August 14, 2024 • 36 mins
Elbridge Colby, former Department of Defense official, discusses what foreign policy could look like under a Harris-Walz administration. Elizabeth Warren calls for government regulation of housing prices. Pollster Frank Luntz tells CNN Trump is doing better with union voters than any Republican in decades. Buck wishes Clay and Lara a very happy 20th anniversary. Hunter Biden's Ukraine corruption revealed now that Biden's out.
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 (00:00):
All right, everybody, third hour of play and Buck kicks
off right now.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Thanks so much for being here with us.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
We've been talking a lot today about whatever we can
figure out when it comes to the Harris walls of policies,
and one area where it's really going to be opaque,
maybe nonexistent, is foreign policy. Let's talk to our friend
Bridge Colby about this for a moment. He is a
(00:28):
principal of the Marathon initiative and he's also a former
Pentagon official under the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Mister Bridge Colby, great to have you back.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Great to be with you. All right, so let's start
with the I think we can just take as a
given that there hasn't been a lot of specifics from
the Kamala campaign about what their foreign policy would be.
But if we're going to assume it is an extension
of the Biden policy and then add in whatever specifics
(00:58):
we can divine from the statements that have been made
on her behalf, Really, what do we know about what
a what a Kabala Harris Tim Wall's foreign policy would
look like?
Speaker 3 (01:11):
Well, I mean, we don't know much. And don't take
this from you and me.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
I think the Wall Street Journal actually ran a piece
like a week or two ago saying people just don't
know what she stands for. And of course she's you know,
moving off of positions that she did take, so it's
really all speculation.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
What I would say is my read is that she's.
Speaker 4 (01:31):
Basically going to be like closer to a standard issue
Democratic Party sort of activist of the contemporary period.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
So I'm just, you know.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
Cars on the table not a big fan of President
Biden said the least. But President Biden, you know, does
kind of at least he thinks of himself, and he
tries to harken back to sort of an earlier period.
Obviously his you know, historically his close relationship to Israel,
the connection to NATO and so forth. And if you
look at some of his top leadership, Jake John Finer,
(02:01):
Kirk Campbell, Eli Rattner, Frank Kendall, a lot of these people,
you know, I mean, I have my criticisms of them,
but I you know, I think they're not dreamy idealists,
you know, to the to the contrary. So I think
Kamala Harris, what we can see her top person, for instance,
is a guy named Phil Gordon. He was in the
Obama administration was in the Clinton administration. You know, for instance,
(02:23):
he signed a letter that was put out in the
Washington Post about five years ago, and if you read
the letter about China. If you read the letter, a
lot of it seems kind of unobjectionable to it because
they kind of create fake straw men. But it was
basically written to push back on the shift on China
that that was happening under the Trump administration that you know,
Jake Sullivan and Kirk Campbell and these guys have tried
(02:43):
to take over. I mean, we have a debate about
who's better at it, but that's what leads me to
think like we should sort of expect more like the
center of this sort of democratic party than what we've gotten,
even from Joe Biden, which is which is pretty darn progressive,
and so that worries me. You know, I know she,
for instance, a few years ago, she said she wants
to cut the defense budget. I mean, I'm not one
of these people is out there saying, which triple the
(03:04):
defense budget, but the cutting the defense budget in this time,
that's pretty worrying. So again, a lot of this is
speculation and inference, but I think she's going to be
more sort of progressive even than Biden.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
I mean, I would offer, just from the political pugilist
side of this equation, that it's supposed to be this
is what they want, which is that the foreign policy
is whatever they have to say it is in the minute,
and nobody actually knows what it is, So then it's
a harder target, do you know what I mean? It's
you know, you're you're sort of punching at the wind.
(03:35):
And and I think that that's a larger theme in
the campaign overall. But let's drill down then into reality
and the here and now for a second.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
On the foreign policy scene, one thing.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
That well, I'm a little bit surprised.
Speaker 4 (03:49):
Yea, mind if I say one thing just on that
peah of course, it is just you know, look, I
think you're putting your finger on something, which is we
are in an exceptionally dangerous period where we've got a
wild mismatch between a rhetoric that Biden and others have
gotten us into and the fact that there are multiple
wars around the world and the resources that we are
putting at that problem in terms of the defense budget
(04:10):
and so forth.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
And the American people are willing to put it at
the problem.
Speaker 4 (04:13):
The New York Times even was reporting today that the
Russians and Chinese are co op collaborating more on military
operations than ever before. And so President Trump, I think,
is putting something out there saying we're.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
In the verge of World War three.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
We need to be strong, but we also need to
use the military sparingly, as I think the Platform correctly said,
and I mean, I agree with that, but that's a
serious message in a very serious time. We don't have
time for this kind of fluff where people are just
kind of message testing it. We've got If you're going
to pursue the kind of ridiculous in my well, the
overly expansive Biden approach, you got to back that up
(04:47):
with big defense spending increases.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
You got to do X y Z.
Speaker 4 (04:51):
She's showing none of that, so she's not having a
political mandate, so she's you know, in a sense, like
the analogy I used, we're heading towards the Titanic, at
least offer us a way to not hit the iceberg,
and here we're just having to guess at what the
captain is proposing as we hurtle towards the iceberg. Whereas
I think President Trump and Senator Vance are offering a
very clear and I think very common sense and the
(05:12):
right approach, but.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
At minimum should be able to evaluate. Isn't that what
democracy is about?
Speaker 1 (05:16):
I mean, come on, right, well, as you can see
everyone can see I think now pretty clearly on one
of the hotspot issues, which is Israel Hamas slash Hesbala
slash Iran. The Democrats that they want to just have
a deafening silence on this to degree they can right
before the election, because they can't have it both ways,
(05:37):
and for their electorate they need to have it both ways,
and that's that's going to be a challenge for them.
We're speaking of Bridge Colby, principal of the Marathon initiative. Bridge,
tell me about this incursion into Kursk and the Ukraine
front and how this has changed.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Is this a big deal? I'm actually a little surprised.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Given all the you know, Slava Ukraine and the flags
and everything we see from Democrats. There's not more talk
about this right now, but I guess it's just full
throttle Kamala is like you know, Jesus or whatever. So
what does this mean that there's been a counter offensive
by Ukraine in your Russian territory.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
Well, just parenthetically on that.
Speaker 4 (06:13):
I think David Sachs put this out that like the
Kamala image on the front of Time, where she actually
does kind of look like a religious icon.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
The most important part was that she declined to comment
for the article.
Speaker 4 (06:25):
Everything you talked about, Yes, yes, it's surreal, it's like
beyond mockery.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
But it's a great question.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
I mean, I think I was certainly surprised taken Aback,
I would say impressed by the Ukrainians prowess. I think
we have yet to figure out what's going on. Zelenski
started talking about in others Ukrainians senior leaders. It's not
immediately clear, entirely clear to me what their goals are.
Are they trying to like discombobulate the Russians. Are they
trying to seize territory to hold his leverage for future negotiations,
(06:54):
That's what Putin was suggesting. Are they trying to kind
of change the narrative away from you know, the sort
of the steady progress that the Russians are making in
the main theater, which in the East. I have to
say I'm skeptical and i'd probably even go farther. I
don't think that this is going to change the fundamentals,
you know. I mean, and even in the time New
(07:16):
York Times reporting this morning, there's real questions. American officials
were apparently saying off the record as they usually do,
or sort of anonymously, you know, we're not sure that
the Ukrainians made the best decision. We're not exactly sure
what they're trend to say. But I think the jury
is still out. But look, I think what we've seen
in Ukraine over the last two and a half years
plus is there's no fancy, kind of decisive blitzkrieg style,
(07:39):
you know, thing that totally transforms. It didn't happen for
the Russians at the beginning, it didn't happen for the
Ukrainians in late twenty twenty two or in the big
counter offensive in twenty twenty three, and so it's still
a matter of numbers and resolve, and I think, unfortunately
that favors the Russians. And so this might help, you know,
the Ukrainians somewhat, but I don't see it as a
(07:59):
fundamental game something like that.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
Let's assume that I'm right, Trump wins the cavalry arrives
over the hill at just the right moment on election day,
so to speak. And Trump is now commander in chief.
He's been saying that he's going to end this Russia
Ukraine conflict, and now he's Trump, so he just sort
of says I will end it, and people are taking
(08:21):
him at his word. What do you think that looks like?
Speaker 4 (08:25):
Well, man, I hope you're right about about winning. It's
it's it's it's obviously as tight race now. But I
think we definitely need change and.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Keep the faith bridge keep the faith.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
I'm a believer, but take nothing for granted, right, But
you know more about this than I do.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
But look, I don't know.
Speaker 4 (08:42):
I mean, I don't speak for President Trump, as you know,
and I don't make any presumptions about myself or anything
like that. But I will say, just on the on
the issue of how much President Trump is actually laid
out his plan, I think it's actually pretty almost like
best practice not to talk to to in too much
detail about what the plan is. That's actually what Dwight
eyes Noow did in nineteen fifty two one. Pretty much
all I said about ending the Korean War was I
(09:03):
will go to Korea or Ron Reagan nineteen eighty said
he would solve as I understand a the Iran hostage
crisis didn't get into a lot of detail, So I mean,
you don't want to put all your cards on the table.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
So it is basically the force of personality is the promise,
and you trust in the commander in chief to show up,
pound his fist on the table and get it done.
I mean that that actually is the strategy at some level.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Well, I think it's the strategy.
Speaker 4 (09:24):
But also like, look, I mean Biden sort of locked
into this terrible policy, and if anything, Harris looks like
she's going to continue it, which is rhetorical maximalism about
you know, Putin is the evilest guy who ever lived.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
He's obviously a bad guy. Like he's done a lot
of bad things. That's not the issue.
Speaker 4 (09:39):
But it's not backed up by like any kind of
plausible strategy. And I'm not a fan of the Wall
Street Journal, lot of bad page on this point. But
where they do have a point is saying, like what
are we doing. We're slow dripping them resources and money.
Meanwhile we're talking, you know, we're progressively allowing attacks into Russia.
Putsin responds to this thing by saying, taking negotiations off
the table. I mean, obviously that could be a maneuver,
(10:00):
but it's like what we're doing for the last two
and a half years is not working out. I mean,
the Biden administration will tell you, oh, we're winning. Well,
if you compare it to like complete catastrophe, it's better
than that. But I don't think anybody in Ukraine or
a rational person looking from the outside would say that
if you looked at this from the beginning.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
Of Biden's term, this is a good outcome. Now maybe
if it's not.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
You know, I think the force of personality is part
of it, but it's also a different common sense approach.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
I mean, one of the things where Trump President Trump.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
Gets flack, which I think is telling, is when he says, hey,
you know, I need to have a good relationship with
or you know, at least a talking relationship with Putin
or Kim Jong un or Shi Jinping.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
I think that's actually makes sense.
Speaker 4 (10:38):
Like Richard Nixon was able to talk to him as
a dong we were talking to the head of the
Soviet Union. That was considered a good thing because you
need to be able to potentially come to some different agreement.
So I think a different approach where there is also more,
you know, concern about what the Americans might be prepared
to do on like the economic sanctions front or whatever.
I mean, you know, I don't know what's what's the
(10:58):
total universe, but I don't I think it's out of
the question because like maybe Russia doesn't over long term
want to be a dependency of China. And I think
this is again something the present I think he said
to Elon Musk the other night, was saying, which is
again like it used to be a truism of American
form policy. You don't want the Russians and the Chinese
allied against you, right, It's like kind of a basic
high giene of American form posities.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Yeah, never never find a land war in Asia, et cetera.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4 (11:22):
So, like I do think, you know, I I don't know,
I don't you know, I don't know what Putin's actual
negotiating parameters are, but presumably he doesn't want the war
to go on forever and so forth. I think at
least at least worth trying it out. I do think
that the Ukrainians are going to need to be supported
whatever happens. But I think, as President Trump said in
his true social post a few months ago, that's got
to be on the Europeans.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
That seems reasonable.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Yeah, well real, real quick, Bridge really got about a minute.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
But I'm just wondering, Yeah, there's this this sense of,
oh my gosh, Iran is going to have some kind
of a CounterPunch against Israel and it could be horrible.
Is this Iran taking its time or do people sometimes
underestimate the limitations of the Iranian state to really engage
(12:07):
in any kind of a sort of certainly a conventional
military strike.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
Yeah, it's a good question.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
You know. It's one of the things going back and
you and I've been in this field a while, like
you know, where people would.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
Say the Iranians are totally irrational, and actually.
Speaker 4 (12:18):
Like if you look at and particularly how the Israelis
are thinking about them, and they're calculus the Iranians are
calculating and they know what's up, you know, So like
I don't it sounds like the Israelis and we are
preparing for an Iranian attack, And you know, I think
that would probably be where you'd put your money. And again,
as the Israelis have shown, but the Iranians too. You
can take your time in retaliating. But what exactly that
(12:39):
looks like? I don't think we know.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
There's a story the Israelis may go after hasblah.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
As a as even us in Iranian retaliation as a pretext.
So Iran's going to be factoring that in, Like is
this gonna net benefit us to do something? But they
certainly put themselves in a position where where they've they've
put their credibility on the line quite a bit. So unfortunately,
I think that's probably the way to bet. But I
hope it's not. I certainly hope it's not successful, but
(13:04):
I hope it's not very robust.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Bridge Colby, everybody, Bridge, give me a tour the Pentagon
when you're under Secretary of Defense. All right, looking forward.
Speaker 4 (13:12):
To I don't make any presumptions, but always a great
talk you guys.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Yeah, man, thanks so much. Appreciated the tunnel.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
The Towers Foundation has looked after our heroes and their
families for more than twenty years now. One of those
individuals is Jerry Paget, a gentleman who enlisted in the
US Navy and deployed multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan
who preserve our freedoms. While on patrol in Afghanistan, Jerry
was severely injured by an improvised explosive device blast. We're
grateful he's alive today after a long recovery and thank
(13:38):
him for his bravery and sacrifice. Nothing can reverse the
damage done to Jerry's body, but through the Tunnel to
Towers Foundation, we can honor heroes like Jerry and gratitude
for their tremendous sacrifices. We understand the price of freedom,
and we can choose to honor those who fight for
it despite its tremendous cost. Jerry and his family moved
into a new smart home at the foundations Let Us
(13:58):
do Good village in Florida where you can live independently
thanks to technology and special construction. Donate eleven dollars a
month the Tunnel to Towers at T two t dot org.
That's t the number two T dot org.
Speaker 5 (14:11):
Two guys walk up to a mic, anything goes Clay
Travis and Buck Sexton. Find them on the free iHeartRadio
app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Welcome back in Okay.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
I gotta tell.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
You the Democrats never learn their lessons right on the
most basic things. You see this with Harris, you see
this with Walls. But Elizabeth Warren is supposed to be
one of the smarter Democrats. She is not, but she
has managed to leverage the credential that she got through
(14:49):
cheating pretending to be a Native American that she is
a Harvard a Harvard Law professor and has taught at
the University of Pennsylvania Law School as well. She it's
actually not very bright. She's like very mid very kind
of middle of the pack. But because she was able
to present herself as a Native American, now we're all
supposed to think, oh, she's so smart. Here she is.
(15:11):
She just decided to.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
Make this video.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
She's like, oh, I'm Elizabeth Warren, and I'm working on
the first way to get you to be able to
buy a house. Here she is taking it upon herself
to tell you that the problem with housing in the
country is that we don't have enough government intervention.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
Play this clip.
Speaker 6 (15:29):
Do you ever wonder how your grandparents bought a home
for seven raspberries but you can't afford one bedroom apartment.
Speaker 5 (15:36):
It's not you.
Speaker 6 (15:38):
We're facing a national shortage of seven million homes and
renters and buyers are having to deal with the consequences.
The government needs to tackle this crisis head on, just
like we help people afford their homes decades ago. So
I have a bill that would lower rents by ten
percent and would help first time the home buyers get a.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Foot in the door. Okay, jumping right there. This is
one of the cardinal sins of the Democrats, and it's
really why they actually are socialists. Their mindset always goes
towards socialism. The only reason they don't use the terminology
all the time and certainly don't like to be described
that way, is because the American people are not fully
(16:23):
with them on this right a percentage are Unfortunately twenty
thirty percent of the country wishes we were a full
on socialist state, but the American people believe still in
a free market economy at some level. When she says
that she's going to lower rate rents by ten percent,
it says though she thinks she can suspend the laws
(16:44):
of supplying demand, why don't we have enough houses in
this country? Will? For one thing, states like California make
it incredibly expensive because of government regulation and taxation to
build houses Canada. Right now, Canada has some of the
most overheated housing markets in the world. Ottawa, Vancouver, what's
(17:07):
the other one, Toronto? Sorry, the other Canadian city I'm
thinking of overheated housing markets. You know why, government intervention,
you know, and regulation. Something like sixty percent of the
cost of a new house in Canada is the result
of government imposed costs. This is the problem here. Also,
we have tens of millions of illegals. Guess what they're
living somewhere. Someone's renting them homes. You don't think that
(17:30):
affects supply and demand. But the worst part of this
is to decree that you're just going to have a
ten percent reduction in rents.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
That will just create shortages.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
It's like she thinks we want to be Venezuela, which
is what they did there too. By the way, price
controls just like rent control, price control, same thing. They
never learn and they destroy everything they're in control of.
All right, Look, there's a credit card for conservatives created
by people who seem the world the same way you
and I do. It's called coin and it's backed by Visa.
(18:00):
Coin is spelled with a G CO I g N.
What makes this card different is that it invests in
conservative minded charities in addition to giving you one percent
cash back on every purchase you make. Look carry goes
to do our shopping with her coincard. First of all,
it looks cool, it says we the people on It's
like constitution that you're carrying in your pocket. That's the
card that I went with. You get to pick your
design and every time she uses it to get stuff
(18:22):
for us and for ginger, if we're having family over
for dinner, whatever, every time she used it, we're getting
one percent cash back. But also a portion of the
proceeds from that credit card transaction is going toward conservative charities.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
So we're also.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
Building the America we want. With every swipe of the card, get.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
A coin credit card. I've got one, we're using it.
It's fantastic.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
COI g N dot com that COI g C o
I g N dot com.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Be sure to select Clay and Buck and the how
did you hear about us?
Speaker 1 (18:51):
Section terms apply Going to coin dot com slash disclosures
for details. Welcome back in team the Clay end Buck.
You know there's another area. I know we've talked a
lot of numbers today looking at what the snapshot of
this race is with under three months ago, I think
(19:12):
eighty three days, eighty three days, eighty two days, something
like that. There's a trend that should be worrying to Democrats.
We've talked a lot about white working class voters, and
that's just because of the demographics in the states that matter.
That's just looking at the reality of the electorate as
it is. But there's also another component that crosses over
(19:35):
into that, and it is unions. Now, Joe Biden, to
the advantage of Democrats, had built a long standing career
as a union bolstering, union pandering democrat. Okay, he goes
around and presents himself as some kind of working class
(19:57):
hero despite the fact that you know, the guys never
had a really never had a real job, I mean,
didn't even work as a lawyer I think for any
length of time before he became a senator. So he's
been he's had his bills covered by the public his
entire life in fifty plus years or whatever it is
in public service.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
But he set himself up as.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
A union guy. Well, this was interesting. I look, Frank
Luntz has been very wrong before. He was wrong in
twenty sixteen about Trump. I'm whatever polster I bring to you.
You can pick apart and say. And also he like
squabbled with me on Twitter once on COVID he was
totally wrong, totally wrong. You know, I think, why do
(20:37):
you care that people are wearing masks? It was sad.
It was very low tee. It was very soy milk,
very sad. But okay, Here he is making a case
based on numbers, which is what he's been very successful.
He's been a lot of money as a pollster. Here
he is telling everybody that Trump is, this has cut
ten doing better with union members than any Republican in decades.
Speaker 7 (21:01):
Listen, I assure you that Donald Trump is doing better
among the average union member, not teachers' unions and not
the unions for government, but everybody else, the trades people
work in their hands. He's doing better among them than
any Republican has done in decades. This is not going
to be a problem for him. The union leadership is
more divided from their membership, and the louder that it gets,
(21:23):
the greater the divides are going to come in and
my focus groups, and this is remarkable to me. The
union membership says they don't speak for me. And I've
been doing this now since nineteen I hate to say this,
eighty nine nineteen ninety, I've never had union people publicly
say they don't speak for me.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Now, there's something bigger at work here, and I want
to break it down the public sector unions on FOD.
First of all, that there should not be public sector unions.
If you want to make the exception for jobs where
there's a threat to life and limb so like fire,
(22:01):
I'm open to that discussion. But even still, I don't
think that there's I think that the the union so
to speak, for police officers should be the you know,
the city council that is setting the budget that pays
police officers. I mean, I don't I don't think that
there needs to be that there should be these unions
for public sector. I know that that's an unpopular opinion
(22:22):
in some places. But if you're going to stand on principle,
why people are being paid by the state, but there's
an entity that is going to represent them back to
the state that is not the entity itself. It's some
third party that also can count on all kinds of
government intrusion on its behalf. I mean it's the ultimate
(22:42):
self licking ice cream cone. And the worst one is,
of course, the teachers' unions, which are really just a
Marxist mobilization involving jobs programs for adults to be please,
I'm going to beg you right. You and I we
always have talks like adults. But there are a couple
(23:03):
of people sometimes who will say they'll take what I'm
saying personally. I'm speaking to millions of you about a
country of three hundred and fifty million. I have to
speak in generalities. I'm talking about teachers' unions and what
they push for. I don't need to hear about how
your third grade teacher Ethel was amazing and you had
a great public school. I get it, of course, of course.
(23:25):
But if you look at what's going on with places
like New York City, where they're spending thirty something thousand
a pupil and they've hired six times as many administrators
as they have new teachers over the last twenty years,
I mean, it's outrageous. DC the same thing. These are
money and power grabs in the name of children. Okay,
(23:45):
that's what my objection is. It's not that there aren't
great teachers Republic school. Of course there are Okay, just
like there are great FBI agents. I criticize the FBI.
There are great FBI agents. They're FBI agents who God
forbid something happened to you, your family. You know, someone
you know was kidnas after what you know, that guy
and that gal is gonna show up and you're gonna
be so thankful because they're the right. You know, my
(24:06):
uncle's career cop, career cop. And let me tell you
did not want him on your trail if you were
a bad guy.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
He did not.
Speaker 1 (24:12):
He tracked serial killers. He worked for morganhaw in the
Investigative Office for the distric Attorney of New York City
track serial killers. I mean, you know you don't. You
don't want real lawman or real law woman on your
tail anyway. I'm just saying, we're talking about the structures,
the machinery, not individuals.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
Okay, That's why I.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
Don't take it personally. People trash the CIA now all
the time. The right is so oh my gosh, Sea
The people said, I mean, how can I ever trust you? Gee?
Speaker 2 (24:40):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
How can you trust the guy that turned down a
lucrative early career in Wall Street to go try to
help find bin Laden because he tried to kill members
of my own family and wage.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
War on America.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
Like I thought that was a pretty valid reason to
go join the Cate Terrorism Center, right, I mean, and
of course I know you know that. But that's why
I don't take a person. And people say, now, the
deep STA, the CIA, what's going on. Yeah, I wasn't
a part of that. That wasn't. I had no connectivity.
I wasn't at the top levels, top echelons where the
political comes into it. So on the union thing, I
feel like I have to make this very clear up
(25:14):
front because I know some people get offended when I'm
trashing the teachers unions. I'm not trashing teachers, just like
I wouldn't trash it. You know, there are good teachers
and bad teachers. There's good and bad in every profession, right,
They're good and bad. Radio hosts a lot of bad
radio hosts, just kidding. There's some good ones, the great ones.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Well there are some.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
Bad ones too. See it's always true. It's always true.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
There's some good ones, there's some bad ones.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
But public sector unions are generally terrible, and they there's
no correction mechanism. That's the problem. When I say it's
the ultimate self looking ice cream cone, it's because, and
this is particularly in Democrats centers of power cities, major
population centers, the union mobilizes to elect Democrats who raise
(25:59):
the taxes and particularly the property taxes of people to
fatten up particularly the benefits more even so than the
the on duty pay, whether it's teachers, cops, or whomever,
to fatten up the long term benefits because that's easier
to hide in the budget. And then the cycle just continues.
They elect Democrats, Democrats extract more from the people, fatter
(26:20):
and fatter benefits, and then eventually people start fleeing the
state and saying the budget.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
You know, we're to budget crisis.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
You know, if New York City pays five billion dollars
for migrants and everyone goes, what happened? What happened? How
did we get here? What happened? That's Democrats, by the way,
that's their voice. I don't know. You can male, female,
doesn't matter. That's how they sound to me. So it's
it's the truth that public section unions are bad. But
now when he's talking private section unions, why would private
(26:48):
sector unions to bring this around to the initial point.
Why would they the membership start to be turning toward
Trump because public the private sector union bosses are first
of all, they're very well paid, and they're a part
of this machine. And their whole job is to mobilize
for Democrats, to make sure that laws are in place
for mandatory dues and all kinds of things, to empower
(27:12):
the union bosses, who empower the Democrats, who empower the
union bosses, and then the union bosses with the help
of the state. This is a one hand washes the
other extract and extract more from the private sector that
they work in, whether it's automobiles, it's you know what,
you tell me what private sector union? You know, it's
(27:33):
a teamster, is anybody right? They start taking more and more,
and then they create problems in their industry, They create
problems of inefficiency, and then they want more government help.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
So then what does the government do.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
The government says, well, we're going to make up for
the shortfall if you're having you know, if the wages
aren't keeping up, whatever, We're going to spend more money.
But that just.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
Raises inflation on the workers.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
If you're a union guy or gal doing the actual
work day in and day out. The interests of the
union boss aren't really with you. The interests of the
union boss are with the Democrats who pass laws to
keep the union powerful, I mean the union itself. Workers,
your prices are going up across the board and Democrats
(28:18):
are doing that. You can't afford groceries the way you
could even a few years ago, and it's democrats fault.
But your union boss is in this unholy alliance with
the Democrats, pretending to care about the union worker. You see,
very much like what you have with the teachers unions.
Teachers unions only care about getting city council members Democrats
(28:40):
elected to keep the benefits flowing and to keep the
mandates going. The kids, who they pretend to care about.
The kids are a distant consideration. Most teachers unions do
not give a you know what about the kids. If
they did, they would care more about the massive failures
of public school systems and pretty much every major city
in the country, right, they would care a little bit
(29:01):
more about that. They don't care about that. It's all
about pensions, benefits, that's what they care about. Mandatory dues. Oh,
that's number one if they can get that mandatory dues.
So what you are seeing is friction with the union
bosses and the union rank and file. And Trump is
the beneficiary of this because he wants to push policies
(29:23):
and did push policies that make the wages that people
are working for go further and get the government out
of their pocket more, and create the conditions where they
can build equity in a home, they can buy home,
build equity at home, they can create savings, they can
start their own business. Right. So that's where this whole
(29:44):
thing falls apart. And you also have to remember increasingly,
without the government's intervention, private sector unions would would largely
cease to exist anyway. Again, that's what creates that distortion
of the union bosses and the Democrats. But don't allow
them to get away with this. Oh yeah, we care
about the working man. They absolutely do not. They absolutely
do not. It's just like listening to some Soviet commissar
(30:06):
who drives better cars and eats better food and lives
in bigger houses than all of the comrades he's representing
at the polyp Burrow. But you know what I mean,
same thing you might have noticed. I'm a not very
pro union, but yeah, light me up in the emails
if you want, or in the you can send us
a talkback message on the iHeart app.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
That's always fun. So we'll get into that.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
You know, when I have long days and need more
energy to focus, my go to is a pre workout
formula called chad Mode from Chalk.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
I love chad Mode. It's phenomenal stuff.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
I just put it in water and my whole day, man,
I get so much done. Chad bo is not just
for working out. It's great for that, but just you're
gonna do work around the house, you're gonna clean up
your garage, take a scoop of chad Mode and you're
gonna be like, I'm on fast forward, man, I'm getting
it done. Love my chad Mode. And I'm telling you
if you also just.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Want more.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
More vim and vigor and vitality in your day to
day without just the pre workout approach, which is also
great if you want to sort of build it from
the ground up, the Male Vitality Stack from Chalk is amazing.
The ingredients used to formulate this set of supplements include
one that has proven to replenish twenty percent of diminished
testosterol levels in no other than three months time. As
(31:20):
you get older, your T levels drop. That's just a
medical fact. What happens as a guy. When your testosterol
level drops, you just have less energy. Let's focus, less drive.
You can counterbalance that. Why not? Right? Go to Chalk
dot com shoq dot com. Check out their mail Vitality stack.
Use my name Buck for a massive discount on any
subscription for life. Or you can text fifty chalk three thousand,
(31:44):
say Clay and Buck sent me. When you call, that's
five zero chalk three thousand, say Clay and Buck sent me.
You don't know what's you don't know?
Speaker 5 (31:55):
Right?
Speaker 1 (31:56):
But you could on the Sunday hang with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
Bodja close them up? Shop here today on Clay and Buck.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
Wun't mind you to please subscribe to the Clay and
Buck podcast and you get not only the Clay and
Buck show, you get the Buck Brief. I talked to
Matthew Marsden on the Buck Brief yesterday. Go check it out.
Love it if you'd subscribe on YouTube. Buck Brief on YouTube.
But you can listen just to the audio and the
podcast stream if you'd like We've got Carol Marco at,
Sean Parnell, Tutor Dixon, great shows. The listenership to all
(32:27):
these shows growing every month because these are really strong,
up and coming talents in the spoken word medium and
they're doing great stuff. And we'll have Sean on later
this week and Carol on later this week as well.
They talk about some news of the day. Also want
to take a moment to give a big Today is
the day a big happiet twenty anniversary twenty years strong
(32:51):
to my co pilot here in the Rush Limbaugh f
eighteen of Freedom, Clay Travis, who who is a great
dude as you all know, and him and his wife
Laura married twenty years today, So big congratulations to them.
Very nice to see this in the media world where
(33:12):
let's just say, family values aren't always front and center.
It's great and I'm so you know, I think it's
such a good example to set that Clay and his
wife twenty years. They're three boys, wonderful kids, great family,
so big congrats to them. That's why Clay is out
this week. He's celebrating his twentieth and taking the week off,
so he and Lara are just out out in the
(33:34):
mountain somewhere and enjoying some time together. So happy twentieth
to them. And I think Clay would want me to
talk about this, so maybe I'll say this is kind
of this is in honor of Clay, this segment, because
I'm sure he's fired about this.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
New York Post.
Speaker 1 (33:48):
Piece elites decided Hunter Biden can finally be a scandal.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Now that Joe.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
Is out here, you go, this is the piece. Hunter
Biden is a corrupt con artist who used his father's
position to leverage the government and make himself millions. Now
that Joe Biden has been pushed aside, officials are allowed
to admit this, and The New York Times is allowed
to report it. The Post rights it's rotten, unscrupulous, cynical hypocrisy.
(34:15):
Emails reveal that Hunter, while his father was vice president,
wrote a letter to the US ambassador to Italy asking
for introductions to help the Ukraine gas company Barisma, land
a lucrative contract with Italy. That's why Barisma was paying
Hunter a million dollars a year to sit on its board.
(34:35):
Not his energy expertise, not his work ethic, blah blah blah.
He was actually, by his own admission an irresponsible.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
Crack addict, and it just goes on and on.
Speaker 1 (34:44):
Ah, this is one of these moments where you know,
you listen to this show and you've been told the
truth about this for years?
Speaker 2 (34:52):
Why did we get right the whole time?
Speaker 1 (34:54):
But CNN, The New York Times, the Washington Post, go
down the list, all of them were so very wrong.
It's because they are not in the truth business. They
are not in the facts business. They are in the
propaganda business. And the moment that you really set your
mind to that, and the moment that you no longer
(35:16):
even want to hear they're like, oh, but you know,
we're speaking truth to power, and we're you know, we're
the fourth the State. They're not the fourth the State.
They're a fifth column. Okay, they are undermining core constitutional
values in this country in so many ways, But they've
undermined the First Amendment, perhaps more aggressively in the last
(35:36):
decade or so than at any time since the days
of Woodrow Wilson, when the First Amendment was under such
assault that people were being locked up for having unpopular
opinions about a war we didn't need to be in, right.
I mean, there's a lot of stuff. The history of
the First Amendment in this country is not taught enough
in schools or the real history of it, because it
(35:59):
requires constant vigilance. There are always people who are trying
to trample on it. There are always government bodies and
individuals who are authoritarian at heart and want to find
ways to shut you up for saying things that are unpopular.
And you see in the UK they've basically given up
on the whole idea of freedom of thought. You say
something about the migrants who are rampaging through the streets
(36:23):
and the grooming gangs and the horrible stuff that's going
on as a result of migration in that country, a
tremendous amount of migration, including a lot of legal immigration.
You're a bad person and they're going to lock you up.
So you just can't trust the media at all. And
however disdainful you are of the legacy democrat media in
this country, it's not enough. So you should walk around
(36:43):
a little bit of swagger knowing you choose to listen
to this show because we actually care about what's real.
That's it for today, everybody, Thanks for hanging out shield time.
All right, everybody, third hour of play and Buck kicks
off right now.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Thanks so much for being here with us.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
We've been talking a lot today about whatever we can
figure out when it comes to the Harris walls of policies,
and one area where it's really going to be opaque,
maybe nonexistent, is foreign policy. Let's talk to our friend
Bridge Colby about this for a moment. He is a
(00:28):
principal of the Marathon initiative and he's also a former
Pentagon official under the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Mister Bridge Colby, great to have you back.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Great to be with you. All right, so let's start
with the I think we can just take as a
given that there hasn't been a lot of specifics from
the Kamala campaign about what their foreign policy would be.
But if we're going to assume it is an extension
of the Biden policy and then add in whatever specifics
(00:58):
we can divine from the statements that have been made
on her behalf, Really, what do we know about what
a what a Kabala Harris Tim Wall's foreign policy would
look like?
Speaker 3 (01:11):
Well, I mean, we don't know much. And don't take
this from you and me.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
I think the Wall Street Journal actually ran a piece
like a week or two ago saying people just don't
know what she stands for. And of course she's you know,
moving off of positions that she did take, so it's
really all speculation.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
What I would say is my read is that she's.
Speaker 4 (01:31):
Basically going to be like closer to a standard issue
Democratic Party sort of activist of the contemporary period.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
So I'm just, you know.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
Cars on the table not a big fan of President
Biden said the least. But President Biden, you know, does
kind of at least he thinks of himself, and he
tries to harken back to sort of an earlier period.
Obviously his you know, historically his close relationship to Israel,
the connection to NATO and so forth. And if you
look at some of his top leadership, Jake John Finer,
(02:01):
Kirk Campbell, Eli Rattner, Frank Kendall, a lot of these people,
you know, I mean, I have my criticisms of them,
but I you know, I think they're not dreamy idealists,
you know, to the to the contrary. So I think
Kamala Harris, what we can see her top person, for instance,
is a guy named Phil Gordon. He was in the
Obama administration was in the Clinton administration. You know, for instance,
(02:23):
he signed a letter that was put out in the
Washington Post about five years ago, and if you read
the letter about China. If you read the letter, a
lot of it seems kind of unobjectionable to it because
they kind of create fake straw men. But it was
basically written to push back on the shift on China
that that was happening under the Trump administration that you know,
Jake Sullivan and Kirk Campbell and these guys have tried
(02:43):
to take over. I mean, we have a debate about
who's better at it, but that's what leads me to
think like we should sort of expect more like the
center of this sort of democratic party than what we've gotten,
even from Joe Biden, which is which is pretty darn progressive,
and so that worries me. You know, I know she,
for instance, a few years ago, she said she wants
to cut the defense budget. I mean, I'm not one
of these people is out there saying, which triple the
(03:04):
defense budget, but the cutting the defense budget in this time,
that's pretty worrying. So again, a lot of this is
speculation and inference, but I think she's going to be
more sort of progressive even than Biden.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
I mean, I would offer, just from the political pugilist
side of this equation, that it's supposed to be this
is what they want, which is that the foreign policy
is whatever they have to say it is in the minute,
and nobody actually knows what it is, So then it's
a harder target, do you know what I mean? It's
you know, you're you're sort of punching at the wind.
(03:35):
And and I think that that's a larger theme in
the campaign overall. But let's drill down then into reality
and the here and now for a second.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
On the foreign policy scene, one thing.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
That well, I'm a little bit surprised.
Speaker 4 (03:49):
Yea, mind if I say one thing just on that
peah of course, it is just you know, look, I
think you're putting your finger on something, which is we
are in an exceptionally dangerous period where we've got a
wild mismatch between a rhetoric that Biden and others have
gotten us into and the fact that there are multiple
wars around the world and the resources that we are
putting at that problem in terms of the defense budget
(04:10):
and so forth.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
And the American people are willing to put it at
the problem.
Speaker 4 (04:13):
The New York Times even was reporting today that the
Russians and Chinese are co op collaborating more on military
operations than ever before. And so President Trump, I think,
is putting something out there saying we're.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
In the verge of World War three.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
We need to be strong, but we also need to
use the military sparingly, as I think the Platform correctly said,
and I mean, I agree with that, but that's a
serious message in a very serious time. We don't have
time for this kind of fluff where people are just
kind of message testing it. We've got If you're going
to pursue the kind of ridiculous in my well, the
overly expansive Biden approach, you got to back that up
(04:47):
with big defense spending increases.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
You got to do X y Z.
Speaker 4 (04:51):
She's showing none of that, so she's not having a
political mandate, so she's you know, in a sense, like
the analogy I used, we're heading towards the Titanic, at
least offer us a way to not hit the iceberg,
and here we're just having to guess at what the
captain is proposing as we hurtle towards the iceberg. Whereas
I think President Trump and Senator Vance are offering a
very clear and I think very common sense and the
(05:12):
right approach, but.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
At minimum should be able to evaluate. Isn't that what
democracy is about?
Speaker 1 (05:16):
I mean, come on, right, well, as you can see
everyone can see I think now pretty clearly on one
of the hotspot issues, which is Israel Hamas slash Hesbala
slash Iran. The Democrats that they want to just have
a deafening silence on this to degree they can right
before the election, because they can't have it both ways,
(05:37):
and for their electorate they need to have it both ways,
and that's that's going to be a challenge for them.
We're speaking of Bridge Colby, principal of the Marathon initiative. Bridge,
tell me about this incursion into Kursk and the Ukraine
front and how this has changed.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Is this a big deal? I'm actually a little surprised.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Given all the you know, Slava Ukraine and the flags
and everything we see from Democrats. There's not more talk
about this right now, but I guess it's just full
throttle Kamala is like you know, Jesus or whatever. So
what does this mean that there's been a counter offensive
by Ukraine in your Russian territory.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
Well, just parenthetically on that.
Speaker 4 (06:13):
I think David Sachs put this out that like the
Kamala image on the front of Time, where she actually
does kind of look like a religious icon.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
The most important part was that she declined to comment
for the article.
Speaker 4 (06:25):
Everything you talked about, Yes, yes, it's surreal, it's like
beyond mockery.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
But it's a great question.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
I mean, I think I was certainly surprised taken Aback,
I would say impressed by the Ukrainians prowess. I think
we have yet to figure out what's going on. Zelenski
started talking about in others Ukrainians senior leaders. It's not
immediately clear, entirely clear to me what their goals are.
Are they trying to like discombobulate the Russians. Are they
trying to seize territory to hold his leverage for future negotiations,
(06:54):
That's what Putin was suggesting. Are they trying to kind
of change the narrative away from you know, the sort
of the steady progress that the Russians are making in
the main theater, which in the East. I have to
say I'm skeptical and i'd probably even go farther. I
don't think that this is going to change the fundamentals,
you know. I mean, and even in the time New
(07:16):
York Times reporting this morning, there's real questions. American officials
were apparently saying off the record as they usually do,
or sort of anonymously, you know, we're not sure that
the Ukrainians made the best decision. We're not exactly sure
what they're trend to say. But I think the jury
is still out. But look, I think what we've seen
in Ukraine over the last two and a half years
plus is there's no fancy, kind of decisive blitzkrieg style,
(07:39):
you know, thing that totally transforms. It didn't happen for
the Russians at the beginning, it didn't happen for the
Ukrainians in late twenty twenty two or in the big
counter offensive in twenty twenty three, and so it's still
a matter of numbers and resolve, and I think, unfortunately
that favors the Russians. And so this might help, you know,
the Ukrainians somewhat, but I don't see it as a
(07:59):
fundamental game something like that.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
Let's assume that I'm right, Trump wins the cavalry arrives
over the hill at just the right moment on election day,
so to speak. And Trump is now commander in chief.
He's been saying that he's going to end this Russia
Ukraine conflict, and now he's Trump, so he just sort
of says I will end it, and people are taking
(08:21):
him at his word. What do you think that looks like?
Speaker 4 (08:25):
Well, man, I hope you're right about about winning. It's
it's it's it's obviously as tight race now. But I
think we definitely need change and.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Keep the faith bridge keep the faith.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
I'm a believer, but take nothing for granted, right, But
you know more about this than I do.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
But look, I don't know.
Speaker 4 (08:42):
I mean, I don't speak for President Trump, as you know,
and I don't make any presumptions about myself or anything
like that. But I will say, just on the on
the issue of how much President Trump is actually laid
out his plan, I think it's actually pretty almost like
best practice not to talk to to in too much
detail about what the plan is. That's actually what Dwight
eyes Noow did in nineteen fifty two one. Pretty much
all I said about ending the Korean War was I
(09:03):
will go to Korea or Ron Reagan nineteen eighty said
he would solve as I understand a the Iran hostage
crisis didn't get into a lot of detail, So I mean,
you don't want to put all your cards on the table.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
So it is basically the force of personality is the promise,
and you trust in the commander in chief to show up,
pound his fist on the table and get it done.
I mean that that actually is the strategy at some level.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Well, I think it's the strategy.
Speaker 4 (09:24):
But also like, look, I mean Biden sort of locked
into this terrible policy, and if anything, Harris looks like
she's going to continue it, which is rhetorical maximalism about
you know, Putin is the evilest guy who ever lived.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
He's obviously a bad guy. Like he's done a lot
of bad things. That's not the issue.
Speaker 4 (09:39):
But it's not backed up by like any kind of
plausible strategy. And I'm not a fan of the Wall
Street Journal, lot of bad page on this point. But
where they do have a point is saying, like what
are we doing. We're slow dripping them resources and money.
Meanwhile we're talking, you know, we're progressively allowing attacks into Russia.
Putsin responds to this thing by saying, taking negotiations off
the table. I mean, obviously that could be a maneuver,
(10:00):
but it's like what we're doing for the last two
and a half years is not working out. I mean,
the Biden administration will tell you, oh, we're winning. Well,
if you compare it to like complete catastrophe, it's better
than that. But I don't think anybody in Ukraine or
a rational person looking from the outside would say that
if you looked at this from the beginning.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
Of Biden's term, this is a good outcome. Now maybe
if it's not.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
You know, I think the force of personality is part
of it, but it's also a different common sense approach.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
I mean, one of the things where Trump President Trump.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
Gets flack, which I think is telling, is when he says, hey,
you know, I need to have a good relationship with
or you know, at least a talking relationship with Putin
or Kim Jong un or Shi Jinping.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
I think that's actually makes sense.
Speaker 4 (10:38):
Like Richard Nixon was able to talk to him as
a dong we were talking to the head of the
Soviet Union. That was considered a good thing because you
need to be able to potentially come to some different agreement.
So I think a different approach where there is also more,
you know, concern about what the Americans might be prepared
to do on like the economic sanctions front or whatever.
I mean, you know, I don't know what's what's the
(10:58):
total universe, but I don't I think it's out of
the question because like maybe Russia doesn't over long term
want to be a dependency of China. And I think
this is again something the present I think he said
to Elon Musk the other night, was saying, which is
again like it used to be a truism of American
form policy. You don't want the Russians and the Chinese
allied against you, right, It's like kind of a basic
high giene of American form posities.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Yeah, never never find a land war in Asia, et cetera.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4 (11:22):
So, like I do think, you know, I I don't know,
I don't you know, I don't know what Putin's actual
negotiating parameters are, but presumably he doesn't want the war
to go on forever and so forth. I think at
least at least worth trying it out. I do think
that the Ukrainians are going to need to be supported
whatever happens. But I think, as President Trump said in
his true social post a few months ago, that's got
to be on the Europeans.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
That seems reasonable.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Yeah, well real, real quick, Bridge really got about a minute.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
But I'm just wondering, Yeah, there's this this sense of,
oh my gosh, Iran is going to have some kind
of a CounterPunch against Israel and it could be horrible.
Is this Iran taking its time or do people sometimes
underestimate the limitations of the Iranian state to really engage
(12:07):
in any kind of a sort of certainly a conventional
military strike.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
Yeah, it's a good question.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
You know. It's one of the things going back and
you and I've been in this field a while, like
you know, where people would.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
Say the Iranians are totally irrational, and actually.
Speaker 4 (12:18):
Like if you look at and particularly how the Israelis
are thinking about them, and they're calculus the Iranians are
calculating and they know what's up, you know, So like
I don't it sounds like the Israelis and we are
preparing for an Iranian attack, And you know, I think
that would probably be where you'd put your money. And again,
as the Israelis have shown, but the Iranians too. You
can take your time in retaliating. But what exactly that
(12:39):
looks like? I don't think we know.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
There's a story the Israelis may go after hasblah.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
As a as even us in Iranian retaliation as a pretext.
So Iran's going to be factoring that in, Like is
this gonna net benefit us to do something? But they
certainly put themselves in a position where where they've they've
put their credibility on the line quite a bit. So unfortunately,
I think that's probably the way to bet. But I
hope it's not. I certainly hope it's not successful, but
(13:04):
I hope it's not very robust.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Bridge Colby, everybody, Bridge, give me a tour the Pentagon
when you're under Secretary of Defense. All right, looking forward.
Speaker 4 (13:12):
To I don't make any presumptions, but always a great
talk you guys.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Yeah, man, thanks so much. Appreciated the tunnel.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
The Towers Foundation has looked after our heroes and their
families for more than twenty years now. One of those
individuals is Jerry Paget, a gentleman who enlisted in the
US Navy and deployed multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan
who preserve our freedoms. While on patrol in Afghanistan, Jerry
was severely injured by an improvised explosive device blast. We're
grateful he's alive today after a long recovery and thank
(13:38):
him for his bravery and sacrifice. Nothing can reverse the
damage done to Jerry's body, but through the Tunnel to
Towers Foundation, we can honor heroes like Jerry and gratitude
for their tremendous sacrifices. We understand the price of freedom,
and we can choose to honor those who fight for
it despite its tremendous cost. Jerry and his family moved
into a new smart home at the foundations Let Us
(13:58):
do Good village in Florida where you can live independently
thanks to technology and special construction. Donate eleven dollars a
month the Tunnel to Towers at T two t dot org.
That's t the number two T dot org.
Speaker 5 (14:11):
Two guys walk up to a mic, anything goes Clay
Travis and Buck Sexton. Find them on the free iHeartRadio
app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Welcome back in Okay.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
I gotta tell.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
You the Democrats never learn their lessons right on the
most basic things. You see this with Harris, you see
this with Walls. But Elizabeth Warren is supposed to be
one of the smarter Democrats. She is not, but she
has managed to leverage the credential that she got through
(14:49):
cheating pretending to be a Native American that she is
a Harvard a Harvard Law professor and has taught at
the University of Pennsylvania Law School as well. She it's
actually not very bright. She's like very mid very kind
of middle of the pack. But because she was able
to present herself as a Native American, now we're all
supposed to think, oh, she's so smart. Here she is.
(15:11):
She just decided to.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
Make this video.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
She's like, oh, I'm Elizabeth Warren, and I'm working on
the first way to get you to be able to
buy a house. Here she is taking it upon herself
to tell you that the problem with housing in the
country is that we don't have enough government intervention.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
Play this clip.
Speaker 6 (15:29):
Do you ever wonder how your grandparents bought a home
for seven raspberries but you can't afford one bedroom apartment.
Speaker 5 (15:36):
It's not you.
Speaker 6 (15:38):
We're facing a national shortage of seven million homes and
renters and buyers are having to deal with the consequences.
The government needs to tackle this crisis head on, just
like we help people afford their homes decades ago. So
I have a bill that would lower rents by ten
percent and would help first time the home buyers get a.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Foot in the door. Okay, jumping right there. This is
one of the cardinal sins of the Democrats, and it's
really why they actually are socialists. Their mindset always goes
towards socialism. The only reason they don't use the terminology
all the time and certainly don't like to be described
that way, is because the American people are not fully
(16:23):
with them on this right a percentage are Unfortunately twenty
thirty percent of the country wishes we were a full
on socialist state, but the American people believe still in
a free market economy at some level. When she says
that she's going to lower rate rents by ten percent,
it says though she thinks she can suspend the laws
(16:44):
of supplying demand, why don't we have enough houses in
this country? Will? For one thing, states like California make
it incredibly expensive because of government regulation and taxation to
build houses Canada. Right now, Canada has some of the
most overheated housing markets in the world. Ottawa, Vancouver, what's
(17:07):
the other one, Toronto? Sorry, the other Canadian city I'm
thinking of overheated housing markets. You know why, government intervention,
you know, and regulation. Something like sixty percent of the
cost of a new house in Canada is the result
of government imposed costs. This is the problem here. Also,
we have tens of millions of illegals. Guess what they're
living somewhere. Someone's renting them homes. You don't think that
(17:30):
affects supply and demand. But the worst part of this
is to decree that you're just going to have a
ten percent reduction in rents.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
That will just create shortages.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
It's like she thinks we want to be Venezuela, which
is what they did there too. By the way, price
controls just like rent control, price control, same thing. They
never learn and they destroy everything they're in control of.
All right, Look, there's a credit card for conservatives created
by people who seem the world the same way you
and I do. It's called coin and it's backed by Visa.
(18:00):
Coin is spelled with a G CO I g N.
What makes this card different is that it invests in
conservative minded charities in addition to giving you one percent
cash back on every purchase you make. Look carry goes
to do our shopping with her coincard. First of all,
it looks cool, it says we the people on It's
like constitution that you're carrying in your pocket. That's the
card that I went with. You get to pick your
design and every time she uses it to get stuff
(18:22):
for us and for ginger, if we're having family over
for dinner, whatever, every time she used it, we're getting
one percent cash back. But also a portion of the
proceeds from that credit card transaction is going toward conservative charities.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
So we're also.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
Building the America we want. With every swipe of the card, get.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
A coin credit card. I've got one, we're using it.
It's fantastic.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
COI g N dot com that COI g C o
I g N dot com.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Be sure to select Clay and Buck and the how
did you hear about us?
Speaker 1 (18:51):
Section terms apply Going to coin dot com slash disclosures
for details. Welcome back in team the Clay end Buck.
You know there's another area. I know we've talked a
lot of numbers today looking at what the snapshot of
this race is with under three months ago, I think
(19:12):
eighty three days, eighty three days, eighty two days, something
like that. There's a trend that should be worrying to Democrats.
We've talked a lot about white working class voters, and
that's just because of the demographics in the states that matter.
That's just looking at the reality of the electorate as
it is. But there's also another component that crosses over
(19:35):
into that, and it is unions. Now, Joe Biden, to
the advantage of Democrats, had built a long standing career
as a union bolstering, union pandering democrat. Okay, he goes
around and presents himself as some kind of working class
(19:57):
hero despite the fact that you know, the guys never
had a really never had a real job, I mean,
didn't even work as a lawyer I think for any
length of time before he became a senator. So he's
been he's had his bills covered by the public his
entire life in fifty plus years or whatever it is
in public service.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
But he set himself up as.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
A union guy. Well, this was interesting. I look, Frank
Luntz has been very wrong before. He was wrong in
twenty sixteen about Trump. I'm whatever polster I bring to you.
You can pick apart and say. And also he like
squabbled with me on Twitter once on COVID he was
totally wrong, totally wrong. You know, I think, why do
(20:37):
you care that people are wearing masks? It was sad.
It was very low tee. It was very soy milk,
very sad. But okay, Here he is making a case
based on numbers, which is what he's been very successful.
He's been a lot of money as a pollster. Here
he is telling everybody that Trump is, this has cut
ten doing better with union members than any Republican in decades.
Speaker 7 (21:01):
Listen, I assure you that Donald Trump is doing better
among the average union member, not teachers' unions and not
the unions for government, but everybody else, the trades people
work in their hands. He's doing better among them than
any Republican has done in decades. This is not going
to be a problem for him. The union leadership is
more divided from their membership, and the louder that it gets,
(21:23):
the greater the divides are going to come in and
my focus groups, and this is remarkable to me. The
union membership says they don't speak for me. And I've
been doing this now since nineteen I hate to say this,
eighty nine nineteen ninety, I've never had union people publicly
say they don't speak for me.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Now, there's something bigger at work here, and I want
to break it down the public sector unions on FOD.
First of all, that there should not be public sector unions.
If you want to make the exception for jobs where
there's a threat to life and limb so like fire,
(22:01):
I'm open to that discussion. But even still, I don't
think that there's I think that the the union so
to speak, for police officers should be the you know,
the city council that is setting the budget that pays
police officers. I mean, I don't I don't think that
there needs to be that there should be these unions
for public sector. I know that that's an unpopular opinion
(22:22):
in some places. But if you're going to stand on principle,
why people are being paid by the state, but there's
an entity that is going to represent them back to
the state that is not the entity itself. It's some
third party that also can count on all kinds of
government intrusion on its behalf. I mean it's the ultimate
(22:42):
self licking ice cream cone. And the worst one is,
of course, the teachers' unions, which are really just a
Marxist mobilization involving jobs programs for adults to be please,
I'm going to beg you right. You and I we
always have talks like adults. But there are a couple
(23:03):
of people sometimes who will say they'll take what I'm
saying personally. I'm speaking to millions of you about a
country of three hundred and fifty million. I have to
speak in generalities. I'm talking about teachers' unions and what
they push for. I don't need to hear about how
your third grade teacher Ethel was amazing and you had
a great public school. I get it, of course, of course.
(23:25):
But if you look at what's going on with places
like New York City, where they're spending thirty something thousand
a pupil and they've hired six times as many administrators
as they have new teachers over the last twenty years,
I mean, it's outrageous. DC the same thing. These are
money and power grabs in the name of children. Okay,
(23:45):
that's what my objection is. It's not that there aren't
great teachers Republic school. Of course there are Okay, just
like there are great FBI agents. I criticize the FBI.
There are great FBI agents. They're FBI agents who God
forbid something happened to you, your family. You know, someone
you know was kidnas after what you know, that guy
and that gal is gonna show up and you're gonna
be so thankful because they're the right. You know, my
(24:06):
uncle's career cop, career cop. And let me tell you
did not want him on your trail if you were
a bad guy.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
He did not.
Speaker 1 (24:12):
He tracked serial killers. He worked for morganhaw in the
Investigative Office for the distric Attorney of New York City
track serial killers. I mean, you know you don't. You
don't want real lawman or real law woman on your
tail anyway. I'm just saying, we're talking about the structures,
the machinery, not individuals.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
Okay, That's why I.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
Don't take it personally. People trash the CIA now all
the time. The right is so oh my gosh, Sea
The people said, I mean, how can I ever trust you? Gee?
Speaker 2 (24:40):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
How can you trust the guy that turned down a
lucrative early career in Wall Street to go try to
help find bin Laden because he tried to kill members
of my own family and wage.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
War on America.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
Like I thought that was a pretty valid reason to
go join the Cate Terrorism Center, right, I mean, and
of course I know you know that. But that's why
I don't take a person. And people say, now, the
deep STA, the CIA, what's going on. Yeah, I wasn't
a part of that. That wasn't. I had no connectivity.
I wasn't at the top levels, top echelons where the
political comes into it. So on the union thing, I
feel like I have to make this very clear up
(25:14):
front because I know some people get offended when I'm
trashing the teachers unions. I'm not trashing teachers, just like
I wouldn't trash it. You know, there are good teachers
and bad teachers. There's good and bad in every profession, right,
They're good and bad. Radio hosts a lot of bad
radio hosts, just kidding. There's some good ones, the great ones.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Well there are some.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
Bad ones too. See it's always true. It's always true.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
There's some good ones, there's some bad ones.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
But public sector unions are generally terrible, and they there's
no correction mechanism. That's the problem. When I say it's
the ultimate self looking ice cream cone, it's because, and
this is particularly in Democrats centers of power cities, major
population centers, the union mobilizes to elect Democrats who raise
(25:59):
the taxes and particularly the property taxes of people to
fatten up particularly the benefits more even so than the
the on duty pay, whether it's teachers, cops, or whomever,
to fatten up the long term benefits because that's easier
to hide in the budget. And then the cycle just continues.
They elect Democrats, Democrats extract more from the people, fatter
(26:20):
and fatter benefits, and then eventually people start fleeing the
state and saying the budget.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
You know, we're to budget crisis.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
You know, if New York City pays five billion dollars
for migrants and everyone goes, what happened? What happened? How
did we get here? What happened? That's Democrats, by the way,
that's their voice. I don't know. You can male, female,
doesn't matter. That's how they sound to me. So it's
it's the truth that public section unions are bad. But
now when he's talking private section unions, why would private
(26:48):
sector unions to bring this around to the initial point.
Why would they the membership start to be turning toward
Trump because public the private sector union bosses are first
of all, they're very well paid, and they're a part
of this machine. And their whole job is to mobilize
for Democrats, to make sure that laws are in place
for mandatory dues and all kinds of things, to empower
(27:12):
the union bosses, who empower the Democrats, who empower the
union bosses, and then the union bosses with the help
of the state. This is a one hand washes the
other extract and extract more from the private sector that
they work in, whether it's automobiles, it's you know what,
you tell me what private sector union? You know, it's
(27:33):
a teamster, is anybody right? They start taking more and more,
and then they create problems in their industry, They create
problems of inefficiency, and then they want more government help.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
So then what does the government do.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
The government says, well, we're going to make up for
the shortfall if you're having you know, if the wages
aren't keeping up, whatever, We're going to spend more money.
But that just.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
Raises inflation on the workers.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
If you're a union guy or gal doing the actual
work day in and day out. The interests of the
union boss aren't really with you. The interests of the
union boss are with the Democrats who pass laws to
keep the union powerful, I mean the union itself. Workers,
your prices are going up across the board and Democrats
(28:18):
are doing that. You can't afford groceries the way you
could even a few years ago, and it's democrats fault.
But your union boss is in this unholy alliance with
the Democrats, pretending to care about the union worker. You see,
very much like what you have with the teachers unions.
Teachers unions only care about getting city council members Democrats
(28:40):
elected to keep the benefits flowing and to keep the
mandates going. The kids, who they pretend to care about.
The kids are a distant consideration. Most teachers unions do
not give a you know what about the kids. If
they did, they would care more about the massive failures
of public school systems and pretty much every major city
in the country, right, they would care a little bit
(29:01):
more about that. They don't care about that. It's all
about pensions, benefits, that's what they care about. Mandatory dues. Oh,
that's number one if they can get that mandatory dues.
So what you are seeing is friction with the union
bosses and the union rank and file. And Trump is
the beneficiary of this because he wants to push policies
(29:23):
and did push policies that make the wages that people
are working for go further and get the government out
of their pocket more, and create the conditions where they
can build equity in a home, they can buy home,
build equity at home, they can create savings, they can
start their own business. Right. So that's where this whole
(29:44):
thing falls apart. And you also have to remember increasingly,
without the government's intervention, private sector unions would would largely
cease to exist anyway. Again, that's what creates that distortion
of the union bosses and the Democrats. But don't allow
them to get away with this. Oh yeah, we care
about the working man. They absolutely do not. They absolutely
do not. It's just like listening to some Soviet commissar
(30:06):
who drives better cars and eats better food and lives
in bigger houses than all of the comrades he's representing
at the polyp Burrow. But you know what I mean,
same thing you might have noticed. I'm a not very
pro union, but yeah, light me up in the emails
if you want, or in the you can send us
a talkback message on the iHeart app.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
That's always fun. So we'll get into that.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
You know, when I have long days and need more
energy to focus, my go to is a pre workout
formula called chad Mode from Chalk.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
I love chad Mode. It's phenomenal stuff.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
I just put it in water and my whole day, man,
I get so much done. Chad bo is not just
for working out. It's great for that, but just you're
gonna do work around the house, you're gonna clean up
your garage, take a scoop of chad Mode and you're
gonna be like, I'm on fast forward, man, I'm getting
it done. Love my chad Mode. And I'm telling you
if you also just.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Want more.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
More vim and vigor and vitality in your day to
day without just the pre workout approach, which is also
great if you want to sort of build it from
the ground up, the Male Vitality Stack from Chalk is amazing.
The ingredients used to formulate this set of supplements include
one that has proven to replenish twenty percent of diminished
testosterol levels in no other than three months time. As
(31:20):
you get older, your T levels drop. That's just a
medical fact. What happens as a guy. When your testosterol
level drops, you just have less energy. Let's focus, less drive.
You can counterbalance that. Why not? Right? Go to Chalk
dot com shoq dot com. Check out their mail Vitality stack.
Use my name Buck for a massive discount on any
subscription for life. Or you can text fifty chalk three thousand,
(31:44):
say Clay and Buck sent me. When you call, that's
five zero chalk three thousand, say Clay and Buck sent me.
You don't know what's you don't know?
Speaker 5 (31:55):
Right?
Speaker 1 (31:56):
But you could on the Sunday hang with Clay and Buck.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
Bodja close them up? Shop here today on Clay and Buck.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
Wun't mind you to please subscribe to the Clay and
Buck podcast and you get not only the Clay and
Buck show, you get the Buck Brief. I talked to
Matthew Marsden on the Buck Brief yesterday. Go check it out.
Love it if you'd subscribe on YouTube. Buck Brief on YouTube.
But you can listen just to the audio and the
podcast stream if you'd like We've got Carol Marco at,
Sean Parnell, Tutor Dixon, great shows. The listenership to all
(32:27):
these shows growing every month because these are really strong,
up and coming talents in the spoken word medium and
they're doing great stuff. And we'll have Sean on later
this week and Carol on later this week as well.
They talk about some news of the day. Also want
to take a moment to give a big Today is
the day a big happiet twenty anniversary twenty years strong
(32:51):
to my co pilot here in the Rush Limbaugh f
eighteen of Freedom, Clay Travis, who who is a great
dude as you all know, and him and his wife
Laura married twenty years today, So big congratulations to them.
Very nice to see this in the media world where
(33:12):
let's just say, family values aren't always front and center.
It's great and I'm so you know, I think it's
such a good example to set that Clay and his
wife twenty years. They're three boys, wonderful kids, great family,
so big congrats to them. That's why Clay is out
this week. He's celebrating his twentieth and taking the week off,
so he and Lara are just out out in the
(33:34):
mountain somewhere and enjoying some time together. So happy twentieth
to them. And I think Clay would want me to
talk about this, so maybe I'll say this is kind
of this is in honor of Clay, this segment, because
I'm sure he's fired about this.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
New York Post.
Speaker 1 (33:48):
Piece elites decided Hunter Biden can finally be a scandal.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Now that Joe.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
Is out here, you go, this is the piece. Hunter
Biden is a corrupt con artist who used his father's
position to leverage the government and make himself millions. Now
that Joe Biden has been pushed aside, officials are allowed
to admit this, and The New York Times is allowed
to report it. The Post rights it's rotten, unscrupulous, cynical hypocrisy.
(34:15):
Emails reveal that Hunter, while his father was vice president,
wrote a letter to the US ambassador to Italy asking
for introductions to help the Ukraine gas company Barisma, land
a lucrative contract with Italy. That's why Barisma was paying
Hunter a million dollars a year to sit on its board.
(34:35):
Not his energy expertise, not his work ethic, blah blah blah.
He was actually, by his own admission an irresponsible.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
Crack addict, and it just goes on and on.
Speaker 1 (34:44):
Ah, this is one of these moments where you know,
you listen to this show and you've been told the
truth about this for years?
Speaker 2 (34:52):
Why did we get right the whole time?
Speaker 1 (34:54):
But CNN, The New York Times, the Washington Post, go
down the list, all of them were so very wrong.
It's because they are not in the truth business. They
are not in the facts business. They are in the
propaganda business. And the moment that you really set your
mind to that, and the moment that you no longer
(35:16):
even want to hear they're like, oh, but you know,
we're speaking truth to power, and we're you know, we're
the fourth the State. They're not the fourth the State.
They're a fifth column. Okay, they are undermining core constitutional
values in this country in so many ways, But they've
undermined the First Amendment, perhaps more aggressively in the last
(35:36):
decade or so than at any time since the days
of Woodrow Wilson, when the First Amendment was under such
assault that people were being locked up for having unpopular
opinions about a war we didn't need to be in, right.
I mean, there's a lot of stuff. The history of
the First Amendment in this country is not taught enough
in schools or the real history of it, because it
(35:59):
requires constant vigilance. There are always people who are trying
to trample on it. There are always government bodies and
individuals who are authoritarian at heart and want to find
ways to shut you up for saying things that are unpopular.
And you see in the UK they've basically given up
on the whole idea of freedom of thought. You say
something about the migrants who are rampaging through the streets
(36:23):
and the grooming gangs and the horrible stuff that's going
on as a result of migration in that country, a
tremendous amount of migration, including a lot of legal immigration.
You're a bad person and they're going to lock you up.
So you just can't trust the media at all. And
however disdainful you are of the legacy democrat media in
this country, it's not enough. So you should walk around
(36:43):
a little bit of swagger knowing you choose to listen
to this show because we actually care about what's real.
That's it for today, everybody, Thanks for hanging out shield time.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
1. Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
2. Start Here
A straightforward look at the day's top news in 20 minutes. Powered by ABC News. Hosted by Brad Mielke.
3. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.