May 30, 2023 • 58 mins
The debt ceiling and intergenerational theft. Sen. Tim Scott: Joy Behar. Trump flips on Disney? This is crazy town!
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):
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and buck
Sexton Show podcast. Welcome in Tuesday edition Clay Travis buck
Sexton Show. I hope all of you had a great
long weekend if you were able to take Monday off.
We certainly want to thank everyone who allows us to
have the freedoms that we hold so dear, and we
(00:22):
know that that comes with a cost too many families
across the country. So we hope as well that you
are able to spend some time honoring the sacrifices of
so many that have come before us as part of
your Memorial Day celebration and festivity. But we are excited
to be here with you after several days being away
(00:46):
and we have not spent Let's start off here, by
the way, we're going to be joined by Tim Scott,
Senator from South Carolina, who has announced that he is
running for president. He will join us at one o'clock Eastern.
That is the top of the next hour, almost exactly
one hour from now, so you can put that on
your horizon as we continue to talk with everyone who
(01:09):
is running for president that will come on the show,
both Democrat and republic and we've talked to RFK Junior. Obviously,
Joe Biden is terrified to come on this program because
if he spent very much time talking with us at all,
it would demonstrate his clear dementia and the fact that
he is unable to do this job. But we will
talk to Tim Scott at one. We've got a lot
(01:30):
of different stories to dive into. Joe Manchin is down
twenty two points to Jim Justice in West Virginia. What
does that mean both for the Senate looking ahead to
next year, but also for potential a potentially a presidential run.
Donald Trump has changed his position on Disney. We will
(01:50):
discuss Sam Ponder at ESPN is a bigot, according to
USA Today for believing that men should not be able
to compete against women. Lulu lamon which I feel like
I mispronounced all the time. But they have fired two
employees for calling the cops. But we begin with a
story that, frankly, we have not spent that much time on.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Just real quick calling the cops for stealing for people
stole and they called the cops and then they got
fired for calling the cops on the thieves.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Anyway, Yes, which is emblematic of the world in which
we live right now, so all that to be discussed
as we move throughout the course of today's program. But
we haven't spent very much time talking about the debt
ceiling because we told you that eventually this was going
to get resolved, and it appears that it has gotten
(02:42):
resolved over the weekend. An agreement between Speaker Kevin McCarthy
and President Biden their negotiation teams. Here is cut one
Kevin McCarthy explaining what exactly is going to happen.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
There is so much in this as positive and measure
to all the other debt seelings. When Republicans had the presidency,
the Senate, and the House, did they ever cut spending. No,
they increased it. We were able to do this when
the President said he wasn't even going to talk to us.
This is really a step in the right direction. It
puts as a trajectory that's different. We put a statutory
(03:18):
cap on only spending one percent for the next six years,
so we let government grow but at a slower rate.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Okay, so Buck, it appears this is going to pass.
There are going to be upset members on the right
who are refusing to vote for this. I think they're
around twenty Republicans so far who appears are going to
be opposed to this. It appears there also will be
some members of the Democrat Party on the left that
(03:47):
are opposed to this agreement as well. What I would
say is fairly significant in general is yes, it slows
the rate of growth, but it effectively takes us to
already five trillion dollars in debt, and at some point,
I think we just have to recognize that our national
(04:09):
debt is never going to get paid off. And I mean,
am I crazy buck? When you look at this like
it seems like we've just decided that the national debt
doesn't matter. Both Republicans and Democrats, I think you frame
it this way. This is probably the best deal you
could get under the circumstances with a Senate majority in
(04:33):
the hands of Democrats and a White House with a
Democrat president. But that's it's really tough to feel like,
oh great, you know this is this is a moment
in time where you'd have to say to yourself, we
are now faced with both parties effectively spending endlessly running
(04:55):
the debt up to a place where service on the
debt is going to increasingly crowd out spending really a
part of this, and it's not politically, it's not politically
advantageous to talk about. This is that there's an intergenerational
theft that's going on, which is that the benefits that
have been promised for the older generation are way beyond
(05:19):
what is paid into them, which people don't Again, people
don't want to hear.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
This is just numbers, it's true. And then the debt
burden passes on to the younger generation now, which is
why you see a lot of people complaining, you know,
in their twenties, their thirties, into their forties, I can't
afford a house anywhere. I can't you know, I can't
get out of student loan debt. There are structural things
in the economy that we accept because of politics, that
(05:43):
we shouldn't accept as a matter of what is fair
and what is ethical, I think, and that's why you
have both parties spending too much money. Bottom line, spend
too much money. I mean, what do we run the
debt up six trillion under Trump? Right?
Speaker 4 (05:58):
I mean?
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Trump great economy, no question about it. Economy was phenomenal
until the fourth year of COVID, of course, but then
we spend six trillion dollars. That's a big problem, and
it was a big problem also politically because then Biden
comes in like a truemaniac and spends an additional two
trillion dollars when we should be absolutely going in the
other direction and not doing it, and then he wanted
(06:19):
to spend five trillion more on top of that. Which
you realize is we are in a competition for which
political party can be a bigger version of Santa Claus
the free stuff for everybody, or the stuff that you
get more than you pay into it. And this just
puts us on a trajectory for eventual real financial hardship
as a country and even possibly ruination. I mean, you
(06:41):
look at the history of fiat currency. You look at
what inflation has done historically in different countries, and it
has caused economic collapse. But you know, I say this,
and everyone I think on the right, well not everybody,
but a lot of people shake their heads and they'll say, yeah,
that's right. We need to do something about the debt.
And I say, all right, so we need to do
some means testing for social security, We need to raise
the retirement How dare you, sir, how dare. It's okay, fine,
(07:04):
this this is where we are. Everyone wants to pretend
they want to deal with this and it's a huge problem.
And then you talk about the only ways you could
realistically do Clay, we even this notion of automatic spending.
Think about this. This just means the politicians all get
to wash their hands of it. Oh sorry, that's the
automatic spending. Yeah, that's where seventy percent of the spending
comes from. It's the automatic spending. We are cutting what
(07:27):
is it three the three percent increase or something. I mean,
the numbers, the numbers don't even really matter because the
numbers are so insignificant. We are slightly limiting the increase
in the spending the federal government's going to do, which
is already way beyond our means. And we think that's
we think that's a victory. You know, this is taking
an alcoholic and saying you can't have thirteen shots of tequila,
(07:47):
you can only have twelve.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
The reality is when you refuse to look at social
Security or Medicare, and that seems to be the general
consensus of both political parties, then they're is no way
to balance the federal budget, and scarily, Buck What is
becoming the case is the debt on the national debt,
(08:10):
in other words, the interest that we have to pay
on our national debt, particularly as we're now talking about
five and five and a quarter percent interest rates. That's
going to start crowding out a lot of the discretionary
spending as well. You basically can't balance the budget by
analyzing discretionary spending. And so people don't want to talk
(08:34):
about it because I think it makes everybody so uncomfortable.
But I do think it's worth mentioning. The Tea Party
started because we hit ten trillion dollars in national debt.
That was in twenty ten. Since twenty ten, we have
added over twenty trillion dollars in national debt. That's the
(08:57):
last thirteen years, So we are adding over a trillion
dollars a year to our national debt. At this point,
it just feels like everyone is pretending that this doesn't
exist and that it's not going to be a major
hindrance on future economic growth. But it feels to me
like both parties are engaging in magical realism here in
(09:20):
pretending that the biggest issue isn't a big issue.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
Look, you've got you've got Trump running ads saying Ronda
Santis wants to cut your Medicare, and you have Rondas
Santas saying I'm just look at the Republican primary. He's like,
I'm not going to touch your medicare because they both
know whoever says they're going to touch medicare is going
to lose. Meanwhile, people sit around saying we're spending too
much money, We're spending too much money something like, and
(09:44):
again we could have there's some great minds on this issue.
I'm trying to remember, oh gosh, well, even like my
friend Ben Dominic is very strong on the healthcare issue.
There are a few other people I can think of,
but one of them is escape being my my mind
right now. But they can break down all the numbers.
(10:04):
Is the point something like a huge percentage, a huge
majority of spending that is even being done for medicare
happens in the last six months of a person's life.
So there and there's very little, uh, you know, oversight quality.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Of life and that it's actually being gained there, right.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
And how the building is actually being being done. And
ovik Roid, by the way, that was the name I
was trying to remember he was fantastic. He's fantastic on
the healthcare side of things because he's a realist. But
people don't want to hear it because we've we've gotten
into a competition for who can do a better job
of distributing the spoil system. And that's where we are.
(10:40):
There was a moment when the Republican Party seem to
be really at least willing to talk about being opposed
to this. And as you point out, Clay, that was
twenty trillion dollars ago. Yeah, and you have to wonder
as well, if spending doesn't matter, why does inflation, you know,
just stink so much? Well, because spending does matter, If
debt doesn't matter, why not just spend endless amount of money.
(11:01):
This is very straightforward stuff. But we have a political
system now where anybody who talks about being financially responsible
will lose. That's it. And so we can sit around
and i'm people because I'll get emails and I'm sure
you get them too. You guys need to talk about
the debt ceiling. No, they're going to raise the debt ceiling.
Republicans are going to do a bare minimum. They're going
to take one nibble on the edge of the giant
(11:23):
cookie that is our federal debt, and they're going to
pack themselves in the back. Meanwhile, Democrats are going to
continue to use it as a spoil system. It doesn't change,
and people could say, well, this doesn't sound particularly useful.
I think the first step is understanding where we are
as a country. We're just going to keep spending until
the financial disaster hits. That's the plan right now, Republican Democrat.
(11:44):
No one wants to stop it. You try to stop it,
you lose, and then you're not in power. And so
then what's the difference do you? How do we change this?
Speaker 1 (11:52):
I mean, I think we should have, unfortunately gone back
in time. I wish we had had most states buck
have balanced budget requirements. In other words, you can't run
trillion dollar deficits if you're the governor of California, or
if you're the governor of Florida or New York or
one of these places. And as soon as we gave
(12:15):
politicians the ability to go into debt, and to be fair,
sometimes going into debt makes sense to beat the Nazis
in World War two. I keep hammering this home because
I think it staggers people. We spent more money on
an inflation adjusted basis on COVID than we did to
win World War Two.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
That's because if we hadn't done it, we wouldn't be
worried about inflation, because we'd all be spending Deutsche marks, right,
I mean, you know we can all understand at some
level or whatever. I think it was deutsch marks back
in the day. Too. This is there are sometimes, obviously
where you have to go into debt to save your nation.
We didn't have to do that for COVID. We spent
six trillion dollars during COVID. People wonder why didn't inflation
(12:56):
hit more? Why didn't inflation hit more than the twenty
twenty two elections, which you know, everybody on the right
basically got wrong. And it's I think in part because
a lot of people looked at it and they said, well,
Biden spent two trillion dollars, the guy before spend six
trillion in one year.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
I think also, and this is even more debilitating their buck.
I think a lot of people have just lost faith
in government in general, and so the consequences of actions
aren't as big a part of elections as they should be,
which is one of the reasons why I'm concerned that
Biden's gonna win again in twenty four.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
I'm sorry, I feel a little bit like, did you
ever see the movie Best in Show? Oh, he's for
guests madea remember remember when he goes to visit I
goes to visit like the boyfriend of his ex boyfriend
or whatever of his wife, and and it turns out
that guy is a hostage negotiator. And he sits there
and he's like, so, like, what's the secret big hostage
negotiator to the guy goes, well, they all jumps. I
(13:54):
don't I'm not trying. I'm not trying to be that
guy right now, but I'm just saying, you know, it's
a you know, it's a rough situation. It's oh, he's
a crisis negotiator, not a Hasta's negotiator, because they all jump,
and I'm like, we're not all jumping necessarily. We can
actually fix something here. But everyone has to be very
honest about the fact that, I mean, Republicans taking a
victory lap on this. It's kind of sad. I know
(14:17):
it's the best possible, but you know, is your offense
celebrating Clay when they make a goal line stand. I
don't think so well. And here it's a good sports
analogy from you to start the week. Here, here's the
way to think about it. I don't feel like we're ever.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Going to stop the national debt from increasing. So the
question becomes, and I hate to say that, but there's
been no suggestion that I've seen in any sort of
political leadership that's going to change. At what point does
this long ticking national debt time bomb explode on all
of us and what does it look like? Because there
(14:51):
are economic consequences to making poor choices, as all of
you out there know. But unlike the rest of of
the United States, you can't just declare bankruptcy as a
country and wipe out all your debt.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
I had a feeling, by the way, it's reich Reich Marx,
not deutsch Marks back in the not. But you know,
same idea. Yes, we have what I said.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
So we've got a really good start to the week there.
We're all our economy is eventually going to blow up.
It's just a question of when, and we maybe have
forestalled that for a small period of time. Happy Week,
Verizon at and T T Mobile. If you're with them
you're overpaying. Pure talk can save your family over nine
hundred dollars a year, and right now you can get
(15:33):
unlimited talk, text, ultra fast five G data for just
twenty bucks a month. What about the coverage, It's phenomenal.
Pure Talk uses the most dependable five G network in
the country. So grab your phones, dial pound two fifty
and say the keyword Clay and Buck to get unlimited talk,
text and plenty of data for just twenty bucks a month.
Pure Talk's amazing US customer service team will make switching easy.
(15:55):
Choose a veteran owned company that cares about keeping jobs
in America and saving you money. Pick up your phone
and dial pound two fifty. Say Clay and Buck for
unlimited talk and text with plenty of five G data
for just twenty bucks a month. Dal pound two five
zero Again say Clay and Buck. Save an additional fifty
percent off your first month thanks to pure Talk making
(16:19):
sense in an insane world. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
The second hour of Clay and Buck kicks off right now. Everybody,
thank you for hanging out with us. We are I
believe what we joined do we have him? Okay, we
do We're joined now by Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.
He is a presidential candidate in this GP primary. Senator Scott,
(16:45):
pleasure to have you back on the program, sir well.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
Thank you' all both for having me back. And it's
always a good day to be back on that here
with you.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
I know it's it's an obvious question. It's an easy
question from the perspective of the one asking, but I
think it's a more difficult one to make worthwhile for
the one responding. Senator, why are you running? What do
you want to do that would be different from some
of the other Republican nominees.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
I think it's so important for me, the guy who's
been blessed with the America that everyone should be in
love with. I believe that America can do for anyone
what she has done for me, and that includes restoring hope,
creating opportunities, and protecting the America we love. I would
start my presidential service by resigning the XL Keystone Pipeline
(17:34):
because our American energy future is our national security future.
Where we are in charge of our own lives, our
own energy, we are going to be on solid grounds.
Second thing I would say is that China is an
existential threat period. Everything that we do to decouple our
economy from China's economy is good for the nation. And
(17:56):
without any questions saying, with the security apparatus, our southern
border is a crisis. I've always said, if you don't
control the back door to your house, it ain't your house.
If you don't control your southern border, it might not
be your country. President Biden has failed US, failed US
miserably protecting Americans, including the seventy thousand Americans who've lost
(18:20):
their lives to fitting All and one hundred folks that
our national security lives walking across our southern border. We
have to secure our southern border and use the latest
technology in order to surveil our southern border and stop
fitting All from killing another seventy thousand Americans this year.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
Senator, you got called out. And I know this is
crazy to even have to ask about because I think
it's the dumbest show filled with the dumbest people on
media on a daily basis. But Joy Behar said, essentially,
you didn't know what it was like to be black
in America. I'm curious how you would respond to that,
as well as sunny Houston coming after you. I don't know.
(19:02):
I guess it's a sign that the view views you
as a threat to their left wing hegemony. But what
are your thoughts when you hear someone like joy Behar
say you don't know what it's like to be black
in America and so your experience doesn't count.
Speaker 4 (19:17):
But there's no doubt a white ladies dressing up in
black faith giving the black man advice probably doesn't ring
true in anyone's mind, certainly not my own. But more importantly,
I find it offensive and disgusting and dangerous for a
very different reason. I'm used to having the less attacked
me because of the truth of my life. This proves
(19:39):
their lives. And I say that because of this. When
I helped write the tax cuts and jobs that, they
called me a prop. When I started talking about refunding
the police, they called me a token. When I stepped
forward and pushed back from President Biden's malign agenda, they
called me the end. I don't I'm used to it.
(20:02):
Here's what is dangerous and offensive to me. For every
young child in America wanting to think for themselves draw
their own conclusions. What they're saying to them is stay
in your place, do not stick your head up, because
we're going to tell you how to think, so you
never learn anything about what you should think. It is
(20:24):
literally the dumbest, most offensive thing I've ever witnessed on
TV to hear these millionaire TV personalities telling think how
to live my life as a black man, but more
importantly suggesting to every child, stay in your place, follow
(20:46):
my lead, for you too will reap the same harvest
of Tim Scott or Clarence Thomas or any other conservative
who dares dares to think for themselves.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
You know, it's, first of all, that's a very powerful response.
I think it's incredibly well said. I don't know if
you saw the comments from ice Cube. He's a popular
rapper for our audience out there that might not know him.
On the flip side, he spoke out over the weekend
and said, hey, we've been voting Democrat almost exclusively for
sixty years, and he said, how has that made Black
(21:21):
Americans experience better? I'm curious if you saw those comments
and what you think about what they could represent in
terms of Black Americans being encouraged by ice Cube to
look around and say, hey, being all in on one side,
Maybe isn't the best way to advance our political interest.
What are your thoughts there?
Speaker 4 (21:42):
Well, I celebrate ice Cube's comments, so I did not
hear them. I will say this that the African American
poverty rate has covered over twenty five percent for those
sixty years. You're talking about forty of those sixty years,
the Democrats from nineteen fifty four until nineteen ninety four
had one hundred percent control of the United States House
(22:05):
and Representatives. Just take a look back and see how
bad those years were for African Americans. Here's the difference.
And this is why I think ice Cube has a
finger on the artery, not just the pulse of the artery.
It's said, when we were in control as Republicans, we
funded historically black colleges and universities at the highest level
(22:26):
in the history of the country and made their funding
permanent because both myself and President Trump believed then what
we know now that education is the closest thing to magic,
and making sure that African Americans and every other racial
group in this country has the same access to high
(22:47):
quality education, we made it a part of our objective.
We lowered taxes for single moms seventy three percent of
their federal tax burden went down. That's important when you
think about the fact that seventy five percent of African
American kids are growing up in a single parent household.
Why not give that mother her money back. So when
(23:09):
we start talking about the policy successes that we've had
for all of America with no exceptions, it's a reason
the African American community is taking a second look at
the Republican Party and the more we go. I did
a black town hall the Black Church this past Sunday,
and the good news is at that Black church about
(23:32):
sixty percent of the people that were there for white
Hispanic and about thirty to African Americans. Here's what we're learning.
We can no longer judge people by the color of
their skins, Thank God Almighty. We judge them now by
the content of their character. That's called American progress and
(23:52):
we should all celebrate it.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
We're speaking of Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. He's
a presidential candidate in this election of Senator Scott. To
follow on to what you were just saying, do you
think that is part of your strategy? Clay and I
were talking about this last week the Democrat Party in
presidential elections, stretching back for as long as I can remember,
(24:14):
gets effectively call it roughly ninety percent of the black vote.
Do you believe that if you are the GOP nominee,
you could change that number, such as the Democrat coalition
fails and you win as the Republican.
Speaker 4 (24:30):
I think my message enjoys popularity with conservatives who happened
to be black, who happen to be white, who happened
to be Hispanic. Here's what I know for certain, that
being able to go where you're not invited sharing the
good news of conservatism, which, of course, Clay Buck, you know,
they're called American values. Conservative principles work wherever they are applied.
(24:53):
The one place where I've seen the least application has
been in the minority community since typically the African American community,
where we've seen a lot of government assistance but not
enough entrepreneurship. In today's America, every community that has strong
entrepreneurship has low unemployment. I believe taking our message to
(25:17):
those communities across this nation will produce better results. It
works for me in South Carolina, I think it will
work nationwide, where I enjoy more than twenty percent of
the African American vote are very close to it election
and election out over several two decades.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
Now, Senator Tim Scott with US now he's running for president.
There's some things that occur that I just can't believe
are real. You have an athletics background, I believe, and
so you were talking about just being able to reach
out to audiences everywhere. Would you have ever believe, Senator,
(25:57):
that not one single congress person in the House, and
not one single Senator would believe would vote to say
that men don't belong in women's athletics. And let me
build on that a little bit. I don't know if
you've seen this headline. Sam Ponder, who does an NFL
show for ESPN, actually spoke out, and she spoke out
(26:19):
and said, hey, this is wrong. We shouldn't have men
identifying as women competing against women, and an USA Today
editorial called her a bigot for having that perspective. Can
you believe that this is where we are in the
world right now in our country?
Speaker 4 (26:37):
Unbelievable. I said it oftentimes around the country and I'll
say it again that transgender ideology is going to ruin
female sports if we let it continue. There's no way,
as a guy who played college football twenty five pounds ago,
there's no way in the world I should be competing
(26:59):
again women in college if I were still that primetime
athlete that was thirty years ago. So the truth is
that if we want to protect women's sports, protect the
intequity of competition, you cannot take any other position the
one that I've just asserted. It is common sence, and frankly,
(27:21):
I don't understand why it's controversial.
Speaker 1 (27:26):
I think that's one hundred percent right.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
Senator Tim Scott appreciates you being with us, Sir. Good
luck to you in your campaign and to come back
as things get closer to uh, you know, the big
days of voting and talk to us again.
Speaker 4 (27:37):
Okay, God bless you all. Thank you for representing truth
everywhere people hear.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
Thank you, we try. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (27:45):
Thanks a lot, Senator Tim Scott. We will talk to
him for sure again soon as this process of the
presidency continues to play out. You guys can react to
that eight hundred and two eighty two two eight eight two.
But I want to tell you a listener of this
program used an extra day this past weekend to scan
dozens of family photos and old family records in advance
of a family reunion. Some of these photos more than
(28:07):
one hundred years old. They're all now safely on his laptop,
ready for a little show and tell this come in
July fourth weekend with his family, for they really safe
on that laptop. After all. If it crashes, all bets
are off. But it's easy to back up what's on
that computer. I Drive makes it so that in a
few minutes you can download the i drive software and
(28:29):
start backing up everything on your own computer, just like
our listener should do. Iedrive dot COM's where you start
your computer data upload and secured on secure i edrive
servers in the cloud. They use military grade encryption to
keep all your data safe. You'll be able to back
up your data daily or more often than that if
(28:50):
you'd like. They keep your ten most recent backup successible
only to you if and only when you use the
access because your computer or smartphone is crashed, it will
be there for you. I Drive as a PCMG winner
eight years in a row as the best cloud backup solution.
Plan start at less than seven dollars a month. iDrive
(29:12):
dot Com get ninety percent off your first year when
you use my name Clay when you sign up, that's
iDrive dot com slash Clay. Use that name today, I
drive dot com. My name Clay, Clay Travis at buck
Sexton Making Sense in an Insane World. Well Man Hour
(29:34):
number three, Tuesday Edition, Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Appreciate
all of you hanging out with us. Encourage you to
go download the podcast. Make sure you don't miss a
single moment of the show, including at the top of
the second hour, Senator Tim Scott teeing off on Joybahar
probably play you that audio at some point, maybe before
the hour ends. Here the final hour of the Tuesday
(29:55):
edition of the program, but you can go listen to
the full context of that interview. Make sure you don't moment.
I know it's now a lot of you kids are
getting out of school. My kids finished school at the
end of last week. It is the holiday season. Many
of you on the road right now for Memorial Date.
It's not long till July fourth. It is family vacation season.
It is vacation season overall. Maybe you're not gonna be
(30:17):
able to listen to one of the five hundred normal
stations that you would be listening to all over the
country to grab the show, take us with you to
the beach where Buck would be wildly disappointed if he
were kicking back and trying to enjoy his summer vacation
and then suddenly his earbuds were infringed upon by someone
sitting next to him on the beach. But he might
(30:39):
make an exception if it happens to be our show,
all trume. So, as we are rolling through this program,
we have talked about the Walt Disney situation and the
fact that I believe Disney made an incredibly calculated error
to get involved in commenting on the flour to bill
(31:01):
that did not allow kindergarten, first second third graders to
be taught about sexuality related to which the Little Mermaid
Allive Action version came out this weekend. New York Times
said that they didn't enjoy the movie as much as
they otherwise would have because there was not enough kink
in that movie. Yes, Little Mermaid nineteen eighty nine cartoon,
(31:24):
not enough kink, Buck.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
I legitimately don't even know what they think they're saying
with that. I can take some guesses, but I don't
even get what that's supposed to be.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
It's super weird, and it just goes to the point
that there is a lot of demand for young children
to be incredibly sexualized inside of your own schools, inside
of your own children's films. And so DeSantis has gone
to war with Disney. Now it's turned into a zoning
battle over Disney World, and we have talked about that
a lot. The biggest takeaway to me, Buck, is that
(31:57):
Disney is now one of the five most polarizing in America.
And if you're analyzing things and you're saying, Okay, they're
a business, they're doing whatever they think is best. Actually,
the data reflects that they have tanked in Republican support
and have not increased very much in Democrat support. In
other words, their overall brand value has declined since they
(32:21):
have decided to get involved in state related political issues
with Governor Ron DeSantis. So Desantas has gone to war
with Disney. Interestingly, Buck, and I hadn't even seen this.
You told me about this off air. Trump ripped Ron
DeSantis as recently as was it Thursday? I believe he
put out a clip ripping Ron DeSantis. We played the
(32:42):
audio for you on this program for fighting with Disney
and came down on the side of defending Disney and saying, oh,
this is basically, and I'm paraphrasing, unfortunate that DeSantis would
be going to war with Disney. Now Trump has come
out over Memorial Weekend and said, what buck this is.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
From truth social Donald Trump's account, Disney has become a
woke and disgusting shadow of its former self, with people
actually hating it. Must go back to what it once
was or the market will do irreparable damage. This all
happened during the governorship of Rob de sanctimonious. Instead of
(33:24):
complaining now for publicity reasons only, he should have stopped
it long ago. It would have been easy to do
it still is, okay.
Speaker 4 (33:36):
So.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
Now he is joining with the Disney as woke and
needs to be stopped. He's saying it's DeSantis's fault that
this happened, and DeSantis could have easily stopped it. But
the way that DeSantis is trying to stop it. On third,
can we get that audio of the Trump statement just
soever and can hear exactly what we're talking about? You know,
(34:00):
I'm at the point where with some of this stuff,
I would just want to know. Okay, so what exactly
is the position, because this seems to be multiple positions
taken at once that are contradicting each other, or at
least when you add it to what was said. This
was from May twenty eighth, the other audio, and it
was from the Trump statement where he was talking about Disney,
(34:23):
which I believe you're right. I think we played it
on Thursday. But so Trump now agrees Disney is woke
in disgusting. Okay, so they're aligned on that. He says
it should go back to what it once was aligned
on that this all happened during the governorship of Rob
de sanctimonious. I don't think Disney went woke in the
(34:45):
last four years. I don't think that's fair. But if
someone disagrees, by all means, call in. Let us know
that Disney was very conservative or traditional in its values
and change. But he should have stopped it long ago.
So now it feels like the criticism is that he
waited too long to take action against Disney, instead of
(35:08):
he shouldn't be taking action against Disney in Florida. I'm
not sure if I have that right, but I think
that's what it is saying. So on Thursday, and we'll
play you this audio.
Speaker 1 (35:18):
The twenty fifth of May, Trump said that DeSantis was
on the wrong side against Disney and he had unfairly
attacked Disney. On Sunday, the twenty eighth, Trump comes out
and says, actually, Disney is gone super woke and DeSantis
(35:38):
hasn't done enough to fight back against Disney. So again,
just to make this clear, Thursday, DeSantis, this is Trump's
own words, and we'll play it for you because we
played it on the show. And to be fair, you
and I both said, yeah, we disagree, and I laid
out why I think I wouldn't change anything. In fact,
you go back and look at the transcript, I said
I wouldn't change anything DeSantis has done against Disney. So
(36:01):
the only thing I can think buck is that between
Thursday and Sunday, somebody shared polling with Trump which showed
that what DeSantis is doing on Disney is very popular
with Republican primary voters. Because we don't want more kink
in the Little Mermaid, and we don't want I'm sure
(36:21):
you saw this, and a lot of our listeners I'm
sure did as well. We don't want men dressing up
as princesses at disney Land in California pretending to be
women talking to young children. That isn't appropriate in most
of our minds. We want Disney to be as Trump said,
(36:43):
the Disney that it was for most of our youth
in the eighties and in the nineties before Disney went
crazy and buck. What I have said here is I
saw all this happen. So I saw it happen at ESPN,
where Disney owned ESPN lost its mind and went super
woke with sports, and now they're doing the same thing
(37:06):
with the larger cultural aspects of Disney. But why would
other than Trump being told, hey, Republicans disagree with the
woke Disney concept, why would he totally change his tune. Now,
I think he's in the right place here, so I
give him credit for getting to the right place. But
(37:29):
this is one of those things where we said Trump
was running to the left of DeSantis, and the fact
that this was ever a situation where you would say, hey,
Disney did the right thing and now people are going
to lose their jobs. This was a miscalculation by Trump.
And to be fair, DeSantis is getting ripped by corporatists,
(37:50):
by big business for actually attacking Disney, but the base
of the Republican Party agrees with him on this attack.
And so this to me is an intriguing aspect that
Trump would effectively flip flop in the space of three
days on Disney.
Speaker 2 (38:08):
Yeah, I would like to see if we could play
just so everyone can have the full context. Team let
us know when we have the statement that Trump put
out from last week on this. But it is interesting
to see that what because on social media, for sure,
there were a couple of days where there were Trump
surrogates saying the fight with Disney is foolish and stupid
(38:30):
and costing money and jobs, and then a couple of
days later it's ono, Disney's actually woke and need and
it needed to be stopped sooner. So that's a change
in That's a change in in directions, I guess you
could say. And I think that what we're going to
be looking for here is, Yeah, people are going to
take different positions. This will all evolve as the campaigns
(38:52):
move along, but at least clarity we can't necessarily these
are politicians, right, Consistency isn't going to happen, but clarity
would be good to have an understanding of where the
different candidates start. I was interested to see that Trump said,
I think you just put this out today that on
day one he'll sign an executive order to end birthright
(39:15):
citizenship for those who are born here. And this goes
there's a whole big discussion, a bunch of you know
things you have to get involved here on and you know,
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and the anchor baby situation.
And this has never really been tested all the way
up to the Supreme Court, but it does clearly show
(39:37):
clay when you see that we have rules against people
coming here, let's say, from China, having a baby here
on purpose, and then going back to China, and now
they claim, oh, that's American citizenship. Here's the here's the
you know, what do you call birth certificate of the
birth in California. Oh, okay, we'll get back to the
end of birthright citizenship, which is a I think he's
(39:59):
this is a big, big fight that would be had,
and I think it's going to be a part of
the immigration discussion in a way that it needs to be.
But here is the Trump clip from what last week
on Thursday.
Speaker 5 (40:11):
Play it when the Rhonda sanctimonious facts come out, you
will see that he's better than most Democrat governors, but
very average at best, compared to Republican governors who have
done a fantastic job.
Speaker 2 (40:23):
And look at Disney and what a miss it is.
Speaker 5 (40:26):
Could have worked out an easy settlement, but no, he
wanted to show the fake news how tough a guy
he is. He's not, and the whole Disney thing is
really very unfortunate. Now thousands and thousands of jobs are
being stopped and a lot of people are very upset
about it.
Speaker 2 (40:43):
Okay, so last week it was the Disney fight is
very unfortunate. People are losing jobs, and now as of
what was it two days ago, it's he should have
fought Disney sooner on this issue because it's so woke
and horrible and disgusting. So I'm just that's where we are.
Speaker 1 (41:03):
In two days. He argued three days the exact opposite
of his attack. So and to your point, Buck, there
are also people running around because we came on Thursday,
and I was like, yeah, this is a bad line
of attack. So I give credit to Trump for changing
his position, because I pivoting.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
Is the right move. You know, I think we're allowed
to notice when he pivots.
Speaker 1 (41:23):
Yeah, in the space of seventy two hours, he went
from DeSantis has screwed up Disney and it's very unfortunate
to Disney as a disaster. And Ron DeSantis should have
done way more. So he did too much on Thursday,
and on Sunday he didn't do enough. Now Trump has
gotten to the right place on Disney. But why was
(41:46):
he levying the attack and now the attack? It's just
this is this is the bull in a china shop
of Trump that frustrates me. I mean candidly with everybody
out there. Trump often gets to the right result, but
he makes a mess of getting there, so that the
process of getting there becomes the attackable version of himself.
(42:08):
Now we'll come back and talk about this birthright citizenship,
because I think this is actually the right position for Trump.
In fact, in my book, I argue that if we're
ever going to fix immigration in this country, we have
to deal with the incentive structure that brings people to
this country in the first place. One is jobs, that's harder,
(42:29):
I think, but buck the idea that if you have
a child in the United States, your child becomes a
citizen most countries don't have birthright citizenship if they just don't.
Speaker 2 (42:40):
And also we're talking about people who are in the
country often illegally. Illegally. Yeah, so you're here in violation
of the US law, you have a child, that a
child's a US citizen. That's a massive incentive for people
to come here illegally. And it's really the version of
this you see in California and with Chinese birth tourism,
which there have been federal cases about this and it's criminal,
(43:02):
you're not allowed to do that. But you start to say, okay, well,
if it's wrong for someone from China to Chinese national
to come here, and it's wrong for a company to
basically pay to have the baby here so they get
the citizenship, why is it okay to come across the
border illegally, have a child here and then demand citizenship
for that child. Which has been that has been the
(43:22):
way it's treated in the US now for a very
long time. So, yeah, that's a big fight underway politically.
We'll see where it goes. We'll talk about it more
in a second. Nowhere is it written You shouldn't feel
the top of your game every day. That's what Chalk
is all about c hoq. Why shouldn't you feel fantastic
every day, full of energy and able to take on
(43:43):
the world. Chalk produces high quality nutritional supplements, none more
popular than the Male Vitality Stack. This combination of everyday
supplements is designed to supply your body with the nutrients
to fuel energy, focus, and stamina. The leading natural ingredient
has been researched to show serious improvements in testos drone
with a guy's body within a guy's body up some
(44:03):
twenty percent in just three months time. You're gonna feel
it as it happens. This increase in testosterone, which is
a driver a great driver of energy. If you want
to double down on your energy and focus, find your
way to Chalk dot com. Cchoq dot com save thirty
five percent off the Chalk subscription you choose for life
when you use my name Buck in your purchase process.
(44:24):
That's chalk choq dot com with a Q as in
Chalk dot com. Thirty five percent deals a great one,
So remember to use my name Buck when you get
to chalk dot com thirty five percent off as you
make your purchase sleeve.
Speaker 1 (44:37):
Travis and Buck Sexton on the front lines of truth.
Speaker 2 (44:41):
So I just told you the story of a personal
trainer fired from an Equinox gym in New York City,
claiming that a white subordinate co worker, a white male,
said things that she found bigoted or racist of out
I guess other people in the gym, And she was
(45:05):
late enough that she certainly could have been terminated on
that grounds alone, but she instead got eleven million dollars.
And I sit here and I say, and Clay's telling me, well,
maybe that will be reduced and we'll see. But also
when I looked at this store, something else came up.
Some of you may recall this was back in November
of twenty twenty two that a black female FedEx supervisor,
(45:30):
a supervisor at the FedEx company, won a Did you
hear about this, Clay three hundred and sixty six million
dollar jury award in a case where there was supposedly
racial bias. It's fascinating whenever I read through these news
reports on the racial bias.
Speaker 1 (45:50):
I'm looking.
Speaker 2 (45:50):
I'm looking for, you know, oh man, where what is
this stuff? Where are the grotesque racist, you know, really
degrading thing that we could all sit there and say, well,
that is appalling and the companies shouldn't be held three
hundred and sixty six million dollars is crazy, But you know,
there should be an award here, and it's always I
didn't think, you know, in this case, it's I didn't
(46:11):
think I got promoted when I should have been, and
I think there was discrimination against me. I've seen nothing
in this case in now, granted I've only done a
quick read of it in the last few minutes, but
nothing to justify a three million dollar settlement, never mind
a three hundred and sixty six million dollars. I mean,
I don't know. I think three hundred and sixty six
million dollars a lot of money. And I think what
(46:33):
you're starting to see is people might recognize that this stuff,
all this all has costs and consequences. You know, you're
when when you're gonna get people getting three hundred million
dollar verdicts or even ten million dollar verdicts, that expense
is not just coming from you know, up in the air,
the ether or whatever. These are companies Now they're going
(46:54):
to have to be paying out this this money. Now,
sometimes it's covered by insurance, but their insurance rates go up.
What happens then you're gonna be paying more for your
gym membership, you gonna be paying more for FedEx if
these kinds of verdicts become the norm, which I think
you're starting to see. This is getting way out of
control of the New York Times, to be clear, is
celebrating the eleven million dollars verdict. I think this is great.
(47:16):
Eleven million dollars for somebody who says she heard some
things she didn't like at work. And I sit here
and I say, when do we get to point out
that this is that there are certainly instances of this
where it's just people looking for a massive payday, or
it's people who are using the you know, the racial
(47:38):
guilt in this country and the terror that companies have
of being considered racist for a second, to just absolutely
ring the cash register as much as possible. Most of
the time buck these cases will get tossed on appeal
the verdicts, because that's why I was pointing out, Let's
say this woman's making one hundred thousand dollars a year. Okay,
(48:00):
she got one hundred years of salary because according to her,
some people at her employer said mean things about her.
So usually again Usually there.
Speaker 1 (48:13):
Would be the plaintiff lawyer and the defense attorney would
sit down and say, Okay, like this number is totally
out of whack, we'll give you two and a half
million dollar settlement, or we're going to appeal this and
your client's going to lose most of this verdict. Right
because again, under a lot of different law oftentimes I
(48:34):
don't know, the three hundred million dollar verdict is probably
wildly outside of what a jury could deliver in those cases. Now,
as an attorney, I represented a lot of big companies
in the US visin I.
Speaker 2 (48:49):
Can I tell you what was not They took it
to court clay to get it over, They took it
to appeal. You know what happened to appeal maintained? Where
is the case from US District Court of the Southern
District of Texas.
Speaker 1 (49:04):
So usually, again, sometimes you have to go all the
way to the Supreme Court to get some of these
cases tossed out. I'm not an expert in that particular case.
There has to be in order for a verdict to
be applied, some sort of mathematical connection that typically would
allow it to occur. So most of these massive verdicts
(49:25):
that you see that are plaintif involved. I'm not talking
about a massive lawsuit, right. Sometimes you have these class
action lawsuits where you know, theoretically a million people could
each make eighty dollars if they filled out the form
and turned it back in. And really it's the lawyers
who are ending up as the biggest beneficiaries here because
(49:45):
they get thirty or thirty five percent of a contingency fee.
There's no doubt that our court system is oftentimes strangled
by unnecessary litigation. And an easy way to think about
this is, if Buck, we had half of the truck
drivers that we have in this country, our entire economy
(50:08):
would collapse. Think about it. If we had half of
the warriors, everything would be fine. Right, So sometimes you
can look around and you could probably say if we
had a quarter of the lawyers, everything would be fine,
because there is a tax that is being created by
the legal profession in this country that does not make
(50:28):
the country more efficient than it otherwise would be by
many lawyers often filing unscrupulous lawsuits that are unnecessary and
actually make things worse for the vast majority of the country.
Speaker 2 (50:40):
So jurors awarded Harris the a female you know a
plaintiff in this case one point one six million dollars
in compensatory damages. All right, I mean, you know, if
maybe there was something that people's maybe there, she wasn't
you know, fairly she's making like again eighty to one
hundred grand a year you give, or ten years of wages. Okay, okay.
(51:03):
They worded a million dollars in compensory damages and three
hundred and sixty five million dollars in punitive damages. Yeah.
Now you'd say, and to your point, I think that
there's like a faith here that you and I would
both have in the system that say, ah, come on. Well.
The update that story was in November. The update as
a February third of this year was a Fifth Circuit
(51:25):
judge rejected FedEx's request to throw out or reduce the
three hundred and sixty six million dollars in damages. So
it made it to the appeal and the appeals court
guy was like, nah, sorry, So I don't know if.
Speaker 1 (51:38):
They The way that typically this would work is it
was a district court verdict in Texas. First of all,
I don't know what the law is in the state
of Texas on punitive damages. I bet we have geniuses
who are experts on this. Typically you could not reward
a three hundred x punitive damage on top of a
(52:00):
one million dollar verdict. Generally speaking, sometimes buck what you
have to do, and this gets into the legal technicalities.
Sometimes you get a bad judge right on the Fifth Circuit.
You might get I don't know who that judge is,
but my bet would be that he would have been
a Democrat appointee on the Fifth Circuit, which is traditionally
a conservative court in the country, and so you get
(52:21):
a hearing in front of one and you have to
require that the entire Fifth Circuit review, right.
Speaker 2 (52:27):
So I mean it's it's look, it's making its way
up the chain. But I just think it's interesting that
this is the the initial three sixty six million. They
went to a district court judge, a federal judge and said, hey, guys,
the three hundred and sixty six million for discrimination that
was apparently never proven, there's no Yeah. The basis for
this is her perception that she was discriminated against. U's
a she was a black woman who says that they
(52:48):
treated her differently because she's a black woman, and the
judge said no, we're going to keep it. So now
they're going to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to
elevate it beyond the initial federal district juge. But Clay,
who is this initial disjudge like, this is this is
crazy town?
Speaker 1 (53:06):
Yeah it is. And I would bet again that it's
almost entirely unjustifiable under Texas law because a lot of
states have tried to put caps on punitive damages and
damages in general, because what ends up happening in many
of these tort lawsuits is this is a default tax
on all of the citizens of Texas because the corporation
(53:30):
has to in some way count on all these dollars
that otherwise would go to running their business going out
to people with unjustified payments. And that's exactly what I'm
what I'm trying to get at here is this isn't
the juris think, oh, great, we're striking a blow against racism,
even if no racism was proved.
Speaker 2 (53:46):
You know, it makes a point or something, and this
woman then gets very rich. Yay, people might get fired
over this, you know, I mean, you know, you look
at what happened. Now, it's very different. Not a racial
discrimination suit. But even the dominion law law suit at Fox,
they had layoffs recently. Now they can say that it
has nothing to do with the eight hundred million dollars settlement,
But people lost their jobs. When you have a huge
(54:09):
judgment against the company, they have to cut costs. People
are going to get fired. So if you're bringing a
frivolous or false racial discrimination suit and getting a massive judgment,
there are good people that get hurt by that, and
the consumer certainly gets hurt. To your point about effectively
socializing these costs, which we're seeing in a whole range
(54:31):
of ways.
Speaker 1 (54:32):
Well, and not only that, Buck, I mean if you
think in a bigger picture as opposed to one individual,
which is again that dollar figure would be entirely unjustified.
Also many of the people who lose their jobs or minorities.
You know, if a company has to retrench and end
up laying off lots of workers, then you're trying to
rectify injustice by in some way actually taking out more
(54:56):
of an issue on minorities to reward one right. And this,
of course is the great fallacy of BLM in general.
The biggest, the biggest losers of all of BLM are
impoverished people in inner city neighborhoods who can't walk outside
safely because they fired all the cops in the name
of trying to make the world less racist.
Speaker 2 (55:15):
It's also just it requires a total suspension of the
reality that we all live in in this country where
in ninety nine percent of corporate settings and circumstances, what's
the fastest way to get fired, right, the fastest way
to get fired say something racist. No matter what company,
no matter what business, no matter where you are, what
(55:36):
you're doing, the fastest way to lose your job is
to say something racist. And yet we're to believe that
in these cases there was all of this, you know,
grotesque racism underway that no one can prove, and no
one knew about, no one heard about. But look, it's
because there's going to be more of this, I mean, Clay,
it's from the attorney side of it too, right, eleven
(55:57):
million dollars here, three hundred million dollars starts to add
up those legal fees, you know, And this is where.
Speaker 1 (56:04):
Can you think it's a good question for everybody else
out there? How many professions could you eliminate half of
the people doing it and actually make the world better.
You could eliminate half of attorneys and America would work
just as efficiently and effectively as it does now. How
many professions can you say that about? Just think about it,
and a lot of them that don't pay very well.
(56:27):
The country would basically cease to exist, right, I mean,
if you took away half of the people who work
at gas stations, we'd have a real issue. Right, take
away half the lawyers. Country might be better off.
Speaker 2 (56:38):
You know, the other week I got to do an
extraordinary thing. I sat down with a market analyst who
made a special video of presentation. But the market analyst
is somebody I know very well. It's my dad, Mason Sexton,
so you probably recognized the last name. We talked about
a premise that's very important to him, the great disruption
of twenty twenty three. Look in the past, he predicted
the stock market crash of eighty seven, that's off of
(57:00):
the market. Before the crash. He's made several major calls publicly,
but what he sees now is unlike anything he's seen
in fifty years of Wall Street experience. You can read
off on it now so you'll know how to prepare.
In this interview, he reveals the date this July, when
he thinks things are going to turn really ugly in
the markets. We're already starting to see the signs of disruption.
(57:21):
Banks floundering, real estate losing its value at a rapid rate,
inflation causing sticker shock at the grocery store. My dad
Mason will tell you why most analysts are wrong about
a coming decade in lost stocks or lost decade rather
than stocks, and why what's coming could be much much worse.
This is his first major public prediction in thirty years,
(57:41):
so if you missed it, the video is still up
you can watch now watch the replay at Disruption twenty
twenty three dot com. That's Disruption twenty twenty three dot com.
Speaker 1 (57:53):
Sunday, Hang with Clay and Fucking A new podcast. Find
it on the iHeart app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Welcome to today's edition of the Clay Travis and buck
Sexton Show podcast. Welcome in Tuesday edition Clay Travis buck
Sexton Show. I hope all of you had a great
long weekend if you were able to take Monday off.
We certainly want to thank everyone who allows us to
have the freedoms that we hold so dear, and we
(00:22):
know that that comes with a cost too many families
across the country. So we hope as well that you
are able to spend some time honoring the sacrifices of
so many that have come before us as part of
your Memorial Day celebration and festivity. But we are excited
to be here with you after several days being away
(00:46):
and we have not spent Let's start off here, by
the way, we're going to be joined by Tim Scott,
Senator from South Carolina, who has announced that he is
running for president. He will join us at one o'clock Eastern.
That is the top of the next hour, almost exactly
one hour from now, so you can put that on
your horizon as we continue to talk with everyone who
(01:09):
is running for president that will come on the show,
both Democrat and republic and we've talked to RFK Junior. Obviously,
Joe Biden is terrified to come on this program because
if he spent very much time talking with us at all,
it would demonstrate his clear dementia and the fact that
he is unable to do this job. But we will
talk to Tim Scott at one. We've got a lot
(01:30):
of different stories to dive into. Joe Manchin is down
twenty two points to Jim Justice in West Virginia. What
does that mean both for the Senate looking ahead to
next year, but also for potential a potentially a presidential run.
Donald Trump has changed his position on Disney. We will
(01:50):
discuss Sam Ponder at ESPN is a bigot, according to
USA Today for believing that men should not be able
to compete against women. Lulu lamon which I feel like
I mispronounced all the time. But they have fired two
employees for calling the cops. But we begin with a
story that, frankly, we have not spent that much time on.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Just real quick calling the cops for stealing for people
stole and they called the cops and then they got
fired for calling the cops on the thieves.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Anyway, Yes, which is emblematic of the world in which
we live right now, so all that to be discussed
as we move throughout the course of today's program. But
we haven't spent very much time talking about the debt
ceiling because we told you that eventually this was going
to get resolved, and it appears that it has gotten
(02:42):
resolved over the weekend. An agreement between Speaker Kevin McCarthy
and President Biden their negotiation teams. Here is cut one
Kevin McCarthy explaining what exactly is going to happen.
Speaker 3 (02:57):
There is so much in this as positive and measure
to all the other debt seelings. When Republicans had the presidency,
the Senate, and the House, did they ever cut spending. No,
they increased it. We were able to do this when
the President said he wasn't even going to talk to us.
This is really a step in the right direction. It
puts as a trajectory that's different. We put a statutory
(03:18):
cap on only spending one percent for the next six years,
so we let government grow but at a slower rate.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Okay, so Buck, it appears this is going to pass.
There are going to be upset members on the right
who are refusing to vote for this. I think they're
around twenty Republicans so far who appears are going to
be opposed to this. It appears there also will be
some members of the Democrat Party on the left that
(03:47):
are opposed to this agreement as well. What I would
say is fairly significant in general is yes, it slows
the rate of growth, but it effectively takes us to
already five trillion dollars in debt, and at some point,
I think we just have to recognize that our national
(04:09):
debt is never going to get paid off. And I mean,
am I crazy buck? When you look at this like
it seems like we've just decided that the national debt
doesn't matter. Both Republicans and Democrats, I think you frame
it this way. This is probably the best deal you
could get under the circumstances with a Senate majority in
(04:33):
the hands of Democrats and a White House with a
Democrat president. But that's it's really tough to feel like,
oh great, you know this is this is a moment
in time where you'd have to say to yourself, we
are now faced with both parties effectively spending endlessly running
(04:55):
the debt up to a place where service on the
debt is going to increasingly crowd out spending really a
part of this, and it's not politically, it's not politically
advantageous to talk about. This is that there's an intergenerational
theft that's going on, which is that the benefits that
have been promised for the older generation are way beyond
(05:19):
what is paid into them, which people don't Again, people
don't want to hear.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
This is just numbers, it's true. And then the debt
burden passes on to the younger generation now, which is
why you see a lot of people complaining, you know,
in their twenties, their thirties, into their forties, I can't
afford a house anywhere. I can't you know, I can't
get out of student loan debt. There are structural things
in the economy that we accept because of politics, that
(05:43):
we shouldn't accept as a matter of what is fair
and what is ethical, I think, and that's why you
have both parties spending too much money. Bottom line, spend
too much money. I mean, what do we run the
debt up six trillion under Trump? Right?
Speaker 4 (05:58):
I mean?
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Trump great economy, no question about it. Economy was phenomenal
until the fourth year of COVID, of course, but then
we spend six trillion dollars. That's a big problem, and
it was a big problem also politically because then Biden
comes in like a truemaniac and spends an additional two
trillion dollars when we should be absolutely going in the
other direction and not doing it, and then he wanted
(06:19):
to spend five trillion more on top of that. Which
you realize is we are in a competition for which
political party can be a bigger version of Santa Claus
the free stuff for everybody, or the stuff that you
get more than you pay into it. And this just
puts us on a trajectory for eventual real financial hardship
as a country and even possibly ruination. I mean, you
(06:41):
look at the history of fiat currency. You look at
what inflation has done historically in different countries, and it
has caused economic collapse. But you know, I say this,
and everyone I think on the right, well not everybody,
but a lot of people shake their heads and they'll say, yeah,
that's right. We need to do something about the debt.
And I say, all right, so we need to do
some means testing for social security, We need to raise
the retirement How dare you, sir, how dare. It's okay, fine,
(07:04):
this this is where we are. Everyone wants to pretend
they want to deal with this and it's a huge problem.
And then you talk about the only ways you could
realistically do Clay, we even this notion of automatic spending.
Think about this. This just means the politicians all get
to wash their hands of it. Oh sorry, that's the
automatic spending. Yeah, that's where seventy percent of the spending
comes from. It's the automatic spending. We are cutting what
(07:27):
is it three the three percent increase or something. I mean,
the numbers, the numbers don't even really matter because the
numbers are so insignificant. We are slightly limiting the increase
in the spending the federal government's going to do, which
is already way beyond our means. And we think that's
we think that's a victory. You know, this is taking
an alcoholic and saying you can't have thirteen shots of tequila,
(07:47):
you can only have twelve.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
The reality is when you refuse to look at social
Security or Medicare, and that seems to be the general
consensus of both political parties, then they're is no way
to balance the federal budget, and scarily, Buck What is
becoming the case is the debt on the national debt,
(08:10):
in other words, the interest that we have to pay
on our national debt, particularly as we're now talking about
five and five and a quarter percent interest rates. That's
going to start crowding out a lot of the discretionary
spending as well. You basically can't balance the budget by
analyzing discretionary spending. And so people don't want to talk
(08:34):
about it because I think it makes everybody so uncomfortable.
But I do think it's worth mentioning. The Tea Party
started because we hit ten trillion dollars in national debt.
That was in twenty ten. Since twenty ten, we have
added over twenty trillion dollars in national debt. That's the
(08:57):
last thirteen years, So we are adding over a trillion
dollars a year to our national debt. At this point,
it just feels like everyone is pretending that this doesn't
exist and that it's not going to be a major
hindrance on future economic growth. But it feels to me
like both parties are engaging in magical realism here in
(09:20):
pretending that the biggest issue isn't a big issue.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
Look, you've got you've got Trump running ads saying Ronda
Santis wants to cut your Medicare, and you have Rondas
Santas saying I'm just look at the Republican primary. He's like,
I'm not going to touch your medicare because they both
know whoever says they're going to touch medicare is going
to lose. Meanwhile, people sit around saying we're spending too
much money, We're spending too much money something like, and
(09:44):
again we could have there's some great minds on this issue.
I'm trying to remember, oh gosh, well, even like my
friend Ben Dominic is very strong on the healthcare issue.
There are a few other people I can think of,
but one of them is escape being my my mind
right now. But they can break down all the numbers.
(10:04):
Is the point something like a huge percentage, a huge
majority of spending that is even being done for medicare
happens in the last six months of a person's life.
So there and there's very little, uh, you know, oversight quality.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Of life and that it's actually being gained there, right.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
And how the building is actually being being done. And
ovik Roid, by the way, that was the name I
was trying to remember he was fantastic. He's fantastic on
the healthcare side of things because he's a realist. But
people don't want to hear it because we've we've gotten
into a competition for who can do a better job
of distributing the spoil system. And that's where we are.
(10:40):
There was a moment when the Republican Party seem to
be really at least willing to talk about being opposed
to this. And as you point out, Clay, that was
twenty trillion dollars ago. Yeah, and you have to wonder
as well, if spending doesn't matter, why does inflation, you know,
just stink so much? Well, because spending does matter, If
debt doesn't matter, why not just spend endless amount of money.
(11:01):
This is very straightforward stuff. But we have a political
system now where anybody who talks about being financially responsible
will lose. That's it. And so we can sit around
and i'm people because I'll get emails and I'm sure
you get them too. You guys need to talk about
the debt ceiling. No, they're going to raise the debt ceiling.
Republicans are going to do a bare minimum. They're going
to take one nibble on the edge of the giant
(11:23):
cookie that is our federal debt, and they're going to
pack themselves in the back. Meanwhile, Democrats are going to
continue to use it as a spoil system. It doesn't change,
and people could say, well, this doesn't sound particularly useful.
I think the first step is understanding where we are
as a country. We're just going to keep spending until
the financial disaster hits. That's the plan right now, Republican Democrat.
(11:44):
No one wants to stop it. You try to stop it,
you lose, and then you're not in power. And so
then what's the difference do you? How do we change this?
Speaker 1 (11:52):
I mean, I think we should have, unfortunately gone back
in time. I wish we had had most states buck
have balanced budget requirements. In other words, you can't run
trillion dollar deficits if you're the governor of California, or
if you're the governor of Florida or New York or
one of these places. And as soon as we gave
(12:15):
politicians the ability to go into debt, and to be fair,
sometimes going into debt makes sense to beat the Nazis
in World War two. I keep hammering this home because
I think it staggers people. We spent more money on
an inflation adjusted basis on COVID than we did to
win World War Two.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
That's because if we hadn't done it, we wouldn't be
worried about inflation, because we'd all be spending Deutsche marks, right,
I mean, you know we can all understand at some
level or whatever. I think it was deutsch marks back
in the day. Too. This is there are sometimes, obviously
where you have to go into debt to save your nation.
We didn't have to do that for COVID. We spent
six trillion dollars during COVID. People wonder why didn't inflation
(12:56):
hit more? Why didn't inflation hit more than the twenty
twenty two elections, which you know, everybody on the right
basically got wrong. And it's I think in part because
a lot of people looked at it and they said, well,
Biden spent two trillion dollars, the guy before spend six
trillion in one year.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
I think also, and this is even more debilitating their buck.
I think a lot of people have just lost faith
in government in general, and so the consequences of actions
aren't as big a part of elections as they should be,
which is one of the reasons why I'm concerned that
Biden's gonna win again in twenty four.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
I'm sorry, I feel a little bit like, did you
ever see the movie Best in Show? Oh, he's for
guests madea remember remember when he goes to visit I
goes to visit like the boyfriend of his ex boyfriend
or whatever of his wife, and and it turns out
that guy is a hostage negotiator. And he sits there
and he's like, so, like, what's the secret big hostage
negotiator to the guy goes, well, they all jumps. I
(13:54):
don't I'm not trying. I'm not trying to be that
guy right now, but I'm just saying, you know, it's
a you know, it's a rough situation. It's oh, he's
a crisis negotiator, not a Hasta's negotiator, because they all jump,
and I'm like, we're not all jumping necessarily. We can
actually fix something here. But everyone has to be very
honest about the fact that, I mean, Republicans taking a
victory lap on this. It's kind of sad. I know
(14:17):
it's the best possible, but you know, is your offense
celebrating Clay when they make a goal line stand. I
don't think so well. And here it's a good sports
analogy from you to start the week. Here, here's the
way to think about it. I don't feel like we're ever.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Going to stop the national debt from increasing. So the
question becomes, and I hate to say that, but there's
been no suggestion that I've seen in any sort of
political leadership that's going to change. At what point does
this long ticking national debt time bomb explode on all
of us and what does it look like? Because there
(14:51):
are economic consequences to making poor choices, as all of
you out there know. But unlike the rest of of
the United States, you can't just declare bankruptcy as a
country and wipe out all your debt.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
I had a feeling, by the way, it's reich Reich Marx,
not deutsch Marks back in the not. But you know,
same idea. Yes, we have what I said.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
So we've got a really good start to the week there.
We're all our economy is eventually going to blow up.
It's just a question of when, and we maybe have
forestalled that for a small period of time. Happy Week,
Verizon at and T T Mobile. If you're with them
you're overpaying. Pure talk can save your family over nine
hundred dollars a year, and right now you can get
(15:33):
unlimited talk, text, ultra fast five G data for just
twenty bucks a month. What about the coverage, It's phenomenal.
Pure Talk uses the most dependable five G network in
the country. So grab your phones, dial pound two fifty
and say the keyword Clay and Buck to get unlimited talk,
text and plenty of data for just twenty bucks a month.
Pure Talk's amazing US customer service team will make switching easy.
(15:55):
Choose a veteran owned company that cares about keeping jobs
in America and saving you money. Pick up your phone
and dial pound two fifty. Say Clay and Buck for
unlimited talk and text with plenty of five G data
for just twenty bucks a month. Dal pound two five
zero Again say Clay and Buck. Save an additional fifty
percent off your first month thanks to pure Talk making
(16:19):
sense in an insane world. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
The second hour of Clay and Buck kicks off right now. Everybody,
thank you for hanging out with us. We are I
believe what we joined do we have him? Okay, we
do We're joined now by Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.
He is a presidential candidate in this GP primary. Senator Scott,
(16:45):
pleasure to have you back on the program, sir well.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
Thank you' all both for having me back. And it's
always a good day to be back on that here
with you.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
I know it's it's an obvious question. It's an easy
question from the perspective of the one asking, but I
think it's a more difficult one to make worthwhile for
the one responding. Senator, why are you running? What do
you want to do that would be different from some
of the other Republican nominees.
Speaker 4 (17:11):
I think it's so important for me, the guy who's
been blessed with the America that everyone should be in
love with. I believe that America can do for anyone
what she has done for me, and that includes restoring hope,
creating opportunities, and protecting the America we love. I would
start my presidential service by resigning the XL Keystone Pipeline
(17:34):
because our American energy future is our national security future.
Where we are in charge of our own lives, our
own energy, we are going to be on solid grounds.
Second thing I would say is that China is an
existential threat period. Everything that we do to decouple our
economy from China's economy is good for the nation. And
(17:56):
without any questions saying, with the security apparatus, our southern
border is a crisis. I've always said, if you don't
control the back door to your house, it ain't your house.
If you don't control your southern border, it might not
be your country. President Biden has failed US, failed US
miserably protecting Americans, including the seventy thousand Americans who've lost
(18:20):
their lives to fitting All and one hundred folks that
our national security lives walking across our southern border. We
have to secure our southern border and use the latest
technology in order to surveil our southern border and stop
fitting All from killing another seventy thousand Americans this year.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
Senator, you got called out. And I know this is
crazy to even have to ask about because I think
it's the dumbest show filled with the dumbest people on
media on a daily basis. But Joy Behar said, essentially,
you didn't know what it was like to be black
in America. I'm curious how you would respond to that,
as well as sunny Houston coming after you. I don't know.
(19:02):
I guess it's a sign that the view views you
as a threat to their left wing hegemony. But what
are your thoughts when you hear someone like joy Behar
say you don't know what it's like to be black
in America and so your experience doesn't count.
Speaker 4 (19:17):
But there's no doubt a white ladies dressing up in
black faith giving the black man advice probably doesn't ring
true in anyone's mind, certainly not my own. But more importantly,
I find it offensive and disgusting and dangerous for a
very different reason. I'm used to having the less attacked
me because of the truth of my life. This proves
(19:39):
their lives. And I say that because of this. When
I helped write the tax cuts and jobs that, they
called me a prop. When I started talking about refunding
the police, they called me a token. When I stepped
forward and pushed back from President Biden's malign agenda, they
called me the end. I don't I'm used to it.
(20:02):
Here's what is dangerous and offensive to me. For every
young child in America wanting to think for themselves draw
their own conclusions. What they're saying to them is stay
in your place, do not stick your head up, because
we're going to tell you how to think, so you
never learn anything about what you should think. It is
(20:24):
literally the dumbest, most offensive thing I've ever witnessed on
TV to hear these millionaire TV personalities telling think how
to live my life as a black man, but more
importantly suggesting to every child, stay in your place, follow
(20:46):
my lead, for you too will reap the same harvest
of Tim Scott or Clarence Thomas or any other conservative
who dares dares to think for themselves.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
You know, it's, first of all, that's a very powerful response.
I think it's incredibly well said. I don't know if
you saw the comments from ice Cube. He's a popular
rapper for our audience out there that might not know him.
On the flip side, he spoke out over the weekend
and said, hey, we've been voting Democrat almost exclusively for
sixty years, and he said, how has that made Black
(21:21):
Americans experience better? I'm curious if you saw those comments
and what you think about what they could represent in
terms of Black Americans being encouraged by ice Cube to
look around and say, hey, being all in on one side,
Maybe isn't the best way to advance our political interest.
What are your thoughts there?
Speaker 4 (21:42):
Well, I celebrate ice Cube's comments, so I did not
hear them. I will say this that the African American
poverty rate has covered over twenty five percent for those
sixty years. You're talking about forty of those sixty years,
the Democrats from nineteen fifty four until nineteen ninety four
had one hundred percent control of the United States House
(22:05):
and Representatives. Just take a look back and see how
bad those years were for African Americans. Here's the difference.
And this is why I think ice Cube has a
finger on the artery, not just the pulse of the artery.
It's said, when we were in control as Republicans, we
funded historically black colleges and universities at the highest level
(22:26):
in the history of the country and made their funding
permanent because both myself and President Trump believed then what
we know now that education is the closest thing to magic,
and making sure that African Americans and every other racial
group in this country has the same access to high
(22:47):
quality education, we made it a part of our objective.
We lowered taxes for single moms seventy three percent of
their federal tax burden went down. That's important when you
think about the fact that seventy five percent of African
American kids are growing up in a single parent household.
Why not give that mother her money back. So when
(23:09):
we start talking about the policy successes that we've had
for all of America with no exceptions, it's a reason
the African American community is taking a second look at
the Republican Party and the more we go. I did
a black town hall the Black Church this past Sunday,
and the good news is at that Black church about
(23:32):
sixty percent of the people that were there for white
Hispanic and about thirty to African Americans. Here's what we're learning.
We can no longer judge people by the color of
their skins, Thank God Almighty. We judge them now by
the content of their character. That's called American progress and
(23:52):
we should all celebrate it.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
We're speaking of Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. He's
a presidential candidate in this election of Senator Scott. To
follow on to what you were just saying, do you
think that is part of your strategy? Clay and I
were talking about this last week the Democrat Party in
presidential elections, stretching back for as long as I can remember,
(24:14):
gets effectively call it roughly ninety percent of the black vote.
Do you believe that if you are the GOP nominee,
you could change that number, such as the Democrat coalition
fails and you win as the Republican.
Speaker 4 (24:30):
I think my message enjoys popularity with conservatives who happened
to be black, who happen to be white, who happened
to be Hispanic. Here's what I know for certain, that
being able to go where you're not invited sharing the
good news of conservatism, which, of course, Clay Buck, you know,
they're called American values. Conservative principles work wherever they are applied.
(24:53):
The one place where I've seen the least application has
been in the minority community since typically the African American community,
where we've seen a lot of government assistance but not
enough entrepreneurship. In today's America, every community that has strong
entrepreneurship has low unemployment. I believe taking our message to
(25:17):
those communities across this nation will produce better results. It
works for me in South Carolina, I think it will
work nationwide, where I enjoy more than twenty percent of
the African American vote are very close to it election
and election out over several two decades.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
Now, Senator Tim Scott with US now he's running for president.
There's some things that occur that I just can't believe
are real. You have an athletics background, I believe, and
so you were talking about just being able to reach
out to audiences everywhere. Would you have ever believe, Senator,
(25:57):
that not one single congress person in the House, and
not one single Senator would believe would vote to say
that men don't belong in women's athletics. And let me
build on that a little bit. I don't know if
you've seen this headline. Sam Ponder, who does an NFL
show for ESPN, actually spoke out, and she spoke out
(26:19):
and said, hey, this is wrong. We shouldn't have men
identifying as women competing against women, and an USA Today
editorial called her a bigot for having that perspective. Can
you believe that this is where we are in the
world right now in our country?
Speaker 4 (26:37):
Unbelievable. I said it oftentimes around the country and I'll
say it again that transgender ideology is going to ruin
female sports if we let it continue. There's no way,
as a guy who played college football twenty five pounds ago,
there's no way in the world I should be competing
(26:59):
again women in college if I were still that primetime
athlete that was thirty years ago. So the truth is
that if we want to protect women's sports, protect the
intequity of competition, you cannot take any other position the
one that I've just asserted. It is common sence, and frankly,
(27:21):
I don't understand why it's controversial.
Speaker 1 (27:26):
I think that's one hundred percent right.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
Senator Tim Scott appreciates you being with us, Sir. Good
luck to you in your campaign and to come back
as things get closer to uh, you know, the big
days of voting and talk to us again.
Speaker 4 (27:37):
Okay, God bless you all. Thank you for representing truth
everywhere people hear.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
Thank you, we try. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (27:45):
Thanks a lot, Senator Tim Scott. We will talk to
him for sure again soon as this process of the
presidency continues to play out. You guys can react to
that eight hundred and two eighty two two eight eight two.
But I want to tell you a listener of this
program used an extra day this past weekend to scan
dozens of family photos and old family records in advance
of a family reunion. Some of these photos more than
(28:07):
one hundred years old. They're all now safely on his laptop,
ready for a little show and tell this come in
July fourth weekend with his family, for they really safe
on that laptop. After all. If it crashes, all bets
are off. But it's easy to back up what's on
that computer. I Drive makes it so that in a
few minutes you can download the i drive software and
(28:29):
start backing up everything on your own computer, just like
our listener should do. Iedrive dot COM's where you start
your computer data upload and secured on secure i edrive
servers in the cloud. They use military grade encryption to
keep all your data safe. You'll be able to back
up your data daily or more often than that if
(28:50):
you'd like. They keep your ten most recent backup successible
only to you if and only when you use the
access because your computer or smartphone is crashed, it will
be there for you. I Drive as a PCMG winner
eight years in a row as the best cloud backup solution.
Plan start at less than seven dollars a month. iDrive
(29:12):
dot Com get ninety percent off your first year when
you use my name Clay when you sign up, that's
iDrive dot com slash Clay. Use that name today, I
drive dot com. My name Clay, Clay Travis at buck
Sexton Making Sense in an Insane World. Well Man Hour
(29:34):
number three, Tuesday Edition, Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. Appreciate
all of you hanging out with us. Encourage you to
go download the podcast. Make sure you don't miss a
single moment of the show, including at the top of
the second hour, Senator Tim Scott teeing off on Joybahar
probably play you that audio at some point, maybe before
the hour ends. Here the final hour of the Tuesday
(29:55):
edition of the program, but you can go listen to
the full context of that interview. Make sure you don't moment.
I know it's now a lot of you kids are
getting out of school. My kids finished school at the
end of last week. It is the holiday season. Many
of you on the road right now for Memorial Date.
It's not long till July fourth. It is family vacation season.
It is vacation season overall. Maybe you're not gonna be
(30:17):
able to listen to one of the five hundred normal
stations that you would be listening to all over the
country to grab the show, take us with you to
the beach where Buck would be wildly disappointed if he
were kicking back and trying to enjoy his summer vacation
and then suddenly his earbuds were infringed upon by someone
sitting next to him on the beach. But he might
(30:39):
make an exception if it happens to be our show,
all trume. So, as we are rolling through this program,
we have talked about the Walt Disney situation and the
fact that I believe Disney made an incredibly calculated error
to get involved in commenting on the flour to bill
(31:01):
that did not allow kindergarten, first second third graders to
be taught about sexuality related to which the Little Mermaid
Allive Action version came out this weekend. New York Times
said that they didn't enjoy the movie as much as
they otherwise would have because there was not enough kink
in that movie. Yes, Little Mermaid nineteen eighty nine cartoon,
(31:24):
not enough kink, Buck.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
I legitimately don't even know what they think they're saying
with that. I can take some guesses, but I don't
even get what that's supposed to be.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
It's super weird, and it just goes to the point
that there is a lot of demand for young children
to be incredibly sexualized inside of your own schools, inside
of your own children's films. And so DeSantis has gone
to war with Disney. Now it's turned into a zoning
battle over Disney World, and we have talked about that
a lot. The biggest takeaway to me, Buck, is that
(31:57):
Disney is now one of the five most polarizing in America.
And if you're analyzing things and you're saying, Okay, they're
a business, they're doing whatever they think is best. Actually,
the data reflects that they have tanked in Republican support
and have not increased very much in Democrat support. In
other words, their overall brand value has declined since they
(32:21):
have decided to get involved in state related political issues
with Governor Ron DeSantis. So Desantas has gone to war
with Disney. Interestingly, Buck, and I hadn't even seen this.
You told me about this off air. Trump ripped Ron
DeSantis as recently as was it Thursday? I believe he
put out a clip ripping Ron DeSantis. We played the
(32:42):
audio for you on this program for fighting with Disney
and came down on the side of defending Disney and saying, oh,
this is basically, and I'm paraphrasing, unfortunate that DeSantis would
be going to war with Disney. Now Trump has come
out over Memorial Weekend and said, what buck this is.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
From truth social Donald Trump's account, Disney has become a
woke and disgusting shadow of its former self, with people
actually hating it. Must go back to what it once
was or the market will do irreparable damage. This all
happened during the governorship of Rob de sanctimonious. Instead of
(33:24):
complaining now for publicity reasons only, he should have stopped
it long ago. It would have been easy to do
it still is, okay.
Speaker 4 (33:36):
So.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
Now he is joining with the Disney as woke and
needs to be stopped. He's saying it's DeSantis's fault that
this happened, and DeSantis could have easily stopped it. But
the way that DeSantis is trying to stop it. On third,
can we get that audio of the Trump statement just
soever and can hear exactly what we're talking about? You know,
(34:00):
I'm at the point where with some of this stuff,
I would just want to know. Okay, so what exactly
is the position, because this seems to be multiple positions
taken at once that are contradicting each other, or at
least when you add it to what was said. This
was from May twenty eighth, the other audio, and it
was from the Trump statement where he was talking about Disney,
(34:23):
which I believe you're right. I think we played it
on Thursday. But so Trump now agrees Disney is woke
in disgusting. Okay, so they're aligned on that. He says
it should go back to what it once was aligned
on that this all happened during the governorship of Rob
de sanctimonious. I don't think Disney went woke in the
(34:45):
last four years. I don't think that's fair. But if
someone disagrees, by all means, call in. Let us know
that Disney was very conservative or traditional in its values
and change. But he should have stopped it long ago.
So now it feels like the criticism is that he
waited too long to take action against Disney, instead of
(35:08):
he shouldn't be taking action against Disney in Florida. I'm
not sure if I have that right, but I think
that's what it is saying. So on Thursday, and we'll
play you this audio.
Speaker 1 (35:18):
The twenty fifth of May, Trump said that DeSantis was
on the wrong side against Disney and he had unfairly
attacked Disney. On Sunday, the twenty eighth, Trump comes out
and says, actually, Disney is gone super woke and DeSantis
(35:38):
hasn't done enough to fight back against Disney. So again,
just to make this clear, Thursday, DeSantis, this is Trump's
own words, and we'll play it for you because we
played it on the show. And to be fair, you
and I both said, yeah, we disagree, and I laid
out why I think I wouldn't change anything. In fact,
you go back and look at the transcript, I said
I wouldn't change anything DeSantis has done against Disney. So
(36:01):
the only thing I can think buck is that between
Thursday and Sunday, somebody shared polling with Trump which showed
that what DeSantis is doing on Disney is very popular
with Republican primary voters. Because we don't want more kink
in the Little Mermaid, and we don't want I'm sure
(36:21):
you saw this, and a lot of our listeners I'm
sure did as well. We don't want men dressing up
as princesses at disney Land in California pretending to be
women talking to young children. That isn't appropriate in most
of our minds. We want Disney to be as Trump said,
(36:43):
the Disney that it was for most of our youth
in the eighties and in the nineties before Disney went
crazy and buck. What I have said here is I
saw all this happen. So I saw it happen at ESPN,
where Disney owned ESPN lost its mind and went super
woke with sports, and now they're doing the same thing
(37:06):
with the larger cultural aspects of Disney. But why would
other than Trump being told, hey, Republicans disagree with the
woke Disney concept, why would he totally change his tune. Now,
I think he's in the right place here, so I
give him credit for getting to the right place. But
(37:29):
this is one of those things where we said Trump
was running to the left of DeSantis, and the fact
that this was ever a situation where you would say, hey,
Disney did the right thing and now people are going
to lose their jobs. This was a miscalculation by Trump.
And to be fair, DeSantis is getting ripped by corporatists,
(37:50):
by big business for actually attacking Disney, but the base
of the Republican Party agrees with him on this attack.
And so this to me is an intriguing aspect that
Trump would effectively flip flop in the space of three
days on Disney.
Speaker 2 (38:08):
Yeah, I would like to see if we could play
just so everyone can have the full context. Team let
us know when we have the statement that Trump put
out from last week on this. But it is interesting
to see that what because on social media, for sure,
there were a couple of days where there were Trump
surrogates saying the fight with Disney is foolish and stupid
(38:30):
and costing money and jobs, and then a couple of
days later it's ono, Disney's actually woke and need and
it needed to be stopped sooner. So that's a change
in That's a change in in directions, I guess you
could say. And I think that what we're going to
be looking for here is, Yeah, people are going to
take different positions. This will all evolve as the campaigns
(38:52):
move along, but at least clarity we can't necessarily these
are politicians, right, Consistency isn't going to happen, but clarity
would be good to have an understanding of where the
different candidates start. I was interested to see that Trump said,
I think you just put this out today that on
day one he'll sign an executive order to end birthright
(39:15):
citizenship for those who are born here. And this goes
there's a whole big discussion, a bunch of you know
things you have to get involved here on and you know,
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and the anchor baby situation.
And this has never really been tested all the way
up to the Supreme Court, but it does clearly show
(39:37):
clay when you see that we have rules against people
coming here, let's say, from China, having a baby here
on purpose, and then going back to China, and now
they claim, oh, that's American citizenship. Here's the here's the
you know, what do you call birth certificate of the
birth in California. Oh, okay, we'll get back to the
end of birthright citizenship, which is a I think he's
(39:59):
this is a big, big fight that would be had,
and I think it's going to be a part of
the immigration discussion in a way that it needs to be.
But here is the Trump clip from what last week
on Thursday.
Speaker 5 (40:11):
Play it when the Rhonda sanctimonious facts come out, you
will see that he's better than most Democrat governors, but
very average at best, compared to Republican governors who have
done a fantastic job.
Speaker 2 (40:23):
And look at Disney and what a miss it is.
Speaker 5 (40:26):
Could have worked out an easy settlement, but no, he
wanted to show the fake news how tough a guy
he is. He's not, and the whole Disney thing is
really very unfortunate. Now thousands and thousands of jobs are
being stopped and a lot of people are very upset
about it.
Speaker 2 (40:43):
Okay, so last week it was the Disney fight is
very unfortunate. People are losing jobs, and now as of
what was it two days ago, it's he should have
fought Disney sooner on this issue because it's so woke
and horrible and disgusting. So I'm just that's where we are.
Speaker 1 (41:03):
In two days. He argued three days the exact opposite
of his attack. So and to your point, Buck, there
are also people running around because we came on Thursday,
and I was like, yeah, this is a bad line
of attack. So I give credit to Trump for changing
his position, because I pivoting.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
Is the right move. You know, I think we're allowed
to notice when he pivots.
Speaker 1 (41:23):
Yeah, in the space of seventy two hours, he went
from DeSantis has screwed up Disney and it's very unfortunate
to Disney as a disaster. And Ron DeSantis should have
done way more. So he did too much on Thursday,
and on Sunday he didn't do enough. Now Trump has
gotten to the right place on Disney. But why was
(41:46):
he levying the attack and now the attack? It's just
this is this is the bull in a china shop
of Trump that frustrates me. I mean candidly with everybody
out there. Trump often gets to the right result, but
he makes a mess of getting there, so that the
process of getting there becomes the attackable version of himself.
(42:08):
Now we'll come back and talk about this birthright citizenship,
because I think this is actually the right position for Trump.
In fact, in my book, I argue that if we're
ever going to fix immigration in this country, we have
to deal with the incentive structure that brings people to
this country in the first place. One is jobs, that's harder,
(42:29):
I think, but buck the idea that if you have
a child in the United States, your child becomes a
citizen most countries don't have birthright citizenship if they just don't.
Speaker 2 (42:40):
And also we're talking about people who are in the
country often illegally. Illegally. Yeah, so you're here in violation
of the US law, you have a child, that a
child's a US citizen. That's a massive incentive for people
to come here illegally. And it's really the version of
this you see in California and with Chinese birth tourism,
which there have been federal cases about this and it's criminal,
(43:02):
you're not allowed to do that. But you start to say, okay, well,
if it's wrong for someone from China to Chinese national
to come here, and it's wrong for a company to
basically pay to have the baby here so they get
the citizenship, why is it okay to come across the
border illegally, have a child here and then demand citizenship
for that child. Which has been that has been the
(43:22):
way it's treated in the US now for a very
long time. So, yeah, that's a big fight underway politically.
We'll see where it goes. We'll talk about it more
in a second. Nowhere is it written You shouldn't feel
the top of your game every day. That's what Chalk
is all about c hoq. Why shouldn't you feel fantastic
every day, full of energy and able to take on
(43:43):
the world. Chalk produces high quality nutritional supplements, none more
popular than the Male Vitality Stack. This combination of everyday
supplements is designed to supply your body with the nutrients
to fuel energy, focus, and stamina. The leading natural ingredient
has been researched to show serious improvements in testos drone
with a guy's body within a guy's body up some
(44:03):
twenty percent in just three months time. You're gonna feel
it as it happens. This increase in testosterone, which is
a driver a great driver of energy. If you want
to double down on your energy and focus, find your
way to Chalk dot com. Cchoq dot com save thirty
five percent off the Chalk subscription you choose for life
when you use my name Buck in your purchase process.
(44:24):
That's chalk choq dot com with a Q as in
Chalk dot com. Thirty five percent deals a great one,
So remember to use my name Buck when you get
to chalk dot com thirty five percent off as you
make your purchase sleeve.
Speaker 1 (44:37):
Travis and Buck Sexton on the front lines of truth.
Speaker 2 (44:41):
So I just told you the story of a personal
trainer fired from an Equinox gym in New York City,
claiming that a white subordinate co worker, a white male,
said things that she found bigoted or racist of out
I guess other people in the gym, And she was
(45:05):
late enough that she certainly could have been terminated on
that grounds alone, but she instead got eleven million dollars.
And I sit here and I say, and Clay's telling me, well,
maybe that will be reduced and we'll see. But also
when I looked at this store, something else came up.
Some of you may recall this was back in November
of twenty twenty two that a black female FedEx supervisor,
(45:30):
a supervisor at the FedEx company, won a Did you
hear about this, Clay three hundred and sixty six million
dollar jury award in a case where there was supposedly
racial bias. It's fascinating whenever I read through these news
reports on the racial bias.
Speaker 1 (45:50):
I'm looking.
Speaker 2 (45:50):
I'm looking for, you know, oh man, where what is
this stuff? Where are the grotesque racist, you know, really
degrading thing that we could all sit there and say, well,
that is appalling and the companies shouldn't be held three
hundred and sixty six million dollars is crazy, But you know,
there should be an award here, and it's always I
didn't think, you know, in this case, it's I didn't
(46:11):
think I got promoted when I should have been, and
I think there was discrimination against me. I've seen nothing
in this case in now, granted I've only done a
quick read of it in the last few minutes, but
nothing to justify a three million dollar settlement, never mind
a three hundred and sixty six million dollars. I mean,
I don't know. I think three hundred and sixty six
million dollars a lot of money. And I think what
(46:33):
you're starting to see is people might recognize that this stuff,
all this all has costs and consequences. You know, you're
when when you're gonna get people getting three hundred million
dollar verdicts or even ten million dollar verdicts, that expense
is not just coming from you know, up in the air,
the ether or whatever. These are companies Now they're going
(46:54):
to have to be paying out this this money. Now,
sometimes it's covered by insurance, but their insurance rates go up.
What happens then you're gonna be paying more for your
gym membership, you gonna be paying more for FedEx if
these kinds of verdicts become the norm, which I think
you're starting to see. This is getting way out of
control of the New York Times, to be clear, is
celebrating the eleven million dollars verdict. I think this is great.
(47:16):
Eleven million dollars for somebody who says she heard some
things she didn't like at work. And I sit here
and I say, when do we get to point out
that this is that there are certainly instances of this
where it's just people looking for a massive payday, or
it's people who are using the you know, the racial
(47:38):
guilt in this country and the terror that companies have
of being considered racist for a second, to just absolutely
ring the cash register as much as possible. Most of
the time buck these cases will get tossed on appeal
the verdicts, because that's why I was pointing out, Let's
say this woman's making one hundred thousand dollars a year. Okay,
(48:00):
she got one hundred years of salary because according to her,
some people at her employer said mean things about her.
So usually again Usually there.
Speaker 1 (48:13):
Would be the plaintiff lawyer and the defense attorney would
sit down and say, Okay, like this number is totally
out of whack, we'll give you two and a half
million dollar settlement, or we're going to appeal this and
your client's going to lose most of this verdict. Right
because again, under a lot of different law oftentimes I
(48:34):
don't know, the three hundred million dollar verdict is probably
wildly outside of what a jury could deliver in those cases. Now,
as an attorney, I represented a lot of big companies
in the US visin I.
Speaker 2 (48:49):
Can I tell you what was not They took it
to court clay to get it over, They took it
to appeal. You know what happened to appeal maintained? Where
is the case from US District Court of the Southern
District of Texas.
Speaker 1 (49:04):
So usually, again, sometimes you have to go all the
way to the Supreme Court to get some of these
cases tossed out. I'm not an expert in that particular case.
There has to be in order for a verdict to
be applied, some sort of mathematical connection that typically would
allow it to occur. So most of these massive verdicts
(49:25):
that you see that are plaintif involved. I'm not talking
about a massive lawsuit, right. Sometimes you have these class
action lawsuits where you know, theoretically a million people could
each make eighty dollars if they filled out the form
and turned it back in. And really it's the lawyers
who are ending up as the biggest beneficiaries here because
(49:45):
they get thirty or thirty five percent of a contingency fee.
There's no doubt that our court system is oftentimes strangled
by unnecessary litigation. And an easy way to think about
this is, if Buck, we had half of the truck
drivers that we have in this country, our entire economy
(50:08):
would collapse. Think about it. If we had half of
the warriors, everything would be fine. Right, So sometimes you
can look around and you could probably say if we
had a quarter of the lawyers, everything would be fine,
because there is a tax that is being created by
the legal profession in this country that does not make
(50:28):
the country more efficient than it otherwise would be by
many lawyers often filing unscrupulous lawsuits that are unnecessary and
actually make things worse for the vast majority of the country.
Speaker 2 (50:40):
So jurors awarded Harris the a female you know a
plaintiff in this case one point one six million dollars
in compensatory damages. All right, I mean, you know, if
maybe there was something that people's maybe there, she wasn't
you know, fairly she's making like again eighty to one
hundred grand a year you give, or ten years of wages. Okay, okay.
(51:03):
They worded a million dollars in compensory damages and three
hundred and sixty five million dollars in punitive damages. Yeah.
Now you'd say, and to your point, I think that
there's like a faith here that you and I would
both have in the system that say, ah, come on. Well.
The update that story was in November. The update as
a February third of this year was a Fifth Circuit
(51:25):
judge rejected FedEx's request to throw out or reduce the
three hundred and sixty six million dollars in damages. So
it made it to the appeal and the appeals court
guy was like, nah, sorry, So I don't know if.
Speaker 1 (51:38):
They The way that typically this would work is it
was a district court verdict in Texas. First of all,
I don't know what the law is in the state
of Texas on punitive damages. I bet we have geniuses
who are experts on this. Typically you could not reward
a three hundred x punitive damage on top of a
(52:00):
one million dollar verdict. Generally speaking, sometimes buck what you
have to do, and this gets into the legal technicalities.
Sometimes you get a bad judge right on the Fifth Circuit.
You might get I don't know who that judge is,
but my bet would be that he would have been
a Democrat appointee on the Fifth Circuit, which is traditionally
a conservative court in the country, and so you get
(52:21):
a hearing in front of one and you have to
require that the entire Fifth Circuit review, right.
Speaker 2 (52:27):
So I mean it's it's look, it's making its way
up the chain. But I just think it's interesting that
this is the the initial three sixty six million. They
went to a district court judge, a federal judge and said, hey, guys,
the three hundred and sixty six million for discrimination that
was apparently never proven, there's no Yeah. The basis for
this is her perception that she was discriminated against. U's
a she was a black woman who says that they
(52:48):
treated her differently because she's a black woman, and the
judge said no, we're going to keep it. So now
they're going to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to
elevate it beyond the initial federal district juge. But Clay,
who is this initial disjudge like, this is this is
crazy town?
Speaker 1 (53:06):
Yeah it is. And I would bet again that it's
almost entirely unjustifiable under Texas law because a lot of
states have tried to put caps on punitive damages and
damages in general, because what ends up happening in many
of these tort lawsuits is this is a default tax
on all of the citizens of Texas because the corporation
(53:30):
has to in some way count on all these dollars
that otherwise would go to running their business going out
to people with unjustified payments. And that's exactly what I'm
what I'm trying to get at here is this isn't
the juris think, oh, great, we're striking a blow against racism,
even if no racism was proved.
Speaker 2 (53:46):
You know, it makes a point or something, and this
woman then gets very rich. Yay, people might get fired
over this, you know, I mean, you know, you look
at what happened. Now, it's very different. Not a racial
discrimination suit. But even the dominion law law suit at Fox,
they had layoffs recently. Now they can say that it
has nothing to do with the eight hundred million dollars settlement,
But people lost their jobs. When you have a huge
(54:09):
judgment against the company, they have to cut costs. People
are going to get fired. So if you're bringing a
frivolous or false racial discrimination suit and getting a massive judgment,
there are good people that get hurt by that, and
the consumer certainly gets hurt. To your point about effectively
socializing these costs, which we're seeing in a whole range
(54:31):
of ways.
Speaker 1 (54:32):
Well, and not only that, Buck, I mean if you
think in a bigger picture as opposed to one individual,
which is again that dollar figure would be entirely unjustified.
Also many of the people who lose their jobs or minorities.
You know, if a company has to retrench and end
up laying off lots of workers, then you're trying to
rectify injustice by in some way actually taking out more
(54:56):
of an issue on minorities to reward one right. And this,
of course is the great fallacy of BLM in general.
The biggest, the biggest losers of all of BLM are
impoverished people in inner city neighborhoods who can't walk outside
safely because they fired all the cops in the name
of trying to make the world less racist.
Speaker 2 (55:15):
It's also just it requires a total suspension of the
reality that we all live in in this country where
in ninety nine percent of corporate settings and circumstances, what's
the fastest way to get fired, right, the fastest way
to get fired say something racist. No matter what company,
no matter what business, no matter where you are, what
(55:36):
you're doing, the fastest way to lose your job is
to say something racist. And yet we're to believe that
in these cases there was all of this, you know,
grotesque racism underway that no one can prove, and no
one knew about, no one heard about. But look, it's
because there's going to be more of this, I mean, Clay,
it's from the attorney side of it too, right, eleven
(55:57):
million dollars here, three hundred million dollars starts to add
up those legal fees, you know, And this is where.
Speaker 1 (56:04):
Can you think it's a good question for everybody else
out there? How many professions could you eliminate half of
the people doing it and actually make the world better.
You could eliminate half of attorneys and America would work
just as efficiently and effectively as it does now. How
many professions can you say that about? Just think about it,
and a lot of them that don't pay very well.
(56:27):
The country would basically cease to exist, right, I mean,
if you took away half of the people who work
at gas stations, we'd have a real issue. Right, take
away half the lawyers. Country might be better off.
Speaker 2 (56:38):
You know, the other week I got to do an
extraordinary thing. I sat down with a market analyst who
made a special video of presentation. But the market analyst
is somebody I know very well. It's my dad, Mason Sexton,
so you probably recognized the last name. We talked about
a premise that's very important to him, the great disruption
of twenty twenty three. Look in the past, he predicted
the stock market crash of eighty seven, that's off of
(57:00):
the market. Before the crash. He's made several major calls publicly,
but what he sees now is unlike anything he's seen
in fifty years of Wall Street experience. You can read
off on it now so you'll know how to prepare.
In this interview, he reveals the date this July, when
he thinks things are going to turn really ugly in
the markets. We're already starting to see the signs of disruption.
(57:21):
Banks floundering, real estate losing its value at a rapid rate,
inflation causing sticker shock at the grocery store. My dad
Mason will tell you why most analysts are wrong about
a coming decade in lost stocks or lost decade rather
than stocks, and why what's coming could be much much worse.
This is his first major public prediction in thirty years,
(57:41):
so if you missed it, the video is still up
you can watch now watch the replay at Disruption twenty
twenty three dot com. That's Disruption twenty twenty three dot com.
Speaker 1 (57:53):
Sunday, Hang with Clay and Fucking A new podcast. Find
it on the iHeart app or wherever you get your podcasts.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.