August 15, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 2 of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show dives deep into the political battlegrounds shaping America’s future, with sharp analysis and bold commentary. The hour opens with breaking news on President Trump’s high-stakes meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, a pivotal moment that could reshape the global narrative on the Russia-Ukraine war. Clay and Buck speculate on the potential for an immediate ceasefire, the media fallout, and how Democrats might respond if Trump successfully brokers peace.
The conversation shifts to the redistricting wars between Texas and California, spotlighting Governor Gavin Newsom’s controversial push to redraw California’s congressional map in retaliation for Texas potentially gaining five Republican seats. The hosts dissect the political motivations behind Newsom’s move, suggesting it’s a strategic play to elevate his national profile ahead of a possible 2028 presidential run. They cite polling data showing two-thirds of Californians oppose Newsom’s redistricting plan, raising questions about its viability and impact.
Clay and Buck explore the broader implications of gerrymandering, noting that Democrats have historically benefited from aggressive redistricting, especially in blue states like New York, Illinois, and California. They argue that illegal immigration and census misallocation have given Democrats a structural advantage in congressional seat allocation, potentially swinging future elections.
The hour also features a lively debate on America’s role in Ukraine, with Buck cautioning against military entanglements and advocating for economic and material support instead. The hosts discuss NATO membership, security guarantees, and the long-term geopolitical chess game involving Putin’s longevity and strategic patience.
In a lighter segment, the show responds to a listener’s humorous critique of Buck’s unfamiliarity with NFL star Travis Kelce, sparking a playful exchange about Taylor Swift’s cultural influence and the intersection of sports and pop culture.
The hour wraps with commentary on Democratic messaging, highlighting how opposition to Trump has become the party’s defining trait. Clay and Buck argue that this reactive stance is unsustainable, especially as Trump continues to champion popular, post-partisan policies. They also mock Eric Swalwell’s remarks on crime in Washington, D.C., calling them emblematic of the party’s disconnect from reality.
Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8
For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all
of you hanging out with us. We are rolling through
the Friday edition of the program. President Trump, I believe
still en route to Alaska. I do not believe he
has landed yet. Team, if you'll let me know when
he officially a lands. Big news, of course, his meeting
with Vladimir Putin's schedule to begin at three point thirty Eastern,
(00:22):
shortly after we go off the air. We do not
know how long that meeting will go or what the
joint press conference that occurs afterwards will end up looking
and sounding like. So that will obviously dominate the news
cycle as we head into the weekend. But something that
has been a huge part of the new cycle prior
(00:44):
to the start of this week was the Texas redistricting battle.
It immediately kind of dove underneath the Washington, d c.
Rise of troops on the streets and an attempt to
limit violence which Trump put in place on Monday. And again,
I think the Putin Trump reaction and what comes out
of this meeting on Friday is certainly probably I would say,
(01:07):
going to lead even this show on Monday, because I
would assume there will be multi days of reaction and
fallout from whatever this face to face meeting actually brings
to bear. But he has arrived in Alaska, by the way,
So just an update there. He is in Alaska and
he is waiting now presumably to meet with Vladimir Putin
(01:31):
going forward, so a aspect of that story will continue
to follow. We'll see if anything other further comes out
of that. In the meantime, yesterday afternoon, Governor Gavin knew
Some announced that California is going to try to redistrict
yet again in response to Texas potentially adding five Republican seats.
(01:57):
Typically redistricting happens earlier in the decade states like California
and Texas and Illinois sorry California, New York and Illinois
that are blue states aggressively redistricted. Already, states like Massachusetts
have eliminated all Democrat congress people. There are almost no
Republican congressmen from state like Illinois, and the analysis from
(02:22):
the New York Times shows that so far Democrats have
benefited the most from redistricting. They are fed up with
what Texas might do, and now the talk is that
Gavin Newsom says he's putting redistricting on the ballot this November,
and that would allow California to cancel out Texas's actions
(02:42):
and more. This, of course, is Gavin Newsom attempting to
interject himself into the national political arena so that he
can potentially be president in twenty twenty eight. This is
very easy to see what is going on here. My
question for you, Buck, I'm not convinced that Californiaians are
going to show up and vote in massive numbers for
(03:05):
this redistricting to happen. And some of you can say, okay,
well you disagree. The data actually reflects that so far,
about two thirds of Californians, according to polling, do not
agree with this idea that Gavin Newsom is putting forward.
And also, some of these ballot referendums in general have
tended to trend more conservative in nature than many might expect.
(03:29):
For instance, they've been trying to put back in place
affirmative action policies and Californians have overwhelmingly said no. Therefore,
I'm not sure that Gavin Newsom is going to get
this massive wave of support that he is expecting in
the event that this actually goes up out as a
referendum in November. What's your take on California's attempt to
(03:53):
try to redistrict And they've already got a huge advantage
outside of the bounds of what would be expected based
on the Republican voters already, so they're just going even
further blue than they've already gone.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
I think it's part of the overall trend we see,
which is Democrats doing things that will either have minimal
impact or maybe even have some blowback. But they have
to look like they aren't just letting Trump have his
way or letting the Republicans run rough shot over them.
That's what I mostly see from this. I don't see
this as likely to and correct me if I'm wrong.
(04:28):
The redistrict in California. How much more do they think
they can already squeeze out of it if they were
to go through this. I think Gavin Newsom is much
more concerned with the press attention that he gets from
this and the fact that he just he needs to
keep his name in his mind. I'm thinking about this now,
if I were Gavin Newsom, he wants to be in
(04:49):
the headlines. He wants people to be thinking about how
Gavin Newsom is one of the biggest names in Democrat
politics because I don't think he views himself as having
to do very much to be the.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Only real option, or rather the most.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Palatable option to the overall Democrat base and the Democrat Party.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
And then the next election, which crazily enough.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Is going to be kicking off in a sense in
what eighteen months, basically not that far off from when
real presidential politics starts again. This is one of the
only things about Trump's second term that I think is
going to require a lot of adjustment, even for his
own side, is he doesn't have We're used to a
president being in office and the perception is that they'll
have eight years, or at least that's what their party
(05:38):
wants this time around.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
This is going to move pretty quickly.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
How many seats does gayvenus em even think they could
squeeze out if they did more redistricting? I mean, how
many more drops of juice can they get from the
lemon here?
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Well, I think that's a fantastic question, because again, around
forty percent of Californians vote Republican, and I know we
have this idea painting with a broad brush red state
blue state. But if you look geographically at California, it
actually becomes somewhat difficult to alienate some of these Republican
(06:13):
districts because huge swaths of California are actually ruby red.
Now they think they can get five, that's the number here,
they think they can get fill. They're basically trying to
cancel out what Texas is doing.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
But see, this is why it's it's a media it's
a media play more than anything else.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
It's Texas is you know, the.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
You know, Texas and Florida go back and forth on this,
but Texas is a bigger state.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
And you know, sorry, I have a little loyalty to
Florida over here.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
But Texas a great state and a red state and
really still I think for a lot of people the
red heartland and you know, it is our California, although
maybe we should think of it as it is their Texas.
And they're viewing this as Gavin Newsom is viewing this
as this is how I show that we're not just
gonna lay down and let this happen, right, We're gonna
(07:04):
do more here in California.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Now.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
It's funny.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Of course, the irony is that this undermines the argument
that's being made about Texas. So they're saying, you know,
it's like they're saying, you know, the refs are paid off,
and then they're turning around saying, and we're paying off
the refs in this other game because we're not gonna
let the refs get paid off in this game as well.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
You're saying that paying off refs is bad. That this
is the argument.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Is not that you do it and we don't do it.
That's not what Democrats are saying. Democrats make this claim
that jerry mandering is bad. Yes, but it's only jerry
mandering when the other guys do it. So this is
why the whole thing is preposterous. This is why sometimes
I just throw my hands up. With politics.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
It is almost impossible to point to something that one
side does that the other side never does. It is
it is, that is the game. And so what Texas
is doing is reacting later to what Democrats have already done.
And again I point to the New York Times. Basically,
if we were being one hundred percent reflective of the
(08:06):
will of the voter, the math would directly correspond to
a nationwide popular vote when it comes to seats in
the House of Representatives. So strip away the four hundred
and thirty five electoral votes, strip away straight state boundaries,
you would see that the percentages should roughly reflect what
(08:29):
the actual voter will is. In twenty twenty two, Republicans
won the nationwide popular vote in that midterm election, and
Democrats did better in terms of congressional seats than they
would have based on the nationwide vote. And we talked
about this. We expected a red wave, red tsunami. You
(08:50):
got it in New York, you got it in Florida.
It petered out as it went across the country. It
didn't end up existing to a certain extent. New York
Times went and looked and they said, well, that's because
Democrats have been really successful in their redistricting and drawing
the line's efforts. Twenty twenty four, Republicans won the House
again and won the nationwide popular vote for President of
(09:11):
the United States, and Democrats actually did better in terms
of the majority of the minority party that they got
in the House. My point on this is, if the
New York Times is pointing out they've got an advantage,
then they've got an advantage. And here is the huge
structural If we really want to have a conversation about
redistricting and the four hundred and thirty five congressional seats. Democrats,
(09:36):
by letting in ten million illegals, continue to benefit immensely
from illegal immigration populations because they're counted for purposes of
congressional seat allocation. So a state like California, if they
didn't have millions of illegal immigrants, would actually have lost
(09:57):
congressional seats. Illinois, same way, York, same way. If you
want to talk about the big, transformative, unfair political advantage
that Democrats have from a districting perspective, it's that they
count twenty million illegals. At least Tom Holman tells me
there's twenty million, So I'm using his number. Some of
(10:17):
you like a bigger number.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Fuck.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
They count all of these people that are overwhelmingly clustered
in blue cities in blue states, and that allows them
to take an additional ten to fifteen seats, which would
one hundred percent be likely to swing the difference probably
in twenty twenty six if they were to take back
the House. So that is the big structural advantage. They're
(10:41):
not the victims here. They actually benefit by jerrymandering and redistricting,
to say nothing of the fact that they actually screwed
up the twenty twenty census and misallocated there in a
substantial way, which Democrats are going to benefit from in
twenty six and twenty eight. So this is like the
bank robber claiming that they're the good guy.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
Yes, and they're gonna keep doing it because their other
argument is what they don't really have one, So they
just have to hope that they can make arguments that
are self refuting but are full of a lot of emotion,
and a lot of Republicans bad or Trump bad, really
Trump Republicans the same. You know, Trump is a standing
for all Republicans, and I think that Trump is more
(11:25):
of a mobilizer of Democrat rage than anything else. So
even though it's the Texas this is the thing, is
the Texas state legislature that's handling this issue, It's Trump's fault. Right,
You've noticed that it's anything that's bad that Republicans do anywhere.
To get Democrats to pay attention, they have to make
it seem like Donald Trump has rolled his sleeves up
(11:46):
and is in the back room, pulling all of the
strings and doing everything necessary to get this thing forward.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
I'm laughing a little bit because I'm just thinking, because
Trump is the ultimate villain, what are all those people
with Ukraine flags in their biog to do if Trump
actually gets peace in Ukraine. I do think that the
the the cognitive dissonance of Trump bringing peace to the world,
they expect him to bring World War three. If we
played the Hillary.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Clinton, can I tell you? Can I tell you what
I think they'll do.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
You're again, you're you're asking the rational question, yes, which
is if Trump, if Trump has clear success in this negotiation,
if the pressure on Russian oil got putin to the table,
cease fire happens. And I think laying this out, laying
this out is you know important now, because they're gonna move.
(12:38):
They're gonna change up everything, right, They're gonna change up
the situation, uh, no matter what, because they don't want
to give Trump the credit for it. But I think
that if he does get an irrefutable win, like if
we lay out what the win looks like, he gets
the win, what they will say is, well, it was
really all Zelenski. I think that's probably the move. That
Zelenski is the one they just they shift the phone
(13:00):
to he was doing, and remember, look, is.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
That what happened. Should the lens GA get credit for
standing up for Russian aggression? Sure, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
But they'll just use the focus shift, so they'll make
it seem like Trump was almost like a waiter bringing
them bottles of perier during the negotiation.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
I think that's a possibility to do. I think they'll
claim that the settlement actually favors Putin and Trump did
it because he's a Russian stooge. I think they'll just
pretend Ukraine never happened, they never had the bios, and
I think their brains are broken. They will say, oh,
of course Putin negotiated with Trump, that's what you would
(13:36):
expect a Russian asset to do, and he sold Ukraine
down the river and Ukraine didn't have options otherwise. That's
probably where I think they're going to have to go,
because otherwise they would have to acknowledge that their chosen leader,
Biden was an impotent failure who allowed Ukraine to be
invaded and Trump was the one who protected them, and
(13:57):
their brains won't allow them to do it. Speaking protection,
a lot of you out there right now, kids are
going back to school. My two oldest go back to
school on Monday. Many of you out there with kids
going off to high school, college, maybe they're driving for
the first time. Grandkids as well. Do you have protection
for them that's non lethal pepper sprays? How about alarms
in the house, how about alarms for the dorm rooms,
(14:19):
for the apartments some of those places that your kids
could end up living a little bit sketchy a lot
of those college towns. Maybe you want to provide them
with a little bit of protection, but you want it
to be non lethal because everybody's got friends coming in
at all hours in college towns. When your kids going
out living on their own, probably not living in great
neighborhoods those first few years. Check out Saber. They can
(14:41):
provide non lethal protection. You can hook your kid up,
you can hook your grandkid up with a lot of
awesome devices. We have every single one of them in
our own house. You can get them for your own
house as well. It's a family business. They take care
of you. The pepper Gel projective projectile launcher shape like
a pistol or a rifle depending on the model, fires
off off peppergel projectiles targeted, long distance and effective to
(15:05):
end any intruder, but also non lethal, so you don't
have to worry about somebody being injured. Decide together, what's
your most comfortable coming and relying on. Check it out
today at saberradio dot com. That's sa b r E
radio dot com. You say fifteen percent there at saberradio
dot com. That's sab R radio dot com. You can
(15:25):
also call eight four four eight two four safe. That's
eight four four eight two four safe.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
Stories of freedom, Stories of America, inspirational stories that you
unite us all each day, spend time with Clay and
buy find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
All right, welcome back in here to Clay and Buck.
Got some talkbacks, got some emails, some calls, all these
things coming on this Friday, and let's do this is
the gentleman is calling himself animal from Alcatraz?
Speaker 1 (15:59):
Is that right? Am?
Speaker 3 (16:00):
I reading this right? Talk back from gg mister Alcatraz?
Play it.
Speaker 5 (16:05):
I can't believe what I just heard on the show today.
I'm gonna need both of you to check your tea
levels and report to Master Jesse Kelly's office. The fact
that Buck didn't know who Travis Kelsey was without Taylor
Swift is the equivalent of hitting off the tea box
and not making it past the female line.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
Why do I By the way, I couldn't check what
was that?
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Why?
Speaker 3 (16:32):
Why?
Speaker 1 (16:32):
I mean said both of us need to report, I mean,
and then he only went after you.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
I'm actually, we're we're in this canoe together, buddy. All right,
one of us goes down, both of us go down.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
That is really very very funny for people who missed it.
Buck said he had no idea who Travis Kelsey was
until he started dating Taylor Swift. The implication of that,
which which I picked up after I said it, is
that because I'm such a te Swift watcher. Yes, I
was like, oh my gosh, t Swift has a new boyfriend.
In reality, what I'm saying is it became such a
(17:03):
national story when he started dating Taylor Swift that I
was like, Oh, there's this Travis Kelsey guy. Clean up
on Islebuck, Clean up on Islebuck.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
Thank you well.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Producer Ali's coming to my rescuer. She says he doesn't
know who he was either.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Yeah, that proves my point. Were you like, hell, Producer
Ali has an incredible knowledge of NFL tight ends.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
It's an interesting phrase, but I don't think I could
name right now. I don't think I could name three
tight ends in the NFL. So this is not this
is not the well that doesn't necessarily surprise me. I
guarantee you Producer Alley cannot name three tight ends in
the NFL.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Again. Actual position people not nice bottoms for all the
ladies out there, I see, but now we've got to
make sure we clarify these things.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Is people right now?
Speaker 2 (17:48):
There's this perception out there that somehow I'm a big
Taylor Swift fan. And while I do celebrate some of
her catalog, I wouldn't say that I'm like part of
t Swift Nation, you know, I just I actually like her.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
I don't have anything negative to say. Our music is
pretty good.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Politics are bad.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Our federal government has some funding problems. One of them
is social security. One week that we're recognizing the ninetieth
anniversary of our Social Security system, there's plenty of data
about how important that service will be in the future.
A bigger percentage of our population will be a retirement
age in the future, living longer lives that.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
Will require even more funding.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
Most of us don't get access to the spending, mistakes
and fraud that goes on with respect to Social Security,
but there's some It only makes the problems worse, but
there's hope for a solution. Jim Rickards, he's a fifty
year government insider. He says America is anything but broke
and the things that investors who understand why could make
a fortune of the months ahead. If the Trump administration's
future move in disregard is correct, it could solve the
(18:44):
Social Security funding problem coming down the road. Jim Rickards
believes that if you're over fifty, this could be your
last chance to create lasting wealth, regardless of politics. The
full story learning how you can profit go to Birthright
twenty twenty five dot com. That's Birthright twenty twenty five
dot com paid for by Paradigm Press.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Appreciate all of you hanging out with us. We're rolling
through the Friday edition awaiting more news from Alaska, where
President Trump and Putin will meet up in the On
the flight the way there, Trump said buck that he
would be upset if Putin didn't agree to an immediate ceasefire.
So on the gambling markets, there is a two percent
(19:24):
chance that the immediate cease fire comes to pass. So,
for those of you out there have not been paying
a lot of attention to the negotiation elements associated with
Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine's position has been, in order to
actually negotiate it into the war, we need to have
a guaranteed cease fire in place, both sides stop firing,
(19:46):
putting down their arms, and then the negotiation starts. Here's
a question for you, Buck, because I think this is
the thing that Ukraine is going to most care about.
They're going to have to give up some territory. I
don't think there's any doubt about that. Where exactly that
territory toy line is will be negotiated extensively. What kind
of guarantees, if any, should the United States make to
(20:08):
Ukraine when it comes to providing security for them going forward.
We know the mineral rights deal is there. Ukraine's biggest
concern is Russia will agree to a cease fire and
a negotiated settlement here, and then they'll just invade again.
Somewhere down the line, probably after Trump is out of office,
maybe when we get another weak Democrat in office that
(20:29):
putin feels like he can exploit to what extent. Should
America provide security guarantees over and above the mineral rights
agreement that has already been put in place. Does that
make you nervous? Ukraine obviously wants NATO. Russia is very
opposed to Ukraine being allowed to be in NATO, which
would provide more of a European security guarantee. What American
(20:51):
involvement should there be, if any, in negotiating a ceasefire,
not only for this situation, but to away Ukrainian concerns
that Putin will just invade again in another couple of years.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
I think it's going to be economic and materiel support.
But you know, we can't get into a situation where
we have some trip wire for US military. Basically we
can't offer them, which really goes to the heart of
a lot of the initial conflict here, which is membership
in NATO an Article five protection. Can't do that, I mean,
(21:29):
that would destroy the If Putin even thought that that
was something we were going to ask or demand, there
would be no negotiation at all.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
Right, that's a total red.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Line for him, and so getting to that through another
through other means, I think is just as much of
a red line.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
So how do we guarantee it?
Speaker 2 (21:45):
We say, you know, one, Clay, I think we probably
end up saying into guarantees in life. And second we
say that there'll be economic consequences and pressure and sanctions
and things like that. But unless we want to start
having our planes blow up Russians and our boys in trenches,
you know, having these little anti personnel drones flying at people,
(22:10):
which we don't want. By the way, to be very clear,
completely oppose this. There are limits to what we can do.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
Right.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
This is the thing.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
We're not willing to go to war. We're not willing
to fight a war on behalf of Ukraine. So our
guarantee of whatever this settlement is is going to have
to be something along the lines of we'll give you
a lot of guns, weapons and money and we'll be
very mad at Russia, or we're not rolling in like
the cavalry to clean up the mess.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
Here's another aspect of this that I think is significant,
and this is where the intelligence agencies would actually be useful. Unfortunately,
I'm sure there's forty eight different explanations of this question
or analysis of this question. How many more years is
putin going to have control of Russia? How healthy is
he actually, because one of the downsides of any negotiation
(22:56):
between Trump and Putin is, unfortunately we've only got Trump
for about the We're going to half more years as
president of the United States.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
Now.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
Hopefully he's followed up by someone who is of a
Trumpian ilk and not someone who is like Joe Biden.
But Putin can play the long game because he's in
a position of power, presumably maybe for another generation. What
is Putin like sixty eight, seventy years old, something like that.
I think I would think he probably has another decade. Again,
(23:23):
you don't ever know about health, maybe a generation of leadership,
so he can afford to play the long game and
presume that at some point in time there's going to
be another American president and maybe that president's going to
be weak like Biden was. Because I don't think it's
any coincidence that Putin waited until Biden was in office
to invade Ukraine, just like I don't think it's any
(23:45):
coincidence that Gaza, the Hamas occupants, some inside of Gaza
went after Israel while Biden was in office. Either. I
think they knew weakness when they saw it. I think
they were right to strategically take advantage of the Biden
administration's weakness and feckless inability to protect us and those
(24:05):
around the world.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
Yeah, I think that my expectations for this, just to
be very clear, are pretty low.
Speaker 3 (24:15):
I think that it's very likely.
Speaker 2 (24:17):
That what you'll see is some desire on both sides
to suggest there's progress, which is completely understandable, certainly on
the side of Trump, because Trump really does want progress.
We want this thing over with, right, There's no part
of Trump, there's no part of MAGA. I really think
there's no part of most of the Republican Party. You know,
(24:39):
Democrats on this one they want very clearly. Isn't weird
how this has become a partisan thing too? Yes, it
really shouldn't be partisan because you're getting beyond the normal
party lines here, other than what Trump has said about
it and what Biden has said about it. You know,
because Democrats are generally like to think of themselves, at
(24:59):
least as anti war of thows, we know that's not true.
They just tend to be more interested in wars that
have no benefit to the American people whatsoever, but make
them feel good about themselves. Now, Republicans, I'm not saying
have done a great job. You go back to the
Bush administration with why and how they're you know, running
running the war machine. But that's exactly the point, though,
(25:19):
is that you can see these things usually outside of
or a wise enough person can see these things outside
of just a straight partisan lens. But the Ukraine flag
thing was just it was almost comedic for a while there,
where you had all these people who were just switching
out their fauci syringes and masks for Ukraine flags all
(25:41):
over social media, and this is real.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
You could see this happening.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
Sometimes they have them both at the same time as
part of the transition. But we should just all want
this thing to end as quickly as possible. There's zero
benefit to America of this continuing. And this is what
I've said all along too. There's no way that Ukraine
can win, meaning kick Russia out of everywhere, so it's
(26:04):
going to have to give up some stuff. The question
is what it's going to have to give up. So
negotiation is the only way this ends, because the idea
that Russia is going to just lose is not a
real idea at all. But you got you know, was
a Pelosi said this this is this goes to this
has cut fifteen guys. Play this for a second. They're
fighting for our democracy. This is Nancy Pelosi play it.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
We want to love people of Ukraine as we command.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Them for fighting for democracy and in fighting for their
democracy to their fighting for ours as well.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
They are fighting to democracy writ large.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
This is why I think it's so amazing to contemplate.
If Trump actually gets peace and Vladimir Zolinsky comes out,
Vladimir Putin there, Zelenski and Putin press conferences, presumably Trump
would be involved with one in Ukraine and one in Russia.
I imagine they would have a joint press conference, although
(27:02):
maybe they would. But if Zelensky comes out and says
President Trump was instrumental in bringing peace to Europe, we
could not have done this without him. What in the
world are all the Ukraine bioflag people going to do.
I don't even know what flag they're going to put
up next. They can't wear masks now because they're concerned
Ice is wearing masks after wearing masks themselves for years.
(27:25):
They can't fly the Ukraine flag. They can't fly the
American flag because it's racist. I don't even know the
Pales nine flag, I guess, but what if Trump brings
peace and gods it to They're running out of things
they can stand on, and I think it's funny, but
I do think it goes to the essence of the
Democrat Party. I can tell you pretty simply what someone
(27:48):
who voted for Trump believes. America is the greatest country
in the history of the world, and we can be
even better than we have been in the past. I mean,
that's a story and a sentence for what a Trump
voter would believe. What does a Democrat BELI leave what
does the party? You ask this question, I think it's
such a good question because I think it goes to
the essence all the Democrat believes is the opposite of
(28:09):
whatever Trump says. That's not actually a foundational party, because
what we're seeing here is a lot of what Trump
says is postpartisan, meaning Trump's opposed to more murder in VC,
Democrats are now aligned against it. Trump is opposed to
the war in Ukraine continuing. He's painting Democrats into an
incredibly tiny corner. Because when you make your entire party
(28:33):
predicated on opposing Trump, what if Trump is doing as
he is now a lot of things that are very
popular and aren't directly connected to traditional notions of political parties.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
Well, I think it also it is a reminder of
what the mindset became openly at the Washington Post in
Trump's first term, where the way that they try to
hold on to were a news organization that objectively reports
the truth, but everything we say and do is geared
(29:04):
toward attacking Trump, is that whatever is true is inherently
anti Trump. And I want to be clear, that was
their philosophy. I mean, this was you we hear people
writers people the Washington Post would say this that the problem,
the the roots of anti trump ism and the reporting
(29:24):
were directly from the fact that all truth truth must
be anti Trump because he's so bad. But Clay, what
you're raising here is, well that, first of all, that's
obviously an insane belief. But just put this aside for
a second. What then happens Whenever Trump does something good,
if you're unwilling to tell the truth about it.
Speaker 3 (29:42):
You have to lie.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
So you have no room to go with right, If
everything that Trump does, if all truth is, is bad
for Trump, and Trump does a good thing, how can
you tell the truth about Trump?
Speaker 3 (29:56):
You can't.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
This is where we are with that. This is why
you're seeing on the Warren policy stuff. Well, they better
hope that he doesn't pull off something good here, because
this is like the old If Trump cured cancer, they'd
be pro cancer, Yeah they would.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
Or they would come up with some way.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
I mean there's maybe a little bit of a more
sly way for them, which is what I was alluding
to with with Zelenski, which is just to say, even
if it's even if Trump is the point man on
something and gets the win, they'll find a way to
make it someone else if they if they can't say
it's bad, it's someone else's win. Or Trump didn't really
do that, You didn't build that, you know, That's that's
(30:32):
the real move.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
Well, and again this is I think there is a
huge world to examine of groups that Trump broke because
their only position was reflexively anti Trump. There was no
nuance to it. I think the legacy media is dead.
I think it's finished. I think that the Democrat Party
(30:54):
right now as we know it is dead and buried.
It does not exist. I think the woke universe that
surrounded Trump in opposition has crumbled in essence around him too.
You cannot define yourself as being opposed to someone else,
because at some point they checkmate you. And I think
(31:17):
every day we are seeing Democrats getting checkmated. I mean,
let me play this cut for you. Eric, as we
go to break, Eric Swallwell Buck is now saying there
are no criminals in DC outside of politics. It's just
transparently ridiculous. Listen to this.
Speaker 6 (31:34):
Federal troops and federal law enforcement are coming to a
federalized Washington, d C. The stated reason crime is on
the rise. Well, I don't know if that's true, but
I know there are way more criminals in Washington, d C.
Today than there were back in early January. And there's
a direct line between a thirty four count convicted felon
(31:54):
coming to a Northwest neighborhood having other cases that disappeared
that he should have been held accountable for bringing his
seven bankruptcy and his network of other convicts and thieves
and thugs into our community. Yes, there are more criminals
in Washington, DC. Most of them are in the Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
Most of you.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
I mean, it's so ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
Well, I got a fever as a Republican and the
only prescription is more Swalwell me more of this guy.
We need Swalwell twenty four to seven out there in
the media being the He should be the guy that
Democrats turned to on everything because they will never win
another national election for the rest of their lives. I
think this is fantastic. We need more Swalwell I have.
(32:39):
I'll tell you this, I have never met a Democrat
that like this guy, that like would go, that would
go out of their way. Now maybe they defend him
or whatever because he's a Democrat sometimes, but none of
them are even vaguely uh you know pro Swallwell. I know,
I know people who are big Bernie people, Hillary people,
Obama people, everything else, now auc people, there's all these
but Swallwell Well is uh. We just need more of him.
(33:03):
We need we need him making the case all the time.
It would be a great thing for America if whenever
somebody thought what's a Democrat, it was this guy and
his uh, his esteemed.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
Record with I think he Adjustmin Crockett should pair up.
I think that's the best possible.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
They should go on together.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
They should, They really should.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Yeah, it would be it would be a good move.
I think that would be excellent, because I don't I agree.
I don't even know what he thinks.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
He's saying.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
It's so dumb that I'm not sure that he even
understands the point that he's trying to make. It's not
it's so dumb. It's not even wrong, Clay, I don't
know what it is. That's where Swowell is, all right,
we got to talk about Preborn here for a moment.
Speaker 3 (33:39):
Preborn is in a league of its own.
Speaker 2 (33:40):
This is a nonprofit saving the lives of tens of
thousands of babies every year. In fact, they've saved thirty
seven thousand unborn babies this year alone. Preborne's mission is
to save lives every day by offering pregnant moms support, love,
and the option of life for their child. The team
of people working at Preborn provide these pregnant moms with
all that assistance, and the ultrasound that they give for
(34:03):
free to these pregnant mothers is the beginning of saving
so many lives. The ultralime experience costs twenty eight dollars
per ultrasound. If you can donate twenty eight dollars today,
you'll be helping Preborn save a tiny baby's life in
the womb. Some mom is gonna have a little boy
or a little girl, and it's going to be a
huge part of it is that this ultrasound happened and
that you funded it. Preborn operates clinics and communities across
(34:26):
our nation where abortion rates are highest. To donate securely
pound two fifty and say the keyword baby. That's pound
two fifty, say baby, or go to preborn dot com,
slash buck, preborn dot com slash b u c K
sponsored by Preborn.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
Stories are freedom stories of America, inspirational stories that you
unite us all each day spend time with Clay and
buy find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
Welcome back into Clay and Buck, just giving you.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
A little update on a very important story here. I
think I'm gonna be watching the movie Rudy this weekend
to get me in the mindset because now with my
speed gun. Okay, there's video proof online you can see
we're hitting ninety five, ninety six, ninety seven mile an hour.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
Serves no problem. Those of you, by the.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
Way, who were doubters thinking it was in the sixties, Okay,
it's one thing Laura knows, and she's she's a stickler.
She knows one hundred mile an hour mark for like
for a recreational tennis player is a very few rec players,
not college players can do it. And obviously pros do it,
you know, plus thirty miles an hour, but very few
(35:39):
reck players tend to get up over one hundred, so
that's a real marker some of them play. Some of
the comments though, online were very hurtful, where they're like,
I bet you can't even get over fifty. Well, if
by fifty you mean ninety seven. Now proven with speed gun,
we are there, my friends. But now the bet does
not have a does not have a terminus, at least
not in any immediate sense. So I'm going to be
(36:00):
limbering up this shoulder this weekend, Clay, I'm gonna be
trying to get a full three extra mph on my serve.
And then there will be a victory dance celebration party
the likes of which Clay and Buck has perhaps never
seen before. Im It might even it might even be
some shirtless celebration. I don't care what it looks like
to all of you on the tennis court. Things could
(36:21):
get wild out there.
Speaker 1 (36:22):
Who is actually operating the radar gun.
Speaker 3 (36:25):
That was Carrie.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
I thought I was gonna give her guy because you
can only.
Speaker 3 (36:29):
See the hand, but I was thinking it might be carried.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
But I didn't know if you just had some random
guy at the tennis.
Speaker 2 (36:35):
I'm gonna tell I'm gonna tell you the truth about
this too. The radar gun is very true. It gets
like one out of five serves. It's actually quite annoying,
so you rarely get readings because it has to be
precisely like in line with the ball.
Speaker 3 (36:48):
So there might have been some swearing.
Speaker 2 (36:49):
But I didn't take those videos and put them up
because you know, family show, but hundreds coming
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all
of you hanging out with us. We are rolling through
the Friday edition of the program. President Trump, I believe
still en route to Alaska. I do not believe he
has landed yet. Team, if you'll let me know when
he officially a lands. Big news, of course, his meeting
with Vladimir Putin's schedule to begin at three point thirty Eastern,
(00:22):
shortly after we go off the air. We do not
know how long that meeting will go or what the
joint press conference that occurs afterwards will end up looking
and sounding like. So that will obviously dominate the news
cycle as we head into the weekend. But something that
has been a huge part of the new cycle prior
(00:44):
to the start of this week was the Texas redistricting battle.
It immediately kind of dove underneath the Washington, d c.
Rise of troops on the streets and an attempt to
limit violence which Trump put in place on Monday. And again,
I think the Putin Trump reaction and what comes out
of this meeting on Friday is certainly probably I would say,
(01:07):
going to lead even this show on Monday, because I
would assume there will be multi days of reaction and
fallout from whatever this face to face meeting actually brings
to bear. But he has arrived in Alaska, by the way,
So just an update there. He is in Alaska and
he is waiting now presumably to meet with Vladimir Putin
(01:31):
going forward, so a aspect of that story will continue
to follow. We'll see if anything other further comes out
of that. In the meantime, yesterday afternoon, Governor Gavin knew
Some announced that California is going to try to redistrict
yet again in response to Texas potentially adding five Republican seats.
(01:57):
Typically redistricting happens earlier in the decade states like California
and Texas and Illinois sorry California, New York and Illinois
that are blue states aggressively redistricted. Already, states like Massachusetts
have eliminated all Democrat congress people. There are almost no
Republican congressmen from state like Illinois, and the analysis from
(02:22):
the New York Times shows that so far Democrats have
benefited the most from redistricting. They are fed up with
what Texas might do, and now the talk is that
Gavin Newsom says he's putting redistricting on the ballot this November,
and that would allow California to cancel out Texas's actions
(02:42):
and more. This, of course, is Gavin Newsom attempting to
interject himself into the national political arena so that he
can potentially be president in twenty twenty eight. This is
very easy to see what is going on here. My
question for you, Buck, I'm not convinced that Californiaians are
going to show up and vote in massive numbers for
(03:05):
this redistricting to happen. And some of you can say, okay,
well you disagree. The data actually reflects that so far,
about two thirds of Californians, according to polling, do not
agree with this idea that Gavin Newsom is putting forward.
And also, some of these ballot referendums in general have
tended to trend more conservative in nature than many might expect.
(03:29):
For instance, they've been trying to put back in place
affirmative action policies and Californians have overwhelmingly said no. Therefore,
I'm not sure that Gavin Newsom is going to get
this massive wave of support that he is expecting in
the event that this actually goes up out as a
referendum in November. What's your take on California's attempt to
(03:53):
try to redistrict And they've already got a huge advantage
outside of the bounds of what would be expected based
on the Republican voters already, so they're just going even
further blue than they've already gone.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
I think it's part of the overall trend we see,
which is Democrats doing things that will either have minimal
impact or maybe even have some blowback. But they have
to look like they aren't just letting Trump have his
way or letting the Republicans run rough shot over them.
That's what I mostly see from this. I don't see
this as likely to and correct me if I'm wrong.
(04:28):
The redistrict in California. How much more do they think
they can already squeeze out of it if they were
to go through this. I think Gavin Newsom is much
more concerned with the press attention that he gets from
this and the fact that he just he needs to
keep his name in his mind. I'm thinking about this now,
if I were Gavin Newsom, he wants to be in
(04:49):
the headlines. He wants people to be thinking about how
Gavin Newsom is one of the biggest names in Democrat
politics because I don't think he views himself as having
to do very much to be the.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Only real option, or rather the most.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Palatable option to the overall Democrat base and the Democrat Party.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
And then the next election, which crazily enough.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Is going to be kicking off in a sense in
what eighteen months, basically not that far off from when
real presidential politics starts again. This is one of the
only things about Trump's second term that I think is
going to require a lot of adjustment, even for his
own side, is he doesn't have We're used to a
president being in office and the perception is that they'll
have eight years, or at least that's what their party
(05:38):
wants this time around.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
This is going to move pretty quickly.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
How many seats does gayvenus em even think they could
squeeze out if they did more redistricting? I mean, how
many more drops of juice can they get from the
lemon here?
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Well, I think that's a fantastic question, because again, around
forty percent of Californians vote Republican, and I know we
have this idea painting with a broad brush red state
blue state. But if you look geographically at California, it
actually becomes somewhat difficult to alienate some of these Republican
(06:13):
districts because huge swaths of California are actually ruby red.
Now they think they can get five, that's the number here,
they think they can get fill. They're basically trying to
cancel out what Texas is doing.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
But see, this is why it's it's a media it's
a media play more than anything else.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
It's Texas is you know, the.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
You know, Texas and Florida go back and forth on this,
but Texas is a bigger state.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
And you know, sorry, I have a little loyalty to
Florida over here.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
But Texas a great state and a red state and
really still I think for a lot of people the
red heartland and you know, it is our California, although
maybe we should think of it as it is their Texas.
And they're viewing this as Gavin Newsom is viewing this
as this is how I show that we're not just
gonna lay down and let this happen, right, We're gonna
(07:04):
do more here in California.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Now.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
It's funny.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Of course, the irony is that this undermines the argument
that's being made about Texas. So they're saying, you know,
it's like they're saying, you know, the refs are paid off,
and then they're turning around saying, and we're paying off
the refs in this other game because we're not gonna
let the refs get paid off in this game as well.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
You're saying that paying off refs is bad. That this
is the argument.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Is not that you do it and we don't do it.
That's not what Democrats are saying. Democrats make this claim
that jerry mandering is bad. Yes, but it's only jerry
mandering when the other guys do it. So this is
why the whole thing is preposterous. This is why sometimes
I just throw my hands up. With politics.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
It is almost impossible to point to something that one
side does that the other side never does. It is
it is, that is the game. And so what Texas
is doing is reacting later to what Democrats have already done.
And again I point to the New York Times. Basically,
if we were being one hundred percent reflective of the
(08:06):
will of the voter, the math would directly correspond to
a nationwide popular vote when it comes to seats in
the House of Representatives. So strip away the four hundred
and thirty five electoral votes, strip away straight state boundaries,
you would see that the percentages should roughly reflect what
(08:29):
the actual voter will is. In twenty twenty two, Republicans
won the nationwide popular vote in that midterm election, and
Democrats did better in terms of congressional seats than they
would have based on the nationwide vote. And we talked
about this. We expected a red wave, red tsunami. You
(08:50):
got it in New York, you got it in Florida.
It petered out as it went across the country. It
didn't end up existing to a certain extent. New York
Times went and looked and they said, well, that's because
Democrats have been really successful in their redistricting and drawing
the line's efforts. Twenty twenty four, Republicans won the House
again and won the nationwide popular vote for President of
(09:11):
the United States, and Democrats actually did better in terms
of the majority of the minority party that they got
in the House. My point on this is, if the
New York Times is pointing out they've got an advantage,
then they've got an advantage. And here is the huge
structural If we really want to have a conversation about
redistricting and the four hundred and thirty five congressional seats. Democrats,
(09:36):
by letting in ten million illegals, continue to benefit immensely
from illegal immigration populations because they're counted for purposes of
congressional seat allocation. So a state like California, if they
didn't have millions of illegal immigrants, would actually have lost
(09:57):
congressional seats. Illinois, same way, York, same way. If you
want to talk about the big, transformative, unfair political advantage
that Democrats have from a districting perspective, it's that they
count twenty million illegals. At least Tom Holman tells me
there's twenty million, So I'm using his number. Some of
(10:17):
you like a bigger number.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Fuck.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
They count all of these people that are overwhelmingly clustered
in blue cities in blue states, and that allows them
to take an additional ten to fifteen seats, which would
one hundred percent be likely to swing the difference probably
in twenty twenty six if they were to take back
the House. So that is the big structural advantage. They're
(10:41):
not the victims here. They actually benefit by jerrymandering and redistricting,
to say nothing of the fact that they actually screwed
up the twenty twenty census and misallocated there in a
substantial way, which Democrats are going to benefit from in
twenty six and twenty eight. So this is like the
bank robber claiming that they're the good guy.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
Yes, and they're gonna keep doing it because their other
argument is what they don't really have one, So they
just have to hope that they can make arguments that
are self refuting but are full of a lot of emotion,
and a lot of Republicans bad or Trump bad, really
Trump Republicans the same. You know, Trump is a standing
for all Republicans, and I think that Trump is more
(11:25):
of a mobilizer of Democrat rage than anything else. So
even though it's the Texas this is the thing, is
the Texas state legislature that's handling this issue, It's Trump's fault. Right,
You've noticed that it's anything that's bad that Republicans do anywhere.
To get Democrats to pay attention, they have to make
it seem like Donald Trump has rolled his sleeves up
(11:46):
and is in the back room, pulling all of the
strings and doing everything necessary to get this thing forward.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
I'm laughing a little bit because I'm just thinking, because
Trump is the ultimate villain, what are all those people
with Ukraine flags in their biog to do if Trump
actually gets peace in Ukraine. I do think that the
the the cognitive dissonance of Trump bringing peace to the world,
they expect him to bring World War three. If we
played the Hillary.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Clinton, can I tell you? Can I tell you what
I think they'll do.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
You're again, you're you're asking the rational question, yes, which
is if Trump, if Trump has clear success in this negotiation,
if the pressure on Russian oil got putin to the table,
cease fire happens. And I think laying this out, laying
this out is you know important now, because they're gonna move.
(12:38):
They're gonna change up everything, right, They're gonna change up
the situation, uh, no matter what, because they don't want
to give Trump the credit for it. But I think
that if he does get an irrefutable win, like if
we lay out what the win looks like, he gets
the win, what they will say is, well, it was
really all Zelenski. I think that's probably the move. That
Zelenski is the one they just they shift the phone
(13:00):
to he was doing, and remember, look, is.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
That what happened. Should the lens GA get credit for
standing up for Russian aggression? Sure, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
But they'll just use the focus shift, so they'll make
it seem like Trump was almost like a waiter bringing
them bottles of perier during the negotiation.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
I think that's a possibility to do. I think they'll
claim that the settlement actually favors Putin and Trump did
it because he's a Russian stooge. I think they'll just
pretend Ukraine never happened, they never had the bios, and
I think their brains are broken. They will say, oh,
of course Putin negotiated with Trump, that's what you would
(13:36):
expect a Russian asset to do, and he sold Ukraine
down the river and Ukraine didn't have options otherwise. That's
probably where I think they're going to have to go,
because otherwise they would have to acknowledge that their chosen leader,
Biden was an impotent failure who allowed Ukraine to be
invaded and Trump was the one who protected them, and
(13:57):
their brains won't allow them to do it. Speaking protection,
a lot of you out there right now, kids are
going back to school. My two oldest go back to
school on Monday. Many of you out there with kids
going off to high school, college, maybe they're driving for
the first time. Grandkids as well. Do you have protection
for them that's non lethal pepper sprays? How about alarms
in the house, how about alarms for the dorm rooms,
(14:19):
for the apartments some of those places that your kids
could end up living a little bit sketchy a lot
of those college towns. Maybe you want to provide them
with a little bit of protection, but you want it
to be non lethal because everybody's got friends coming in
at all hours in college towns. When your kids going
out living on their own, probably not living in great
neighborhoods those first few years. Check out Saber. They can
(14:41):
provide non lethal protection. You can hook your kid up,
you can hook your grandkid up with a lot of
awesome devices. We have every single one of them in
our own house. You can get them for your own
house as well. It's a family business. They take care
of you. The pepper Gel projective projectile launcher shape like
a pistol or a rifle depending on the model, fires
off off peppergel projectiles targeted, long distance and effective to
(15:05):
end any intruder, but also non lethal, so you don't
have to worry about somebody being injured. Decide together, what's
your most comfortable coming and relying on. Check it out
today at saberradio dot com. That's sa b r E
radio dot com. You say fifteen percent there at saberradio
dot com. That's sab R radio dot com. You can
(15:25):
also call eight four four eight two four safe. That's
eight four four eight two four safe.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
Stories of freedom, Stories of America, inspirational stories that you
unite us all each day, spend time with Clay and
buy find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
All right, welcome back in here to Clay and Buck.
Got some talkbacks, got some emails, some calls, all these
things coming on this Friday, and let's do this is
the gentleman is calling himself animal from Alcatraz?
Speaker 1 (15:59):
Is that right? Am?
Speaker 3 (16:00):
I reading this right? Talk back from gg mister Alcatraz?
Play it.
Speaker 5 (16:05):
I can't believe what I just heard on the show today.
I'm gonna need both of you to check your tea
levels and report to Master Jesse Kelly's office. The fact
that Buck didn't know who Travis Kelsey was without Taylor
Swift is the equivalent of hitting off the tea box
and not making it past the female line.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
Why do I By the way, I couldn't check what
was that?
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Why?
Speaker 3 (16:32):
Why?
Speaker 1 (16:32):
I mean said both of us need to report, I mean,
and then he only went after you.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
I'm actually, we're we're in this canoe together, buddy. All right,
one of us goes down, both of us go down.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
That is really very very funny for people who missed it.
Buck said he had no idea who Travis Kelsey was
until he started dating Taylor Swift. The implication of that,
which which I picked up after I said it, is
that because I'm such a te Swift watcher. Yes, I
was like, oh my gosh, t Swift has a new boyfriend.
In reality, what I'm saying is it became such a
(17:03):
national story when he started dating Taylor Swift that I
was like, Oh, there's this Travis Kelsey guy. Clean up
on Islebuck, Clean up on Islebuck.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
Thank you well.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Producer Ali's coming to my rescuer. She says he doesn't
know who he was either.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Yeah, that proves my point. Were you like, hell, Producer
Ali has an incredible knowledge of NFL tight ends.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
It's an interesting phrase, but I don't think I could
name right now. I don't think I could name three
tight ends in the NFL. So this is not this
is not the well that doesn't necessarily surprise me. I
guarantee you Producer Alley cannot name three tight ends in
the NFL.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Again. Actual position people not nice bottoms for all the
ladies out there, I see, but now we've got to
make sure we clarify these things.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Is people right now?
Speaker 2 (17:48):
There's this perception out there that somehow I'm a big
Taylor Swift fan. And while I do celebrate some of
her catalog, I wouldn't say that I'm like part of
t Swift Nation, you know, I just I actually like her.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
I don't have anything negative to say. Our music is
pretty good.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Politics are bad.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Our federal government has some funding problems. One of them
is social security. One week that we're recognizing the ninetieth
anniversary of our Social Security system, there's plenty of data
about how important that service will be in the future.
A bigger percentage of our population will be a retirement
age in the future, living longer lives that.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
Will require even more funding.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
Most of us don't get access to the spending, mistakes
and fraud that goes on with respect to Social Security,
but there's some It only makes the problems worse, but
there's hope for a solution. Jim Rickards, he's a fifty
year government insider. He says America is anything but broke
and the things that investors who understand why could make
a fortune of the months ahead. If the Trump administration's
future move in disregard is correct, it could solve the
(18:44):
Social Security funding problem coming down the road. Jim Rickards
believes that if you're over fifty, this could be your
last chance to create lasting wealth, regardless of politics. The
full story learning how you can profit go to Birthright
twenty twenty five dot com. That's Birthright twenty twenty five
dot com paid for by Paradigm Press.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Appreciate all of you hanging out with us. We're rolling
through the Friday edition awaiting more news from Alaska, where
President Trump and Putin will meet up in the On
the flight the way there, Trump said buck that he
would be upset if Putin didn't agree to an immediate ceasefire.
So on the gambling markets, there is a two percent
(19:24):
chance that the immediate cease fire comes to pass. So,
for those of you out there have not been paying
a lot of attention to the negotiation elements associated with
Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine's position has been, in order to
actually negotiate it into the war, we need to have
a guaranteed cease fire in place, both sides stop firing,
(19:46):
putting down their arms, and then the negotiation starts. Here's
a question for you, Buck, because I think this is
the thing that Ukraine is going to most care about.
They're going to have to give up some territory. I
don't think there's any doubt about that. Where exactly that
territory toy line is will be negotiated extensively. What kind
of guarantees, if any, should the United States make to
(20:08):
Ukraine when it comes to providing security for them going forward.
We know the mineral rights deal is there. Ukraine's biggest
concern is Russia will agree to a cease fire and
a negotiated settlement here, and then they'll just invade again.
Somewhere down the line, probably after Trump is out of office,
maybe when we get another weak Democrat in office that
(20:29):
putin feels like he can exploit to what extent. Should
America provide security guarantees over and above the mineral rights
agreement that has already been put in place. Does that
make you nervous? Ukraine obviously wants NATO. Russia is very
opposed to Ukraine being allowed to be in NATO, which
would provide more of a European security guarantee. What American
(20:51):
involvement should there be, if any, in negotiating a ceasefire,
not only for this situation, but to away Ukrainian concerns
that Putin will just invade again in another couple of years.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
I think it's going to be economic and materiel support.
But you know, we can't get into a situation where
we have some trip wire for US military. Basically we
can't offer them, which really goes to the heart of
a lot of the initial conflict here, which is membership
in NATO an Article five protection. Can't do that, I mean,
(21:29):
that would destroy the If Putin even thought that that
was something we were going to ask or demand, there
would be no negotiation at all.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
Right, that's a total red.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Line for him, and so getting to that through another
through other means, I think is just as much of
a red line.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
So how do we guarantee it?
Speaker 2 (21:45):
We say, you know, one, Clay, I think we probably
end up saying into guarantees in life. And second we
say that there'll be economic consequences and pressure and sanctions
and things like that. But unless we want to start
having our planes blow up Russians and our boys in trenches,
you know, having these little anti personnel drones flying at people,
(22:10):
which we don't want. By the way, to be very clear,
completely oppose this. There are limits to what we can do.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
Right.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
This is the thing.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
We're not willing to go to war. We're not willing
to fight a war on behalf of Ukraine. So our
guarantee of whatever this settlement is is going to have
to be something along the lines of we'll give you
a lot of guns, weapons and money and we'll be
very mad at Russia, or we're not rolling in like
the cavalry to clean up the mess.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
Here's another aspect of this that I think is significant,
and this is where the intelligence agencies would actually be useful. Unfortunately,
I'm sure there's forty eight different explanations of this question
or analysis of this question. How many more years is
putin going to have control of Russia? How healthy is
he actually, because one of the downsides of any negotiation
(22:56):
between Trump and Putin is, unfortunately we've only got Trump
for about the We're going to half more years as
president of the United States.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
Now.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
Hopefully he's followed up by someone who is of a
Trumpian ilk and not someone who is like Joe Biden.
But Putin can play the long game because he's in
a position of power, presumably maybe for another generation. What
is Putin like sixty eight, seventy years old, something like that.
I think I would think he probably has another decade. Again,
(23:23):
you don't ever know about health, maybe a generation of leadership,
so he can afford to play the long game and
presume that at some point in time there's going to
be another American president and maybe that president's going to
be weak like Biden was. Because I don't think it's
any coincidence that Putin waited until Biden was in office
to invade Ukraine, just like I don't think it's any
(23:45):
coincidence that Gaza, the Hamas occupants, some inside of Gaza
went after Israel while Biden was in office. Either. I
think they knew weakness when they saw it. I think
they were right to strategically take advantage of the Biden
administration's weakness and feckless inability to protect us and those
(24:05):
around the world.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
Yeah, I think that my expectations for this, just to
be very clear, are pretty low.
Speaker 3 (24:15):
I think that it's very likely.
Speaker 2 (24:17):
That what you'll see is some desire on both sides
to suggest there's progress, which is completely understandable, certainly on
the side of Trump, because Trump really does want progress.
We want this thing over with, right, There's no part
of Trump, there's no part of MAGA. I really think
there's no part of most of the Republican Party. You know,
(24:39):
Democrats on this one they want very clearly. Isn't weird
how this has become a partisan thing too? Yes, it
really shouldn't be partisan because you're getting beyond the normal
party lines here, other than what Trump has said about
it and what Biden has said about it. You know,
because Democrats are generally like to think of themselves, at
(24:59):
least as anti war of thows, we know that's not true.
They just tend to be more interested in wars that
have no benefit to the American people whatsoever, but make
them feel good about themselves. Now, Republicans, I'm not saying
have done a great job. You go back to the
Bush administration with why and how they're you know, running
running the war machine. But that's exactly the point, though,
(25:19):
is that you can see these things usually outside of
or a wise enough person can see these things outside
of just a straight partisan lens. But the Ukraine flag
thing was just it was almost comedic for a while there,
where you had all these people who were just switching
out their fauci syringes and masks for Ukraine flags all
(25:41):
over social media, and this is real.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
You could see this happening.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
Sometimes they have them both at the same time as
part of the transition. But we should just all want
this thing to end as quickly as possible. There's zero
benefit to America of this continuing. And this is what
I've said all along too. There's no way that Ukraine
can win, meaning kick Russia out of everywhere, so it's
(26:04):
going to have to give up some stuff. The question
is what it's going to have to give up. So
negotiation is the only way this ends, because the idea
that Russia is going to just lose is not a
real idea at all. But you got you know, was
a Pelosi said this this is this goes to this
has cut fifteen guys. Play this for a second. They're
fighting for our democracy. This is Nancy Pelosi play it.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
We want to love people of Ukraine as we command.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Them for fighting for democracy and in fighting for their
democracy to their fighting for ours as well.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
They are fighting to democracy writ large.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
This is why I think it's so amazing to contemplate.
If Trump actually gets peace and Vladimir Zolinsky comes out,
Vladimir Putin there, Zelenski and Putin press conferences, presumably Trump
would be involved with one in Ukraine and one in Russia.
I imagine they would have a joint press conference, although
(27:02):
maybe they would. But if Zelensky comes out and says
President Trump was instrumental in bringing peace to Europe, we
could not have done this without him. What in the
world are all the Ukraine bioflag people going to do.
I don't even know what flag they're going to put
up next. They can't wear masks now because they're concerned
Ice is wearing masks after wearing masks themselves for years.
(27:25):
They can't fly the Ukraine flag. They can't fly the
American flag because it's racist. I don't even know the
Pales nine flag, I guess, but what if Trump brings
peace and gods it to They're running out of things
they can stand on, and I think it's funny, but
I do think it goes to the essence of the
Democrat Party. I can tell you pretty simply what someone
(27:48):
who voted for Trump believes. America is the greatest country
in the history of the world, and we can be
even better than we have been in the past. I mean,
that's a story and a sentence for what a Trump
voter would believe. What does a Democrat BELI leave what
does the party? You ask this question, I think it's
such a good question because I think it goes to
the essence all the Democrat believes is the opposite of
(28:09):
whatever Trump says. That's not actually a foundational party, because
what we're seeing here is a lot of what Trump
says is postpartisan, meaning Trump's opposed to more murder in VC,
Democrats are now aligned against it. Trump is opposed to
the war in Ukraine continuing. He's painting Democrats into an
incredibly tiny corner. Because when you make your entire party
(28:33):
predicated on opposing Trump, what if Trump is doing as
he is now a lot of things that are very
popular and aren't directly connected to traditional notions of political parties.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
Well, I think it also it is a reminder of
what the mindset became openly at the Washington Post in
Trump's first term, where the way that they try to
hold on to were a news organization that objectively reports
the truth, but everything we say and do is geared
(29:04):
toward attacking Trump, is that whatever is true is inherently
anti Trump. And I want to be clear, that was
their philosophy. I mean, this was you we hear people
writers people the Washington Post would say this that the problem,
the the roots of anti trump ism and the reporting
(29:24):
were directly from the fact that all truth truth must
be anti Trump because he's so bad. But Clay, what
you're raising here is, well that, first of all, that's
obviously an insane belief. But just put this aside for
a second. What then happens Whenever Trump does something good,
if you're unwilling to tell the truth about it.
Speaker 3 (29:42):
You have to lie.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
So you have no room to go with right, If
everything that Trump does, if all truth is, is bad
for Trump, and Trump does a good thing, how can
you tell the truth about Trump?
Speaker 3 (29:56):
You can't.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
This is where we are with that. This is why
you're seeing on the Warren policy stuff. Well, they better
hope that he doesn't pull off something good here, because
this is like the old If Trump cured cancer, they'd
be pro cancer, Yeah they would.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
Or they would come up with some way.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
I mean there's maybe a little bit of a more
sly way for them, which is what I was alluding
to with with Zelenski, which is just to say, even
if it's even if Trump is the point man on
something and gets the win, they'll find a way to
make it someone else if they if they can't say
it's bad, it's someone else's win. Or Trump didn't really
do that, You didn't build that, you know, That's that's
(30:32):
the real move.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
Well, and again this is I think there is a
huge world to examine of groups that Trump broke because
their only position was reflexively anti Trump. There was no
nuance to it. I think the legacy media is dead.
I think it's finished. I think that the Democrat Party
(30:54):
right now as we know it is dead and buried.
It does not exist. I think the woke universe that
surrounded Trump in opposition has crumbled in essence around him too.
You cannot define yourself as being opposed to someone else,
because at some point they checkmate you. And I think
(31:17):
every day we are seeing Democrats getting checkmated. I mean,
let me play this cut for you. Eric, as we
go to break, Eric Swallwell Buck is now saying there
are no criminals in DC outside of politics. It's just
transparently ridiculous. Listen to this.
Speaker 6 (31:34):
Federal troops and federal law enforcement are coming to a
federalized Washington, d C. The stated reason crime is on
the rise. Well, I don't know if that's true, but
I know there are way more criminals in Washington, d C.
Today than there were back in early January. And there's
a direct line between a thirty four count convicted felon
(31:54):
coming to a Northwest neighborhood having other cases that disappeared
that he should have been held accountable for bringing his
seven bankruptcy and his network of other convicts and thieves
and thugs into our community. Yes, there are more criminals
in Washington, DC. Most of them are in the Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
Most of you.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
I mean, it's so ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
Well, I got a fever as a Republican and the
only prescription is more Swalwell me more of this guy.
We need Swalwell twenty four to seven out there in
the media being the He should be the guy that
Democrats turned to on everything because they will never win
another national election for the rest of their lives. I
think this is fantastic. We need more Swalwell I have.
(32:39):
I'll tell you this, I have never met a Democrat
that like this guy, that like would go, that would
go out of their way. Now maybe they defend him
or whatever because he's a Democrat sometimes, but none of
them are even vaguely uh you know pro Swallwell. I know,
I know people who are big Bernie people, Hillary people,
Obama people, everything else, now auc people, there's all these
but Swallwell Well is uh. We just need more of him.
(33:03):
We need we need him making the case all the time.
It would be a great thing for America if whenever
somebody thought what's a Democrat, it was this guy and
his uh, his esteemed.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
Record with I think he Adjustmin Crockett should pair up.
I think that's the best possible.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
They should go on together.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
They should, They really should.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Yeah, it would be it would be a good move.
I think that would be excellent, because I don't I agree.
I don't even know what he thinks.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
He's saying.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
It's so dumb that I'm not sure that he even
understands the point that he's trying to make. It's not
it's so dumb. It's not even wrong, Clay, I don't
know what it is. That's where Swowell is, all right,
we got to talk about Preborn here for a moment.
Speaker 3 (33:39):
Preborn is in a league of its own.
Speaker 2 (33:40):
This is a nonprofit saving the lives of tens of
thousands of babies every year. In fact, they've saved thirty
seven thousand unborn babies this year alone. Preborne's mission is
to save lives every day by offering pregnant moms support, love,
and the option of life for their child. The team
of people working at Preborn provide these pregnant moms with
all that assistance, and the ultrasound that they give for
(34:03):
free to these pregnant mothers is the beginning of saving
so many lives. The ultralime experience costs twenty eight dollars
per ultrasound. If you can donate twenty eight dollars today,
you'll be helping Preborn save a tiny baby's life in
the womb. Some mom is gonna have a little boy
or a little girl, and it's going to be a
huge part of it is that this ultrasound happened and
that you funded it. Preborn operates clinics and communities across
(34:26):
our nation where abortion rates are highest. To donate securely
pound two fifty and say the keyword baby. That's pound
two fifty, say baby, or go to preborn dot com,
slash buck, preborn dot com slash b u c K
sponsored by Preborn.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
Stories are freedom stories of America, inspirational stories that you
unite us all each day spend time with Clay and
buy find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever
you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
Welcome back into Clay and Buck, just giving you.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
A little update on a very important story here. I
think I'm gonna be watching the movie Rudy this weekend
to get me in the mindset because now with my
speed gun. Okay, there's video proof online you can see
we're hitting ninety five, ninety six, ninety seven mile an hour.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
Serves no problem. Those of you, by the.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
Way, who were doubters thinking it was in the sixties, Okay,
it's one thing Laura knows, and she's she's a stickler.
She knows one hundred mile an hour mark for like
for a recreational tennis player is a very few rec players,
not college players can do it. And obviously pros do it,
you know, plus thirty miles an hour, but very few
(35:39):
reck players tend to get up over one hundred, so
that's a real marker some of them play. Some of
the comments though, online were very hurtful, where they're like,
I bet you can't even get over fifty. Well, if
by fifty you mean ninety seven. Now proven with speed gun,
we are there, my friends. But now the bet does
not have a does not have a terminus, at least
not in any immediate sense. So I'm going to be
(36:00):
limbering up this shoulder this weekend, Clay, I'm gonna be
trying to get a full three extra mph on my serve.
And then there will be a victory dance celebration party
the likes of which Clay and Buck has perhaps never
seen before. Im It might even it might even be
some shirtless celebration. I don't care what it looks like
to all of you on the tennis court. Things could
(36:21):
get wild out there.
Speaker 1 (36:22):
Who is actually operating the radar gun.
Speaker 3 (36:25):
That was Carrie.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
I thought I was gonna give her guy because you
can only.
Speaker 3 (36:29):
See the hand, but I was thinking it might be carried.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
But I didn't know if you just had some random
guy at the tennis.
Speaker 2 (36:35):
I'm gonna tell I'm gonna tell you the truth about
this too. The radar gun is very true. It gets
like one out of five serves. It's actually quite annoying,
so you rarely get readings because it has to be
precisely like in line with the ball.
Speaker 3 (36:48):
So there might have been some swearing.
Speaker 2 (36:49):
But I didn't take those videos and put them up
because you know, family show, but hundreds coming
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
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
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!