them will have at least
one Democrat senator that comes on board and votes as well,
so they can claim they're bipartisan, and also to be fair,
so they can set the president, which is what I
think the president should be that by and large, when
you win an election, particularly when you win the popular
vote and all fifty states move in your direction, has
happened with Donald Trump, you should get the right to

(21:16):
pick the guys and gals you want in your cabinet.

Speaker 2 (21:20):
Well.

Speaker 3 (21:20):
Clay Elizabeth Warren, whose integrity has been a laugh line
for a long time, formerly known as Pocahontas by Donald
Trump himself. Remember when Trump was president, he actually called
their Pocahontas.

Speaker 1 (21:34):
That's the best nickname he's ever given. And there are
some good ones. Pocahontas for Elizabeth Warren is the best ever.

Speaker 3 (21:41):
But Elizabeth Warren had a little exchange here just now
during the hearing with Pete Hexad. This is twenty eight.
I want you to hear this one. Play it now.

Speaker 6 (21:49):
Mister Hackstath, you've written that after they retire, general should
be banned from working for the defense industry for ten years.
Will you put your money where your mouth is and
agree that when when you leave this job, you will
not work for the defense industry for ten years?

Speaker 5 (22:04):
Senator. It's not even a question I've thought about because
it's not one right now. It's not one my motivation
for this job.

Speaker 6 (22:10):
I understand time is short. I just need a yes
or no.

Speaker 5 (22:16):
I would consult with the President about what the policy words.

Speaker 6 (22:20):
You're quite sure that every general who serves should not
go directly into the defense industry for ten years. You're
not willing to make that same pledge. I'm not a general, Senator,
You'll be the one. Let us just be clear in
charge of the generals. So you're saying sauce for the goose,

(22:41):
but certainly not sauce for the gander.

Speaker 5 (22:44):
I would want to see what the policy that.

Speaker 3 (22:48):
It reminds me of pow Wow Chow where she got
into sauce for the Goose and sauce for the gander
by stealing Native American recipes and putting it in a
cookbook if you recall, called pow Wow Chow, yes, which
is a that's you're not even making a joke for
people who don't realize the Native American cookbook was called
pow Wow Chow.

Speaker 2 (23:09):
And I mean it is the Senator not only that fuck.

Speaker 1 (23:14):
She got her entire career because she claimed that she
was Native American, and when people criticized her, she said,
have you seen my high cheek bones?

Speaker 6 (23:25):
Like?

Speaker 1 (23:25):
I mean, this chick is crazy in many ways, somewhat smart,
but on that on that front, I actually think.

Speaker 2 (23:33):
Pete doesn't need to do that. Right.

Speaker 1 (23:37):
Pete gave up, and he probably won't say it because
I think it pointing out how much money he was
making in his mind might not be a way to
endear himself to people. But let me just tell you this,
it's public now. Pete was making over two million dollars
a year to do television for Fox News, two point

(23:58):
three million. I think he he's leaving a two point
three million dollar a year job to take one that
pays I don't know, two hundred and fifty two hundred
and eighty thousand dollars. So he's losing ninety percent of
his salary to go take this job. In theory, that
means he's giving up if he does this job for
four years, around eight nine million dollars in family income.

(24:21):
He's got six seven kids, I think. So my point
on that is, I think Pete's responds to Elizabeth Warren. Actually,
she's trying to accuse him of enriching himself. That's the
line of attack that she's using. He's trying to accuse
him of enriching himself based on the job that he's taking.
He's actually taking a ninety percent pay cut. And so

(24:42):
if I were him, that was a funny response. I'm
not a general or whatever. But the one thing you
can't accuse him of is doing this to make more money,
because he's directly giving up millions of dollars, potentially ten
million dollars over four years to take a job that
pays a fraction of that nine million dollars less. I
don't know how many people out there that are listening

(25:03):
to us right now. You may love America a lot
of people wouldn't give up ninety percent of their salary
to go serve for the United States. So it's not
only that Elizabeth Warren is not being honest in her attack,
it's that she's accusing him of doing the exact opposite
of what he's actually doing.

Speaker 3 (25:24):
She also got feisty with him over the women in
the military issue. We'll bring you that clip here momentarily,
but this.

Speaker 1 (25:35):
Question for you, Buck on the women in the military thing,
how is it controversial to say that if you're going
to be in combat, you should have to pass the
exact same physical standards as everyone else who's in combat.
Like that doesn't seem remotely controversial to me.

Speaker 3 (25:52):
It's the same cognitive dissonance that exists when you talk
about DEI and affirmative action in college admissions, which is,
we're going to have everybody hit the same standards while
we're changing the standards for certain people to come in,
like they say it and then they change it. It
is absolutely the case that when they've looked at infantry

(26:13):
combat readiness in mixed meaning you know, multiple gender or
two gender sorry, multiple gender two gender units versus all
male units, that it absolutely hurts combat readiness overall for
the unit, and that it also that women can't compete
at the same level of doing things that guys who

(26:34):
were in the Marines and the army rangers in these things.

Speaker 1 (26:37):
That doesn't seem remotely controvers Like, I don't even understand
how this is controversial. It's controversial because people live in
a fantasy land and they watch a lot of these
you know, these like CSI shows or something where some
one hundred and thirty pounds you know, former lingerie model
is like flipping guys over her shoulder and throwing karate
chops at five guys at a time.

Speaker 3 (26:57):
You know, we're like big, burly guys and they're getting
torn around. That's not how it goes in the real world.
I'm amazed at how many people are like, but she
studied jiu jitsu. I'm like, yeah, if she studied jiu
jitsu and she weighs one hundred and thirty pounds, a
two hundred pound guy is going to maul this person, Okay,
they have no chance. And the reality is that this

(27:17):
is something you see playing out in physically demanding combat
roles as well. I mean, people will say, oh, well,
what about pilots. Okay, pilots are different. Okay, you know,
vehicle driving is a different skill set. But if you're
talking about being able to carry heavy pack, move quickly,
take in coming fire, return in coming fire, women are

(27:38):
not able to compete at the same.

Speaker 2 (27:40):
By the way, this isn't just my theory.

Speaker 3 (27:41):
The Pentagon has done huge studies on it dur in
the Obama administration and it was disastrous in terms of
the change in readiness that having mixed gender combat units
resulted in.

Speaker 1 (27:55):
I mean, this has been ri is just where I
come from the world of sports. Women can't compete at
the high level of any men's sport. That's not because
I'm sexist. That's because biology is real. So if the
standards are set, and they should be high, to me,
if you're going to be in a combat role, because
it's not only your ability to defend yourself, it's also

(28:15):
somebody else has to have you have to have their back.
I can't believe that this is the line of attack
that we need that Pete Hegseth saying hey, we need
high standards for physical combat and everybody should have to
meet them, is in some way seen as an attack
on women. I mean men have the ability to kick
ass at a level that women don't. That doesn't mean

(28:37):
that some tiny percentage of women might not be able
to kick the ass of some tiny percentage of men.
That certainly can occur, but the standard has to be
really high, that doesn't That seems crazy to me to
argue otherwise.

Speaker 3 (28:47):
Well, what ends up happening is that the people who
want this because they believe in a radical gender equality,
which is part of a whole broader philosophy of the
left and the Democrats. But what they always say is, oh, no,
keep the standard the same. And then the standard is
immediately when they start having women in these world they
change the standard. And then they say, how dare you

(29:09):
say that we shouldn't have different standards, Like it's just
the same gas lighting, the same routine every time they
go through this, and people are just sick of it.
They go, no, like, we don't trust that you're not
going to change the standards. You know, there's a reason why,
you know, a woman has never become a Navy seal
despite it to me more.

Speaker 2 (29:28):
Movie, you know, twenty years ago, whatever, there are reasons
for this stuff.

Speaker 1 (29:32):
I would just also point out how many of these
quote unquote liberal women take it outside of the world
of military right now, But what's going on? Producer Alley
just pointed out with firefighters in La. If your house
is burning and your kids are trapped inside, how many
liberal women want one hundred and twenty pound women showing
up to try to rescue their family as firefighters versus

(29:54):
two hundred and twenty pound jacked badass dudes. That doesn't
seem like a tough call to me.

Speaker 3 (30:00):
Look, a lot of a lot of cops will tell you,
and that you know, this gets very testy with some people,
and some people listing Mike a little testy. But I
worked with a lot of cops, as you all know,
in the NYPD. I worked with the most seasoned detectives
in the entire NYPD and the Intel Division.

Speaker 2 (30:14):
And when you got to.

Speaker 3 (30:15):
Wrestle a you know, cartel member to the ground who's
got a few bodies in his body count, you know
it was a really dangerous individual. Not a lot of
women get that job done for law enforcement, as well
as the you know guys you have in US marshals,
et cetera. It's just this is just reality. But people
don't like reality, which is why they also clay.

Speaker 2 (30:38):
Do you remember it wasn't long ago?

Speaker 7 (30:40):
Noted scientists Neil deGrasse Tyson, noted astrophysicist, refuse to admit
that men have a physical and strength and speed advantage
over women.

Speaker 2 (30:51):
On the Bill, Marshaw would not say it, would not
say it.

Speaker 1 (30:54):
Of the only sports site in America that will say
men are bigger, stronger, and faster than women is out Kick.
I mean again, I'm not trying to insult female athletes.
Ever when I say this, they're in the top one percent.
The top one percent of female athletes are nowhere near
the top one percent of male athletes. It doesn't overlap.

(31:16):
Some women are better at basketball than some men. Some
of you listening right now could beat your husband's one
on one in basketball. That doesn't mean that the best
women are able to compete against the best men. It's
just it's crazy. And you know, one of the things
that's gone to most megaviral. I think this is one
reason why eighteen to twenty nine year old boys, I
say boys, young men are voting so overwhelmingly towards towards

(31:40):
Trump is they see the BS. You know, one of
the things that went most viral that I've done in
the last couple of years, Buck was when I offered
a million dollars to the WNBA champion team to compete
against the high school boys team state champion team of
my choice million dollar challenge. Straight up, they wouldn't do it.
Six million people watch that on TikTok because a lot

(32:04):
of boys are out there, young kids, like this is crazy.
They're being sold bs things that they know were not true.
It's a difference between Hey, we're going to treat men
and women equally and men and women are equal talent
in all facets of life. That just isn't true. You know,
investing in gold this past year would have been a
smart decision. It was up about thirty percent in value.

(32:26):
People invest in gold for a variety of reasons, but
the leading one being that gold is a way to
hold the value of your savings and four to one
K accounts over the long term. When those accounts are
all cast, they lose value as the dollar goes down
due to inflation. Amy and our audience benefited from the
rising value of gold investing last year with the help
of Birch Gold Group.

Speaker 2 (32:46):
She wrote to us.

Speaker 3 (32:47):
Saying her experience with Birch Gold was fantastic. Amy had
been considering buying precious metals with uninvested funds sitting in
an account with an old four oh one k rollover,
but she didn't know how. She heard us talking about
Birch Gold Group and texted the no that we provide
here on the show ninety eight, using my name Buck
as your promo code. Text Buck Buck to ninety eight

(33:08):
ninety eight ninety eight. Amy got a call from James
who listened to her questions, consider her goals, and she
was impressed with his knowledge and ability to explain it
all to a layperson with no investing experience to date.
So go check out what they can do for you
at the Birch Gold Group. Text my name Buck to
ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight to get your free
info kit, or go online to Birch Gold dot com

(33:31):
slash buck. That's Birch Gold dot com slash buck.

Speaker 4 (33:37):
Patriots Radio hosts a couple of regular guys, Clay Travis
and Buck Sexton them find them on the free iHeartRadio
app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 2 (33:49):
Welcome back into Clay and Buck.

Speaker 3 (33:50):
We're talking today about the hearing going on with Pete
Heg Sath a nominee for Secretary of Defense. A little
more fireworks there, well, fireworks giving you too much credit,
a little more pushback from some of these Democrats on
the Senate.

Speaker 2 (34:06):
Will bring you that coming up here shortly. And also some.

Speaker 3 (34:10):
Updates on the fire the ongoing fires in California in
Los Angeles, the Palisades Fire and others that are are
not contained. There's still are evacuation orders that are that
are coming up for people. Uh they've got five thousand
people that are fighting these fires, or five thousand I

(34:31):
think last count. So we will get into some some
updates on that and how it's going to transform the
Los Angeles area, uh demographically I think, and and just
the whole neighborhoods are gone, so things are going to
be changing there.

Speaker 2 (34:48):
We'll be discussing that coming up here. Also want to
tell you Crockett Coffee.

Speaker 3 (34:51):
If you haven't gone yet and checked it out, let
me tell you Crockett Coffee gear, which is absolutely fantastic
now available the sites. If you really want to appreciate
our heritage Rebard for Davy Crockett here go to Crocketoffee
dot com. Go to the apparel section under shop. You
got the men's Davy Adventure hoodie, the Tennessee Heritage hoodie,

(35:14):
women's Crockett crew neck sweatshirt, the baseball hat's fantastic. We're
gonna have a Trucker hat coming out soon. But the
main thing for a lot of Who's gonna be the coffee.
If you have it yet, become a subscriber, please drink
our coffee. It's delicious, it's the best, and ten percent
of the profits goes to our friends at Tunnel to
Towers Foundation. Plus as if we needed more enticement. If

(35:35):
you use code book when you subscribe this is for subscribers,
you can get a signed copy of Clay's American Playbook.
I highly recommend you do. Show hundreds and hundreds of you,
maybe even over a thousand.

Speaker 2 (35:47):
Have you already have done so, no doubt.

Speaker 1 (35:50):
I'm signing them all myself and so check out Crocketcoffee
dot com. My kids actually wear the gear. I don't
want to get them in trouble because they're allowed to
wear hoodies at their school. Usually you're supposed to be
having a polo, but in winter they can wear hoodies
and buck you had uniforms. I think at your school
probably doesn't surprise you that the boys are pretty adept

(36:11):
at figuring out little loopholes that make them clothes a
little more comfortable.

Speaker 3 (36:15):
I had like a patagony of fleece and I would
wear a T shirt underneath it, and I would just
refuse because it was always cold in the high school
that I went to, so I just never took my
fleece off. And the dean would come up to me
and be like, do you have a collar shirt underneath there?
I'd be like, sir, I'm wearing a fleece. It was
a standoff. It was a standoff every time.

Speaker 1 (36:36):
When we come back, we'll break down more of the
confirmation hearings, and we got some fun for you. How
about a saxophone national anthem. We're going to talk about
it sooner rather than or later.

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News

Advertise With Us

Follow Us On

Hosts And Creators

Clay Travis

Clay Travis

Buck Sexton

Buck Sexton

Show Links

WebsiteNewsletter

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Dateline NBC

Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2025 iHeartMedia, Inc.