February 23, 2025 • 28 mins
Enough is enough with the Russia/Ukraine war. Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson on his meeting with Zelensky - and also how Trump plans to balance the budget. Trump’s Maine smackdown.
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):
The Team forty seven podcast is sponsored by Good Ranchers.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Making the American Farm Strong Again.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Team forty seven with Clay and Buck starts now.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Trump is reshaping the GOP majority national majority, as in
the numbers of Americans in each party in ways that
the Democrats are and should be deeply concerned about. And
CNN's I feel like we should call him CNN's Ryan Gerdusky.
(00:31):
He's the He's the Ryan Gerdusky of CNM.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Formerly formerly of CNN.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Well, no, that I'm saying we have Ryan Ryan Gradusky
is Clay and Buck Network. Now, he's got a great
podcast there which you should listen to where he breaks
down numbers and data. So you know, it's this guy
at CNN. He's like Bootleg Gardusky. Yeah, I'm saying is
a bootleg Gardusky. But he's doing his thing over there
at CNN. It's probably a nice guy, but this is
cut too. He's looking at the data. Play it.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
Donald Trump and the Republican Party has changed the electorate.
What do I mean by that, Well, let's take a
look at party identification Democrats versus Republicans. You go back
to twenty seventeen, five points more of the electorate was
Democrats than Republicans. You go to twenty twenty one when
Joe Biden was starting out, Look at that six points
more of the electorate was Democrats than Republicans. But look
at what's happened in February of twenty twenty five. Look
(01:16):
at this Republicans. There are more Republicans in the electorate
than there are Democrats Republican plus two. So Donald Trump
and the Republicans have remade the electorate. They've turned some
people over from being Democrats or independents to become Republicans.
New folks have entered the electorate who are more Republican leaning.
Speaker 4 (01:33):
And so when you.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Combine that with the fact that Republicans are really really
behind Donald Trump, all of a sudden, you get a
winning recipe whereby you break the normal rules of politics
and give Donald Trump that positive net approval rating when
he had pretty much a consistently negative one in term
number one.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
So Clay. At the same time, the Democrats have the
most mia leadership I think in my adult life. I
mean we going to say in the twenty first century,
and the Republicans just had this very solid win in
the election with Trump. Now the national party numbers are
showing something that's got to be very concerning for Democrats,
(02:11):
great for US. In twenty seventeen, the overall electorate there
were five more Democrats than Republicans. Twenty twenty one there
were six more Demo You know, I should say five more,
up five points, I mean up six points. In twenty
twenty one. Republicans are now up two Republicans. There are
more registered Republicans in the US electorate now for the
(02:35):
first time in a few election cycles. And this is
just another indicator in the data, in the numbers of
Trump is flipping Democrats to his side. So at a
time when they've tried to say Trump is so extreme,
Trump has brought Democrats over to the Republican Party. So
I think their argument that he's such a far right
and polarizing figure is even more challenging for them that
(02:59):
it has been in the past, because now the numbers show, no,
he's actually the great persuader. If there is such a
thing in American politics right now, nobody else is bringing
over the same kind of numbers from left to right
that Trump is.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Think about what Trump has done in the first month.
He has shut down the southern border and we talked
about this with you earlier this week. But I think
it's important to keep hammering that narrative because forever they
told us, hey, we can't do anything at the southern
border without Congress acting, Trump set down effectively with a
(03:33):
pen and executive orders and completely shut down the southern
border such that it's not even a point of discussion
or coverage anymore. Okay, So that's point one, which a
huge majority of American support. Point two, He ended so
far the war in the Middle East by his election.
He now is trying to end the war in Europe.
(03:55):
He has started the process of deporting violent criminals who
should not be in the country legally. He has unleashed
Elon Musk on the federal government to try and create
a more fair, less fraud riddled tax code and also
(04:16):
federal budget. What has he done that's even remotely controversial.
The only thing I can even think of is birthright citizenship,
which acknowledge acknowledged by the government and by his administration.
Is going to go to the Supreme Court on a
historical level to figure out what the law is on this.
(04:38):
But by and large, why are Democrats losing support? It's
because of all the things that I just ran through
with you, they're not even particularly partisan. Who's in favor
of more fraud and waste in the federal government? Only
cheats and liars. Who's in favor of more people dying
in the Middle East or Europe? I mean, does anybody
(05:02):
really want hundreds of thousands of more young people to
die in those two places?
Speaker 2 (05:07):
By and large, like ask the question as well, or
a continuation of the question, you're asking, what do the
people that were flying the Ukraine flags at the beginning
of the war, they they've stopped because they got bored,
because it wasn't really about Ukraine. It was about them,
that's very obvious. But the people, you know, they had
the Ukraine flag and the mask and vax emojis all
by their name, just you know, exactly, and preferred pronouns,
(05:31):
although those these days disappearing a little bit, not as
many preferred pronouns, vanishing, vanishing very rapidly. But what do
they want? They want us to just keep supporting Ukraine
until what until Russia decides that it isn't going to
try to take this territory from Ukraine. You know, we
are in what is effectively a war. We are the
(05:54):
supplier of a war of attrition, the supply side of
a war of attrition. There is no world, no future
in which the Russian forces are annihilated and all kicked
out of Ukraine. That is absolutely no one thinks that's
going to happen. So what is the benefit of the
perpetuation of the war right now? Given that reality? We
(06:15):
talked before about what happened in the US Civil War, Well,
there was a pathway to end the Confederate you know,
end the Confederate forces, and they took it and they
realized that and the electric gave Lincoln another term. No
one thinks there's a pathway to expel Russia entirely. So
in the meantime, because of the political views that people
(06:36):
have of Trump, they're going to want this conflict, which
who I mean, if you look at the numbers they've
got to be having, I don't know, tens of thousands
of casualties, certainly thousands of casualties a month. I guess
it depends on where you are in the fighting, and
you know what the current levels are. But that's horrible
because a people getting killed, getting their arms blown off
(06:57):
for what, yes, you know, and this is, and no
one seems to want to ask this question. Honestly, it's
all Europe Putin stooge or he's gonna roll through all
of Europe. No one's saying that that Trump is is.
Trump isn't saying, you know, Zelenski's surrender. He's saying, let's
figure out what both sides want. Here's here's the thing.
We don't even know what Putin wants. Yeah, shouldn't everybody
(07:19):
have somebody like, we know he doesn't want Ukraine and NATO. Fine,
and that's pretty reasonable actually from the Russian point of view.
I know Russia is the bad guy, but you know,
they don't want a massive military alliance going all the
way up to their border in territory that used to
be Russian or Soviet territory. So what what if it's
something that Ukraine could live with, If it's something that
(07:39):
Ukraine couldn't live with, Let's say let's say Putin was like,
you know what, I want to have a puppet government
installed in Kiev. I know we're supposed to say Kiev now,
but whatever, I eat the chicken, you know, chicken Kiev, Kiev,
and uh, you know, we want our own government there
and we want to have full control. Okay, well, at
least we know what the endgame is and we decide
(08:00):
are we going to try to back Ukraine to defeat
Russia for the next ten years. You know, worst can
go on a very long time. The Iran Iraq War
went on for almost a decade, like nine years, hundreds
of thousands of people killed for nothing. By the way,
there was there's not some great outcome of this where
it's like, oh, it was worth all the price in
blood and treasure. And you know, that's where Kissinger said
one of the most immoral things of all time. But
(08:22):
people think it's really funny, which is, you know, I
wish both sides could lose, or we were hoping for
both sides to lose. Both sides did lose. A lot
of people got killed.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Look at what happened in Korea. We still have a
demilitarized zone and I don't think they've ever had an
official peace in Korea even after the Korean War. So
here's what needs to happen, and I think Trump understands
better than anybody. Both sides need to have an ability
to claim that they had victory when they go back
(08:51):
to their camps. Zolensky needs to be able to say,
because of the bravery of the Ukrainian soldier, we stood
up against Russian aggression and we manage to gain something. Meanwhile,
Vladimir Putin needs to go back to Russia and say
our invasion preserved in some way a Russian victory. Both sides.
(09:17):
You know how to boxing matchbuck both sides as soon
as the bell ends turn to their respective corners, and
what do they do. They immediately raise their hands above
their head. Even if you got your butt kicked as
a boxer, they tell you to look like you won
for purposes of the judges. Let the judges can make
the decision about who won, but you go back and
(09:39):
celebrate if you're not knocked out at the end of
a boxing fight. That's what we need to give the
opportunity to both the Zolensky and Putin to do Trump,
as a master negotiator, certainly understands that. I think he
also understands that the United States has been so in
favor of Ukraine that he needs to give maneuverability to
(10:03):
Putin to get peace sold and by restricting our further
tax dollars going to Ukraine, he is hastening the end
of this war. And so I look what are we
sitting at right now, February nineteenth. I think there is
a good chance buck by may one, that there is
(10:24):
a ceasefire in place in Ukraine. And remember why this
is significant. When the weather gets good, there is typically
when the fighting kicks up. So he is acting right
now in what is still European winter. When there's snow
on the ground, it's harder to maneuver. When we get
to the spring, we need to have a ceasefire in place.
(10:45):
Or frankly, Russia is poised to overrun even more of
Ukraine because they don't have enough men. This is where
the raw man power of Russia is taking advantage, which
you talked about years ago on this program.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
This is Russia doesn't have to be good. They just
have to want to keep doing it. That's the problem.
They don't have to be that skilled. They don't have
to have good generals. I mean, look at the history
of Russia for the last one hundred plus years. It's
vast you can't control. It has a ton of natural
resources and will throw its men into a meat grinder
for years. So it's just a very it's a very
(11:21):
different strategic calculation that they make on these things in
terms of the cost benefit analysis the what we have.
But also note this play. If Trump brings this Russian
Russia Ukraine war to a conclusion rapidly, if it happens
even just in his first year in office, I think
that that's very it's a very powerful reminder of how
(11:44):
insane it was that the Democrats had Joe Biden in
office for those years. You didn't really have a commander
in chief. You didn't have somebody who had the mental
and physical capabilities to tackle something like this and to
really because you know, it's not just two people talking, right,
it's got to be lining this up with the various
(12:05):
diplomats and the outreach they're going to do, the negotiators,
the strategy. But there always has to be whether it's
a company or the United States of America, you need
somebody with a vision. You need somebody who sees the
future you're trying to go toward in order to give
everybody else the marching orders to achieve it. And we
did not have that at all, And I don't think
anybody can even argue we did under Joe Biden. So
(12:28):
just the fact now that you know the head of
the entity, the guy calling the shots is actually calling
the shots in Donald Trump gives us a realistic hope
of bringing this carnage to an end. And I just,
I truly pray that Donald Trump is able to do
it and able to get Zelensky to heal on this
(12:49):
a bit and do what is necessary, because you know,
wouldn't it be so wouldn't it be so nice we
go back just focusing on domestic American challenges and making
sure that we're as wealthy and safe and secure and
happy as we can be, and not spend so much
of our time on some distant war that people want
to make us believe is going to be at our
doorstep unless we have a blank check to a corrupt
(13:13):
regime where who knows where all this money and weaponry
and everything else is going. I think it's very fair
to say enough, enough is enough.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
We are joined now by our friend Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson,
and we're going to dive into the latest on the
budget and the priorities of twenty twenty five in the
Senate with him in a moment. But I actually want
to start with you because I know the conversation about
(13:42):
Ukraine has been very detailed of late, and you have
met with Zelensky before, and I'm curious what your experience
has been like with him and what your thoughts are
on the attempt to bring peace to the region after
almost three years of war.
Speaker 5 (14:02):
Now, yeah, I was the chairman of the European Subcommittee
when he became President of Ukraine. So I was the
only member of Congressant's inauguration in May of twenty nineteen.
Then I went back with Senator Chris Murphy in September.
At that point in time, President Linski told us that
he knew he could not dislodge Russia from the Don
(14:24):
Boss or from Crimea, and that he had to do
a piece deal with him. He knew it wouldn't be
popular in Ukraine, be he so that that's what he
had to do. So, you know, obviously things changed and
he was I think encouraged by by the Biden administration
to resist to putin. And you know, now we've got
this three year bloody stalemate. And I'm completely on board
(14:47):
with the what President Trump wants to do, which is
to end the war. There's no way that Putin is
going to lose that war. You have to face that reality.
You know, none of us like that reality, but it
was just true. So the DO war has to end.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
I think it's fair to say that Zelenski was invaded
by Russia partly because Biden was there and Putin didn't
trust Biden's toughness. Do you think also, there would have
been peace sooner if Biden and his administration had been
open to it, as opposed to what now looks like
the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, both Ukrainian
(15:25):
and Russian.
Speaker 5 (15:27):
Yeah. Yeah, I was not in Istan Bull, but you
hear stories of the fact that they were very close
to a peace deal, not had a piece deeal then
Beidensen born Boris Johnson in there to kind of blow
that thing up. So sure, first of all, the war
never started. We should have told Russia, no, we're not
going to offer Ukraine NATO membership. I think that probably
would have prevented it right there. We could have probably
(15:49):
done more in terms of arming Ukraine early to deter Putin,
but again, they had a peace agreement, as we're told,
and that got blown up. By Boris at the best
of a Biden. So the no, this thing never never
should have started, never should have gone on this long.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Do you think Senator Johnson appreciates you being with us?
It's buck. Do you think that this is something that
President Trump will be able to bring at least to
a cease fire relatively quickly? Do you think that we
could see it by the summer? I know I'm asking
you to project out a little bit, but just based
on your sense of Trump and his team and Secretary
of Rubio's capabilities and the realities on the ground here,
(16:30):
and you know, the the strategic realities on top of
all of that, what kind of a timeline are you
hopeful Trump can achieve well.
Speaker 5 (16:40):
As soon as possible. Again, I'm not gonna like the deal.
I don't think anybody's gonna like the deal. You know,
maybe Putin will like the deal. You know, again, this
is this is awful. But every day that goes by,
the deal gets worse because more Ukrainians, more Russian conscripts die,
more Ukraine gets destroyed. So again, I've just been focusing
got in this war. I've been saying that for a
(17:00):
couple of years.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Now, let's go into the budget situation long night in
the Senate, A lot of things that are going to
be occurring. What should the our listeners know about where
we are headed with the budget process here in twenty
twenty five.
Speaker 5 (17:18):
You have to know the numbers. You know, in Washingt
d C. They don't really like talking numbers much. But
the facts are in twenty nineteen, we spent four point
four trillion dollars. Then we had COVID went on a
massive by Parson spending scree, spent almost six point six trillion.
And I've said this in the past, no family, if
they had an illness had to borrow fifty thousand dollars
(17:41):
pay medical bills. If that family never got well, you
wouldn't keep borrowing fifty thousand dollars and spend at that level.
That would be insane. But that's exactly what the federal
government done has done the last five years. We've averaged
six point five billion dollars. Last year, we spent six
point nine This year, we're on a path to spend
seven point three trillion dollars. So four point four to
(18:04):
seven point three trillion dollars that the sixty three percent
increase our population has grown two point six percent. So
what we need to do is we need to return,
like a family would, to some kind of pre pandemic
spending levels. I've laid out four options. What happened is
the Chairman Graham of the Budget Committee took my option,
where I said, used President Trump's own budget for twenty
(18:28):
twenty five. Back before he left office. He projected out
his budget for twenty twenty five. If you'd use his
numbers plus day, social Security, medicare, and interest, he'd be
spending about six six trillion, sixty one billion dollars. That
is what we used in the budget we passed last
night in the US Senate. I've laid on other options too.
(18:48):
If you use Clinton's spending from nineteen ninety eight and
you increase it by population growth and inflation, bus this
year's soci Security, Medicare, and interest said be five point
five billion dollar and we'd virtually have a balanced budget.
In other words, using Clinton's spending priorities inflate it, they
(19:08):
have a balanced budget. If he use Obama's spending priorities
from twenty fourteen, it'd be six point two trillion dollars.
So I've laid up I'd tell my colleagues. You all
campaign on zero based budgeting, right, We'll never do it,
but this is the next best thing. How about a
five point five or six point one trillion dollar based budget.
(19:30):
Let's do that. What the House is doing is they're
basically starting at seven point three trillion dollars and they're
suffering death by one thousand cuts because everybody, look, we
can't cut that, can't cut that, can't cut that, and
so the House budget. You know, listen, I appreciate the
difficult nature of this, appreciate what they're trying to do,
but they're basically going from seven point three trillion dollars
(19:51):
and at most they've cut two hundred billion from that
and end up at seven point one trillion. It's totally
an adam. It sounds like a big number. We're gonna demand.
We're gonna cut one point five trillion dollars over ten years,
and we still what my message to President Trump. I
told this device President Vance when he's in lunch this week.
(20:13):
I said, you know, I don't think anybody did voters
for you either or President Trump expect you to be
spending at President Biden's levels. But that, in fact is
what we're doing here. That's what the House budget does.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Speaking of Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and a senator,
there's been a lot of noise from Democrats, Senator, senate
colleagues of yours, various Democrat appointee judges from the federal
bench trying to prevent access to these kinds of numbers
about spending, whether it's at the Treasury Department. I know
(20:49):
the IRS has gotten a visit from Doge. Do you
think that that's all being worked out and that Trump's
you know, stamp of approval on Elon and the Doge
team to go in and do this is going to
be respected or because to a lot of people, it
just seems like Democrats are obstructing something that should be
(21:09):
a truly bipartisan which is, let's see if they can
find fraud, waste and abuse, and where they find it,
they should be able to you know, the government should
deal with it.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
Well.
Speaker 5 (21:18):
Democrats use government to fund their radical left ideology and
they don't want the public to see it, and so
they are resisting it. You know, the good news is
the court so are actually supporting President Trump. I completely
support what Elon Musk is doing. The narrative is always unelected.
All the bureacrats that refuse to turn over information to
(21:40):
members of Congress and the American public, they are unelected.
I have a far greater faith in a representative from
a duly elected president elected to do just this, going
in there and uncovering this. Now the trick's going to
be just because Elon Musk and Doge uncovers the waste
for an abuse doesn't make it go away. You know,
(22:01):
we have to do that through the legislator, the process.
And again that's why I've been supporting a keep it
simple process. You know what the Senate is doing. Okay,
let's first start by giving Trump the resources he needs
to secure the border defend this nation. I would actually
do a three step process. Next sight come back using
that same budget, by the way, in tasking that we
(22:22):
use current policy on taxes, which means all we have
to do is come back a second reconciliation. Say we're
going to extend the current tax code, as complex as
awful as it is. By doing that, we would prevent
a massive automatic tax increase that occurring twenty twenty six.
Then we come back in the third round with a
(22:43):
fiscal twenty twenty six budget, and that's where we do
all the other stuff. I mean, that's where you stipfy
rationalize the tax code. That's where we take a look
at Trump's tax proposals. That's when we do the pre
pandemic spending level. That can be easy. But as you're saying,
seeing the House, the one big beautiful bill is one
(23:03):
really complex bill, which I think is probably one really
impossible to pass bill right off the bat. And President
Trump needs the border funding.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Now we're talking to Senator Ron Johnson. You made the analogy,
and I think it's a good one. In twenty nineteen,
we had a four point four trillion dollar budget. Democrats
but also Republicans signed on to blow up that bill.
That budget. During COVID money just flew out. We ratcheted
up the national debt by a massive degree. Isn't there
(23:34):
also a pretty good historical analogy here. Look, we responded,
you know, and you've been on the show a lot.
Much of the government and much of society failed in
responding to COVID. But if you go back historically, during
World War II, we ratcheted up spending massively for the
federal government. But as soon as World War two was over,
we dialed that back down and came back to some
(23:56):
form of sanity because we weren't fighting the war anymore.
Isn't it it crazy that there's almost no debate about
the budgetary policies that were put in place during COVID
being retracted at all. Like, I don't think most people
even contemplate or discuss this.
Speaker 5 (24:13):
Well. One of the devist things the Unit Party has
done is they've transferred to discretionary spending into the mandatory accounts.
So we've increased other mandatory not Social Security, Medicare or
even medicaid. We've increased from six hundred and forty two
billion to one point three trillion to twenty nineteen one
thing that this is three omnibuses ago. I asked my
(24:35):
senate colleagues Republican College to say, anybody know how much
in total the federal government spent last year? I asked
then Washington Press Corps that nobody knew because we never
talked about it. One of the ye press guys said, well,
if it was over at trillion dollars, now that's discrationany
spending that's less than thirty percent of our budget. So
we put so much of a federal budget on automatic pilots.
(24:59):
We're supposedly the five hundred and thirty five member border
directors of the largest financial area of the world, and
we don't even know in total what we spend now
because I raised that issue three years ago, people are aware,
but they're looking at again. If you start it seven
point three trillion dollars and try and cut your way
through pre pandemic level, you'll never get there. You have
(25:20):
to start at some pre pandemic level baseline. Again, I've
laid out Clinton nineteen ninety eight, Obama twenty fourteen. I
mean even Trump's twenty nineteen. If you inflate that, you'd
only be at six point five trillion. I still think
that's too high, but it's eight hundred billion dollars below
where we are right now, and it's over half a
trillion below where the House is trying to struggle passing
(25:43):
a budget.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Thanks so much for being with us, Center Ron Johnson.
Speaker 5 (25:47):
I'm not saying. I'm not saying the Senate is going
to have a good time or easy time getting down
that level. But at least our budget says six trillion
sixty one billion.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Okay, Senator Ron Johnson, Wisconsin. Thanks for being with us, sir.
Speaker 5 (26:00):
Have a great day.
Speaker 1 (26:01):
This is Team forty seven with Clay and Buck. Donald
Trump just a few moments ago, he's got the governors
all visiting with him at the White House, and I
want to play this cut for you. We'll take some
calls as we roll through the final hour here. But
the governor of Maine is refusing to follow the regulation
(26:25):
Trump signed, saying men can't compete in women's sports. That
doesn't seem like a really complicated regulation to follow, but
Trump just to the governor of Maine's face, called her out,
listen to this. It just happened.
Speaker 6 (26:42):
DANCAA has complied immediately, by the way, that's good. But
I understand Maine is Maine here, the governor of man
out here, are you not going to comply with it?
Speaker 3 (26:52):
I'm coping with the state federal law.
Speaker 4 (26:55):
Well we are the federal law. Well you better do it.
You better do it because you're not going to get
any federal funding at all if you don't. And by
the way, your population, even though it's somewhat liberal orlo,
I did very well there. Your population doesn't want men
playing in women's sports. So you better comply, because otherwise
you're not getting any federal funding. See every state, good,
(27:17):
I'll see you and could I look forward to that.
That should be a really easy one. And enjoy your
life after governor, because I don't think you'll be an
elected politics.
Speaker 1 (27:24):
Ooh man, that is incredible. That just happened. The governor
of Maine is saying she will see Trump in court
over whether men should be able to play women's sports.
This is emblematic I think of the Trump derangement syndrome
(27:45):
that has taken over in the Democrat Party. They are
taking constantly positions that twenty percent of the population agrees
with and fighting with Trump over them. Of all the
things you could disagree with Trump on in Maine, can
you imagine saying I'm going to fight to the death
(28:05):
over whether men can compete in women's sports. We got
a lot of people listening in Maine, and Trump is right.
I believe he only lost Maine by about six or
seven points if I remember the math, meaning a solid
forty five percent ish or forty six percent of Maine
voters support Trump. But even in Maine, this is like
(28:26):
a ninety ten issue. And for this to be the
ground that Democrats have decided, this is where we're putting
our feet in. This is what we're not gonna give
any ground on. I just I can't believe this is real.
That was a masterclass that we just played. That just
happened a few minutes ago of Trump with the main
(28:47):
governor in the White House.
The Team forty seven podcast is sponsored by Good Ranchers.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Making the American Farm Strong Again.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Team forty seven with Clay and Buck starts now.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Trump is reshaping the GOP majority national majority, as in
the numbers of Americans in each party in ways that
the Democrats are and should be deeply concerned about. And
CNN's I feel like we should call him CNN's Ryan Gerdusky.
(00:31):
He's the He's the Ryan Gerdusky of CNM.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Formerly formerly of CNN.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Well, no, that I'm saying we have Ryan Ryan Gradusky
is Clay and Buck Network. Now, he's got a great
podcast there which you should listen to where he breaks
down numbers and data. So you know, it's this guy
at CNN. He's like Bootleg Gardusky. Yeah, I'm saying is
a bootleg Gardusky. But he's doing his thing over there
at CNN. It's probably a nice guy, but this is
cut too. He's looking at the data. Play it.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
Donald Trump and the Republican Party has changed the electorate.
What do I mean by that, Well, let's take a
look at party identification Democrats versus Republicans. You go back
to twenty seventeen, five points more of the electorate was
Democrats than Republicans. You go to twenty twenty one when
Joe Biden was starting out, Look at that six points
more of the electorate was Democrats than Republicans. But look
at what's happened in February of twenty twenty five. Look
(01:16):
at this Republicans. There are more Republicans in the electorate
than there are Democrats Republican plus two. So Donald Trump
and the Republicans have remade the electorate. They've turned some
people over from being Democrats or independents to become Republicans.
New folks have entered the electorate who are more Republican leaning.
Speaker 4 (01:33):
And so when you.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Combine that with the fact that Republicans are really really
behind Donald Trump, all of a sudden, you get a
winning recipe whereby you break the normal rules of politics
and give Donald Trump that positive net approval rating when
he had pretty much a consistently negative one in term
number one.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
So Clay. At the same time, the Democrats have the
most mia leadership I think in my adult life. I
mean we going to say in the twenty first century,
and the Republicans just had this very solid win in
the election with Trump. Now the national party numbers are
showing something that's got to be very concerning for Democrats,
(02:11):
great for US. In twenty seventeen, the overall electorate there
were five more Democrats than Republicans. Twenty twenty one there
were six more Demo You know, I should say five more,
up five points, I mean up six points. In twenty
twenty one. Republicans are now up two Republicans. There are
more registered Republicans in the US electorate now for the
(02:35):
first time in a few election cycles. And this is
just another indicator in the data, in the numbers of
Trump is flipping Democrats to his side. So at a
time when they've tried to say Trump is so extreme,
Trump has brought Democrats over to the Republican Party. So
I think their argument that he's such a far right
and polarizing figure is even more challenging for them that
(02:59):
it has been in the past, because now the numbers show, no,
he's actually the great persuader. If there is such a
thing in American politics right now, nobody else is bringing
over the same kind of numbers from left to right
that Trump is.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Think about what Trump has done in the first month.
He has shut down the southern border and we talked
about this with you earlier this week. But I think
it's important to keep hammering that narrative because forever they
told us, hey, we can't do anything at the southern
border without Congress acting, Trump set down effectively with a
(03:33):
pen and executive orders and completely shut down the southern
border such that it's not even a point of discussion
or coverage anymore. Okay, So that's point one, which a
huge majority of American support. Point two, He ended so
far the war in the Middle East by his election.
He now is trying to end the war in Europe.
(03:55):
He has started the process of deporting violent criminals who
should not be in the country legally. He has unleashed
Elon Musk on the federal government to try and create
a more fair, less fraud riddled tax code and also
(04:16):
federal budget. What has he done that's even remotely controversial.
The only thing I can even think of is birthright citizenship,
which acknowledge acknowledged by the government and by his administration.
Is going to go to the Supreme Court on a
historical level to figure out what the law is on this.
(04:38):
But by and large, why are Democrats losing support? It's
because of all the things that I just ran through
with you, they're not even particularly partisan. Who's in favor
of more fraud and waste in the federal government? Only
cheats and liars. Who's in favor of more people dying
in the Middle East or Europe? I mean, does anybody
(05:02):
really want hundreds of thousands of more young people to
die in those two places?
Speaker 2 (05:07):
By and large, like ask the question as well, or
a continuation of the question, you're asking, what do the
people that were flying the Ukraine flags at the beginning
of the war, they they've stopped because they got bored,
because it wasn't really about Ukraine. It was about them,
that's very obvious. But the people, you know, they had
the Ukraine flag and the mask and vax emojis all
by their name, just you know, exactly, and preferred pronouns,
(05:31):
although those these days disappearing a little bit, not as
many preferred pronouns, vanishing, vanishing very rapidly. But what do
they want? They want us to just keep supporting Ukraine
until what until Russia decides that it isn't going to
try to take this territory from Ukraine. You know, we
are in what is effectively a war. We are the
(05:54):
supplier of a war of attrition, the supply side of
a war of attrition. There is no world, no future
in which the Russian forces are annihilated and all kicked
out of Ukraine. That is absolutely no one thinks that's
going to happen. So what is the benefit of the
perpetuation of the war right now? Given that reality? We
(06:15):
talked before about what happened in the US Civil War, Well,
there was a pathway to end the Confederate you know,
end the Confederate forces, and they took it and they
realized that and the electric gave Lincoln another term. No
one thinks there's a pathway to expel Russia entirely. So
in the meantime, because of the political views that people
(06:36):
have of Trump, they're going to want this conflict, which
who I mean, if you look at the numbers they've
got to be having, I don't know, tens of thousands
of casualties, certainly thousands of casualties a month. I guess
it depends on where you are in the fighting, and
you know what the current levels are. But that's horrible
because a people getting killed, getting their arms blown off
(06:57):
for what, yes, you know, and this is, and no
one seems to want to ask this question. Honestly, it's
all Europe Putin stooge or he's gonna roll through all
of Europe. No one's saying that that Trump is is.
Trump isn't saying, you know, Zelenski's surrender. He's saying, let's
figure out what both sides want. Here's here's the thing.
We don't even know what Putin wants. Yeah, shouldn't everybody
(07:19):
have somebody like, we know he doesn't want Ukraine and NATO. Fine,
and that's pretty reasonable actually from the Russian point of view.
I know Russia is the bad guy, but you know,
they don't want a massive military alliance going all the
way up to their border in territory that used to
be Russian or Soviet territory. So what what if it's
something that Ukraine could live with, If it's something that
(07:39):
Ukraine couldn't live with, Let's say let's say Putin was like,
you know what, I want to have a puppet government
installed in Kiev. I know we're supposed to say Kiev now,
but whatever, I eat the chicken, you know, chicken Kiev, Kiev,
and uh, you know, we want our own government there
and we want to have full control. Okay, well, at
least we know what the endgame is and we decide
(08:00):
are we going to try to back Ukraine to defeat
Russia for the next ten years. You know, worst can
go on a very long time. The Iran Iraq War
went on for almost a decade, like nine years, hundreds
of thousands of people killed for nothing. By the way,
there was there's not some great outcome of this where
it's like, oh, it was worth all the price in
blood and treasure. And you know, that's where Kissinger said
one of the most immoral things of all time. But
(08:22):
people think it's really funny, which is, you know, I
wish both sides could lose, or we were hoping for
both sides to lose. Both sides did lose. A lot
of people got killed.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Look at what happened in Korea. We still have a
demilitarized zone and I don't think they've ever had an
official peace in Korea even after the Korean War. So
here's what needs to happen, and I think Trump understands
better than anybody. Both sides need to have an ability
to claim that they had victory when they go back
(08:51):
to their camps. Zolensky needs to be able to say,
because of the bravery of the Ukrainian soldier, we stood
up against Russian aggression and we manage to gain something. Meanwhile,
Vladimir Putin needs to go back to Russia and say
our invasion preserved in some way a Russian victory. Both sides.
(09:17):
You know how to boxing matchbuck both sides as soon
as the bell ends turn to their respective corners, and
what do they do. They immediately raise their hands above
their head. Even if you got your butt kicked as
a boxer, they tell you to look like you won
for purposes of the judges. Let the judges can make
the decision about who won, but you go back and
(09:39):
celebrate if you're not knocked out at the end of
a boxing fight. That's what we need to give the
opportunity to both the Zolensky and Putin to do Trump,
as a master negotiator, certainly understands that. I think he
also understands that the United States has been so in
favor of Ukraine that he needs to give maneuverability to
(10:03):
Putin to get peace sold and by restricting our further
tax dollars going to Ukraine, he is hastening the end
of this war. And so I look what are we
sitting at right now, February nineteenth. I think there is
a good chance buck by may one, that there is
(10:24):
a ceasefire in place in Ukraine. And remember why this
is significant. When the weather gets good, there is typically
when the fighting kicks up. So he is acting right
now in what is still European winter. When there's snow
on the ground, it's harder to maneuver. When we get
to the spring, we need to have a ceasefire in place.
(10:45):
Or frankly, Russia is poised to overrun even more of
Ukraine because they don't have enough men. This is where
the raw man power of Russia is taking advantage, which
you talked about years ago on this program.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
This is Russia doesn't have to be good. They just
have to want to keep doing it. That's the problem.
They don't have to be that skilled. They don't have
to have good generals. I mean, look at the history
of Russia for the last one hundred plus years. It's
vast you can't control. It has a ton of natural
resources and will throw its men into a meat grinder
for years. So it's just a very it's a very
(11:21):
different strategic calculation that they make on these things in
terms of the cost benefit analysis the what we have.
But also note this play. If Trump brings this Russian
Russia Ukraine war to a conclusion rapidly, if it happens
even just in his first year in office, I think
that that's very it's a very powerful reminder of how
(11:44):
insane it was that the Democrats had Joe Biden in
office for those years. You didn't really have a commander
in chief. You didn't have somebody who had the mental
and physical capabilities to tackle something like this and to
really because you know, it's not just two people talking, right,
it's got to be lining this up with the various
(12:05):
diplomats and the outreach they're going to do, the negotiators,
the strategy. But there always has to be whether it's
a company or the United States of America, you need
somebody with a vision. You need somebody who sees the
future you're trying to go toward in order to give
everybody else the marching orders to achieve it. And we
did not have that at all, And I don't think
anybody can even argue we did under Joe Biden. So
(12:28):
just the fact now that you know the head of
the entity, the guy calling the shots is actually calling
the shots in Donald Trump gives us a realistic hope
of bringing this carnage to an end. And I just,
I truly pray that Donald Trump is able to do
it and able to get Zelensky to heal on this
(12:49):
a bit and do what is necessary, because you know,
wouldn't it be so wouldn't it be so nice we
go back just focusing on domestic American challenges and making
sure that we're as wealthy and safe and secure and
happy as we can be, and not spend so much
of our time on some distant war that people want
to make us believe is going to be at our
doorstep unless we have a blank check to a corrupt
(13:13):
regime where who knows where all this money and weaponry
and everything else is going. I think it's very fair
to say enough, enough is enough.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
You're listening to Team forty seven with Clay and Buck.
We are joined now by our friend Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson,
and we're going to dive into the latest on the
budget and the priorities of twenty twenty five in the
Senate with him in a moment. But I actually want
to start with you because I know the conversation about
(13:42):
Ukraine has been very detailed of late, and you have
met with Zelensky before, and I'm curious what your experience
has been like with him and what your thoughts are
on the attempt to bring peace to the region after
almost three years of war.
Speaker 5 (14:02):
Now, yeah, I was the chairman of the European Subcommittee
when he became President of Ukraine. So I was the
only member of Congressant's inauguration in May of twenty nineteen.
Then I went back with Senator Chris Murphy in September.
At that point in time, President Linski told us that
he knew he could not dislodge Russia from the Don
(14:24):
Boss or from Crimea, and that he had to do
a piece deal with him. He knew it wouldn't be
popular in Ukraine, be he so that that's what he
had to do. So, you know, obviously things changed and
he was I think encouraged by by the Biden administration
to resist to putin. And you know, now we've got
this three year bloody stalemate. And I'm completely on board
(14:47):
with the what President Trump wants to do, which is
to end the war. There's no way that Putin is
going to lose that war. You have to face that reality.
You know, none of us like that reality, but it
was just true. So the DO war has to end.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
I think it's fair to say that Zelenski was invaded
by Russia partly because Biden was there and Putin didn't
trust Biden's toughness. Do you think also, there would have
been peace sooner if Biden and his administration had been
open to it, as opposed to what now looks like
the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, both Ukrainian
(15:25):
and Russian.
Speaker 5 (15:27):
Yeah. Yeah, I was not in Istan Bull, but you
hear stories of the fact that they were very close
to a peace deal, not had a piece deeal then
Beidensen born Boris Johnson in there to kind of blow
that thing up. So sure, first of all, the war
never started. We should have told Russia, no, we're not
going to offer Ukraine NATO membership. I think that probably
would have prevented it right there. We could have probably
(15:49):
done more in terms of arming Ukraine early to deter Putin,
but again, they had a peace agreement, as we're told,
and that got blown up. By Boris at the best
of a Biden. So the no, this thing never never
should have started, never should have gone on this long.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
Do you think Senator Johnson appreciates you being with us?
It's buck. Do you think that this is something that
President Trump will be able to bring at least to
a cease fire relatively quickly? Do you think that we
could see it by the summer? I know I'm asking
you to project out a little bit, but just based
on your sense of Trump and his team and Secretary
of Rubio's capabilities and the realities on the ground here,
(16:30):
and you know, the the strategic realities on top of
all of that, what kind of a timeline are you
hopeful Trump can achieve well.
Speaker 5 (16:40):
As soon as possible. Again, I'm not gonna like the deal.
I don't think anybody's gonna like the deal. You know,
maybe Putin will like the deal. You know, again, this
is this is awful. But every day that goes by,
the deal gets worse because more Ukrainians, more Russian conscripts die,
more Ukraine gets destroyed. So again, I've just been focusing
got in this war. I've been saying that for a
(17:00):
couple of years.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Now, let's go into the budget situation long night in
the Senate, A lot of things that are going to
be occurring. What should the our listeners know about where
we are headed with the budget process here in twenty
twenty five.
Speaker 5 (17:18):
You have to know the numbers. You know, in Washingt
d C. They don't really like talking numbers much. But
the facts are in twenty nineteen, we spent four point
four trillion dollars. Then we had COVID went on a
massive by Parson spending scree, spent almost six point six trillion.
And I've said this in the past, no family, if
they had an illness had to borrow fifty thousand dollars
(17:41):
pay medical bills. If that family never got well, you
wouldn't keep borrowing fifty thousand dollars and spend at that level.
That would be insane. But that's exactly what the federal
government done has done the last five years. We've averaged
six point five billion dollars. Last year, we spent six
point nine This year, we're on a path to spend
seven point three trillion dollars. So four point four to
(18:04):
seven point three trillion dollars that the sixty three percent
increase our population has grown two point six percent. So
what we need to do is we need to return,
like a family would, to some kind of pre pandemic
spending levels. I've laid out four options. What happened is
the Chairman Graham of the Budget Committee took my option,
where I said, used President Trump's own budget for twenty
(18:28):
twenty five. Back before he left office. He projected out
his budget for twenty twenty five. If you'd use his
numbers plus day, social Security, medicare, and interest, he'd be
spending about six six trillion, sixty one billion dollars. That
is what we used in the budget we passed last
night in the US Senate. I've laid on other options too.
(18:48):
If you use Clinton's spending from nineteen ninety eight and
you increase it by population growth and inflation, bus this
year's soci Security, Medicare, and interest said be five point
five billion dollar and we'd virtually have a balanced budget.
In other words, using Clinton's spending priorities inflate it, they
(19:08):
have a balanced budget. If he use Obama's spending priorities
from twenty fourteen, it'd be six point two trillion dollars.
So I've laid up I'd tell my colleagues. You all
campaign on zero based budgeting, right, We'll never do it,
but this is the next best thing. How about a
five point five or six point one trillion dollar based budget.
(19:30):
Let's do that. What the House is doing is they're
basically starting at seven point three trillion dollars and they're
suffering death by one thousand cuts because everybody, look, we
can't cut that, can't cut that, can't cut that, and
so the House budget. You know, listen, I appreciate the
difficult nature of this, appreciate what they're trying to do,
but they're basically going from seven point three trillion dollars
(19:51):
and at most they've cut two hundred billion from that
and end up at seven point one trillion. It's totally
an adam. It sounds like a big number. We're gonna demand.
We're gonna cut one point five trillion dollars over ten years,
and we still what my message to President Trump. I
told this device President Vance when he's in lunch this week.
(20:13):
I said, you know, I don't think anybody did voters
for you either or President Trump expect you to be
spending at President Biden's levels. But that, in fact is
what we're doing here. That's what the House budget does.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Speaking of Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and a senator,
there's been a lot of noise from Democrats, Senator, senate
colleagues of yours, various Democrat appointee judges from the federal
bench trying to prevent access to these kinds of numbers
about spending, whether it's at the Treasury Department. I know
(20:49):
the IRS has gotten a visit from Doge. Do you
think that that's all being worked out and that Trump's
you know, stamp of approval on Elon and the Doge
team to go in and do this is going to
be respected or because to a lot of people, it
just seems like Democrats are obstructing something that should be
(21:09):
a truly bipartisan which is, let's see if they can
find fraud, waste and abuse, and where they find it,
they should be able to you know, the government should
deal with it.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
Well.
Speaker 5 (21:18):
Democrats use government to fund their radical left ideology and
they don't want the public to see it, and so
they are resisting it. You know, the good news is
the court so are actually supporting President Trump. I completely
support what Elon Musk is doing. The narrative is always unelected.
All the bureacrats that refuse to turn over information to
(21:40):
members of Congress and the American public, they are unelected.
I have a far greater faith in a representative from
a duly elected president elected to do just this, going
in there and uncovering this. Now the trick's going to
be just because Elon Musk and Doge uncovers the waste
for an abuse doesn't make it go away. You know,
(22:01):
we have to do that through the legislator, the process.
And again that's why I've been supporting a keep it
simple process. You know what the Senate is doing. Okay,
let's first start by giving Trump the resources he needs
to secure the border defend this nation. I would actually
do a three step process. Next sight come back using
that same budget, by the way, in tasking that we
(22:22):
use current policy on taxes, which means all we have
to do is come back a second reconciliation. Say we're
going to extend the current tax code, as complex as
awful as it is. By doing that, we would prevent
a massive automatic tax increase that occurring twenty twenty six.
Then we come back in the third round with a
(22:43):
fiscal twenty twenty six budget, and that's where we do
all the other stuff. I mean, that's where you stipfy
rationalize the tax code. That's where we take a look
at Trump's tax proposals. That's when we do the pre
pandemic spending level. That can be easy. But as you're saying,
seeing the House, the one big beautiful bill is one
(23:03):
really complex bill, which I think is probably one really
impossible to pass bill right off the bat. And President
Trump needs the border funding.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Now we're talking to Senator Ron Johnson. You made the analogy,
and I think it's a good one. In twenty nineteen,
we had a four point four trillion dollar budget. Democrats
but also Republicans signed on to blow up that bill.
That budget. During COVID money just flew out. We ratcheted
up the national debt by a massive degree. Isn't there
(23:34):
also a pretty good historical analogy here. Look, we responded,
you know, and you've been on the show a lot.
Much of the government and much of society failed in
responding to COVID. But if you go back historically, during
World War II, we ratcheted up spending massively for the
federal government. But as soon as World War two was over,
we dialed that back down and came back to some
(23:56):
form of sanity because we weren't fighting the war anymore.
Isn't it it crazy that there's almost no debate about
the budgetary policies that were put in place during COVID
being retracted at all. Like, I don't think most people
even contemplate or discuss this.
Speaker 5 (24:13):
Well. One of the devist things the Unit Party has
done is they've transferred to discretionary spending into the mandatory accounts.
So we've increased other mandatory not Social Security, Medicare or
even medicaid. We've increased from six hundred and forty two
billion to one point three trillion to twenty nineteen one
thing that this is three omnibuses ago. I asked my
(24:35):
senate colleagues Republican College to say, anybody know how much
in total the federal government spent last year? I asked
then Washington Press Corps that nobody knew because we never
talked about it. One of the ye press guys said, well,
if it was over at trillion dollars, now that's discrationany
spending that's less than thirty percent of our budget. So
we put so much of a federal budget on automatic pilots.
(24:59):
We're supposedly the five hundred and thirty five member border
directors of the largest financial area of the world, and
we don't even know in total what we spend now
because I raised that issue three years ago, people are aware,
but they're looking at again. If you start it seven
point three trillion dollars and try and cut your way
through pre pandemic level, you'll never get there. You have
(25:20):
to start at some pre pandemic level baseline. Again, I've
laid out Clinton nineteen ninety eight, Obama twenty fourteen. I
mean even Trump's twenty nineteen. If you inflate that, you'd
only be at six point five trillion. I still think
that's too high, but it's eight hundred billion dollars below
where we are right now, and it's over half a
trillion below where the House is trying to struggle passing
(25:43):
a budget.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Thanks so much for being with us, Center Ron Johnson.
Speaker 5 (25:47):
I'm not saying. I'm not saying the Senate is going
to have a good time or easy time getting down
that level. But at least our budget says six trillion
sixty one billion.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
Okay, Senator Ron Johnson, Wisconsin. Thanks for being with us, sir.
Speaker 5 (26:00):
Have a great day.
Speaker 1 (26:01):
This is Team forty seven with Clay and Buck. Donald
Trump just a few moments ago, he's got the governors
all visiting with him at the White House, and I
want to play this cut for you. We'll take some
calls as we roll through the final hour here. But
the governor of Maine is refusing to follow the regulation
(26:25):
Trump signed, saying men can't compete in women's sports. That
doesn't seem like a really complicated regulation to follow, but
Trump just to the governor of Maine's face, called her out,
listen to this. It just happened.
Speaker 6 (26:42):
DANCAA has complied immediately, by the way, that's good. But
I understand Maine is Maine here, the governor of man
out here, are you not going to comply with it?
Speaker 3 (26:52):
I'm coping with the state federal law.
Speaker 4 (26:55):
Well we are the federal law. Well you better do it.
You better do it because you're not going to get
any federal funding at all if you don't. And by
the way, your population, even though it's somewhat liberal orlo,
I did very well there. Your population doesn't want men
playing in women's sports. So you better comply, because otherwise
you're not getting any federal funding. See every state, good,
(27:17):
I'll see you and could I look forward to that.
That should be a really easy one. And enjoy your
life after governor, because I don't think you'll be an
elected politics.
Speaker 1 (27:24):
Ooh man, that is incredible. That just happened. The governor
of Maine is saying she will see Trump in court
over whether men should be able to play women's sports.
This is emblematic I think of the Trump derangement syndrome
(27:45):
that has taken over in the Democrat Party. They are
taking constantly positions that twenty percent of the population agrees
with and fighting with Trump over them. Of all the
things you could disagree with Trump on in Maine, can
you imagine saying I'm going to fight to the death
(28:05):
over whether men can compete in women's sports. We got
a lot of people listening in Maine, and Trump is right.
I believe he only lost Maine by about six or
seven points if I remember the math, meaning a solid
forty five percent ish or forty six percent of Maine
voters support Trump. But even in Maine, this is like
(28:26):
a ninety ten issue. And for this to be the
ground that Democrats have decided, this is where we're putting
our feet in. This is what we're not gonna give
any ground on. I just I can't believe this is real.
That was a masterclass that we just played. That just
happened a few minutes ago of Trump with the main
(28:47):
governor in the White House.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.