The NPR Politics Podcast - Weekly Roundup: Thursday, August 8

Episode Date: August 8, 2019

President Trump visited survivors of the shootings in Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas on Wednesday, to mixed reception. The team discusses what the president, members of Congress and the 2020 presidential candidates are considering to combat gun violence. This episode: political reporter Danielle Kurtzleben, political reporter Tim Mak, Congressional correspondent Susan Davis and White House correspondent Franco Ordoñez. Email the show at [e-mail]. Find and support your local public radio station at npr.org/stations.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hi, this is Nicole in North Carolina. I just got done running my weekly Friday three miles that I always run listening to the weekly wrap-up from the NPR Politics podcast. And I've just realized that I always run the exact time of the podcast. So if you start making them shorter, I may start running faster. But no promises. This podcast was recorded at 1.44 p.m. on Thursday, August 8th. Don't forget to keep up with all of your politics at NPR.org or by your member station. All right. Enjoy the show. Hey there. It is the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Danielle Kurtzleben. I cover politics. I'm Tim Mack. I also cover politics.

I'm Susan Davis. I cover Congress. I'm Franco Ordonez. I cover politics. I'm Tim Mack. I also cover politics. I'm Susan Davis. I cover Congress. I'm Franco Ordonez. I cover the White House. Okay. It's been four days since President Trump addressed the nation in response to the deadly mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio. Together, we lock arms to shoulder the grief. We ask God in heaven to ease the anguish of those who suffer. And we vow to act with urgent resolve. Yesterday, he visited both of those cities to meet with victims, to talk to residents.

This is what presidents do in their consular-in-chief role. And our White House correspondent, Franco, we're just going to go to you first here. What was his reception like in both of these cities? Was he welcomed with open arms? I think it largely depends on your perspective. I mean, Trump himself spoke very well of the trip. He praised first responders. He said he felt a lot of love and respect for the office of the presidency. And, you know, even some local Democrats, you know, complimented him on his trip and said he was received well. But a lot of people didn't want him to come. There were protests in both cities. There were a lot of concerns about President Trump's past rhetoric

and what role that may have had in contributing to the atmosphere that led to these acts. You know, Trump lashed out at opponents, including Beto O'Rourke, the presidential candidate who used to represent El Paso. He also blasted Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and Dayton Mayor Neal Whaley, who were actually at the hospital with him. Trump questioned why he said they were questioning whether his visit was chief. Trump, you know, basically presents a tough guy image. And that has been really hard for him to shed when he's trying to comfort a community or even a nation. As we saw, you know, El Paso, a largely Latino community, has felt very much under attack by this president, by his rhetoric about immigrants, and they're reeling. And they

don't want a pat on the back. They want changes. It also seems like this response has been hyper-politicized in some ways because of the location, because of El Paso, because of this being investigated as a hate crime. And I think in a political environment where many Democrats have pointed blame at the president for both his policies and his rhetoric against Latinos and people of color as seeing him as being someone who has incited this political climate in this country. And so for him to go to El Paso, you saw a lot of people saying you shouldn't come here in the Latino community. And so there was a conflict for a president where normally in these scenarios, and every president

deals with tragedies, they use these moments to sort of, you know, hit the higher notes and speak to the country. And even in these moments of tragedy this week, we are still this like hyper polarized country. own ratcheting up of the rhetoric by talking out and attacking him at this time when he is trying to console the communities and the nation. And they're using this kind of language, accusing him of being a white supremacist. You know, that's another step beyond what they have in the past. And the president is pushing back and saying he is trying to dial down some of the rhetoric. And what he's saying is he's just fighting back to attacks on himself. First of all, just to clarify, that shooter in El Paso had posted before the shooting a diatribe, a manifesto, whatever you want to call it, online that was very hateful towards Hispanics. It spoke of an invasion of Hispanics from across the southern border into the U.S. And a lot of it mirrored Trump's rhetoric, right? I mean, the way that he has talked about Latinos, the phrases he has used,

people drew connections between what the president has said and what the sort of insane rationale the shooter used for his committing this atrocious crime. And there was a lot of political blame and a lot of raw political emotion that played out in response to these shootings. Absolutely. I mean, President Trump, you know, his there's no question he has used very inflammatory rhetoric. We have to be careful. We don't want to put, you know, the gun in President Trump's hands. It's the shooter. But at the same time, Trump's language has certainly divided a lot of America. Now, he he likes to blame Democrats.

He says they could have actually backed off on some of their own rhetoric against him during this time. So he's trying to like kind of push back. But there's no question of his role in kind of raising the temperature here. Let's get at his response and what he is proposing we do about this as a country. So what kind of ideas has he put forth to stop these sorts of mass shootings? Well, right now he is saying, you know, what people want to hear. He is saying things are going to get done. Change is coming. He says he's going to convince lawmakers on both sides of the aisle

that they're going to have to do stuff that they don't want to do. He's saying Republicans will have to do things that they don't want to do. He's saying Democrats will have to do more things that they don't want to do. But, you know, we've been here before. We've seen this issue. And it's very easy to be skeptical about any kind of big significant change. Well, what's interesting to me is that the president has been pretty pragmatic on the issue of firearms legislation. And in many ways, he's resisted the easy way out, which is that his base largely supports very stringent protections for Second Amendment rights.

Yeah, he's questioned whether lawmakers were afraid of the NRA. What's interesting, though, is that President Trump still, despite some flirting with stronger measures, he's kind of backed off, and often he's backed off after himself has talked to the NRA. Right. So he hasn't quite put all of his weight behind it. But this week, for example, he did tweet, for example, in the wake of these shootings about, you know, I would like universal background checks, but it would have to be attached to, I believe it was immigration legislation. Yeah. So Sue and Tim, you guys spend a lot of time on the Hill. I want to ask you, what about leaders in Congress? What would Mitch McConnell be willing to put forward in the Senate? And what about Democrats? What are you guys hearing? Well, there are a few proposals that are being kicked around. And one of the things that people are talking about on the Hill are what are called red flag laws. So red flag laws are something that is being proposed in Congress. They're enacted at the state level. And basically,

these laws allow relatives or friends or the police to petition a judge to confiscate temporarily firearms from someone that the judge acknowledges may be a judge to confiscate temporarily firearms from someone that the judge acknowledges may be a danger to themselves or to other people. So if my friend is saying, is posting scary things on Facebook, like I'm going to go shoot up a place, then I can say, hey, my buddy. You can report it to the police and the police can seek an order from a judge that allows them to take firearms away from them. And so it gives a kind of judicial process to take away firearms in a dangerous situation. And there are currently 17 states

plus D.C. that have enacted laws like this. And most of them enacted laws like this after the shootings in Parkland, Florida, where it was alleged that police didn't do enough to react to the threat posed before the shooting happened. So what the federal proposal would do would create grants to be given to the state so that they could develop and enact these red flag laws. I see. Just incentivize them to do it since the government can't do it themselves. Right. Gotcha. So, Sue, what else have you seen on the Hill? Well, we know something that House Democrats have already done is earlier this year they did pass a background check bill that would enhance the existing system. It has been,

we're seeing renewed calls for the Senate to take it up. There is some degree of interest among Republicans in the Senate on that. I mean, right now, if you are a citizen and you go to buy a firearm in this country, and you can legally buy one, you go through a background check system where they run your social security or information to make sure you don't have a criminal record, that you've never been convicted of a domestic violence crime, make sure you're not on a terror watch list, sort of those kind of things. The background check system as it exists does block a lot of gun sales. They block about 90,000 gun sales a year, I think was the last year on record. So it's a fairly effective system, but there are loopholes in it. One thing you hear a lot about is something called, often

referred to as the gun show loophole. It's not a very accurate way to describe what it is. It really goes to the fact that only licensed gun sellers have to run background checks on gun sales. There's a lot of unlicensed gun sellers in this country. People talk about gun shows because it's kind of where enthusiasts or hobbyists can go and sell gun person to person. So what the Democrats bill would would crack down on unlicensed sellers. It does not affect things like your family member sales. You know, a father, son, mother, daughter doesn't affect inheriting. You know, if you're if your grandfather leaves you his gun collection and his will, it wouldn't apply to that. So there are exemptions in the law. The pushback on some of this is and I think there's broadly been support to do this. You

know, they did already pass a law to tighten up some of the reporting requirements in the background check system, is that a lot of especially Second Amendment advocates would say people that commit crimes like this often in many of these mass shootings, these have been legally purchased guns that pass background checks, right? So like you're not, that's not doing anything. And that they see it as putting up that kind of barrier is more limiting to law abiding citizens. So that is sort of the general argument against that and why it hasn't happened, despite being something that comes up every time we have these events. Although, on the other hand, you did talk about background checks stopping some gun sales. I mean, the shootings that don't happen are the shootings that we don't see. It's proving the negative, right? And that's what's tough about this. Yeah. Well, so the most famous kind of expansion of background checks is called the Toomey Mansion

or the Mansion Toomey Proposal, right? This was developed after the shootings at Sandy Hook, and it failed in a vote in the Senate in 2013. But it's kind of the framework that they're using in the Senate and have used for many years in the Senate in 2013. But it's kind of the framework that they're using in the Senate and have used for many years in the Senate on how to expand background checks. So Senator Toomey was talking to reporters this week. He says he doesn't even want to vote immediately on his proposal. He doesn't think that they have the votes. Here's what he said. If we force a vote tomorrow, then I think the vote probably fails,

and we may actually set back this whole effort. The idea is they don't have the support in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell hasn't expressed a willingness to allow this sort of legislation to come to the floor, and the president hasn't explicitly backed it. And the reality here is, if the president doesn't provide air cover for Republicans in the House and Senate, Republicans don't feel safe that they can go and support this kind of legislation. Just to be clear, though, McConnell did put out a statement this week directing the chairman of the committees to work with Democrats to see if there is something that could be bipartisan that could come up. But there is a healthy reason to be skeptical that this is the time that Congress does something. Because when McConnell said that, he didn't actually endorse any proposal of any kind.

He didn't say, I would like to see this happen. He just said, go work, go find something, go be bipartisan and find something that would work. Okay, so very quickly here, we've talked about these proposals. You guys got a bit at that Manchin-Toomey bill. These other things you brought up, red flag laws, universal background checks,

how passable are they? Well, this is what I would say. We have seen in the wake of these shootings, some more wiggle room on the right. The inability to pass gun laws is generally over Republican objections in the Senate, where you need to have a super majority of senators to agree to do gun legislation. But there has been some wiggle room following. And this happens a lot. After the Parkland shooting, Brian Mast, who's a Republican from Florida, came forward and said he now supported an assault weapons ban and other gun legislation. After this one, Republicans like Mike Turner, he's a Republican who represents the Dayton area, came out and said he would support legislation along that lines. More and

more Republicans, I wouldn't say they were against red flag laws, but have come out to affirm that they would support something if it were to come out. So that is movement. The reality is you still need a super majority in the Senate. Right. And they don't have that. And that hasn't changed. I mean, this is one of these intractable issues in this country. Think about all of the mass shooting events we've had over the past 10 years. And the challenge here is even if all of the senators were like, great, red flag laws, let's do this. Once you open a gun debate in the Senate, and you have to understand a little bit how the Senate works, but that makes all the other gun issues available

for debate. So a lot of times the reason why these, why Toomey Manchin failed and why other things fail is you get closer, you even have a majority, but Republicans will say, well, we're not going to pass this bill unless we put stronger concealed carried laws in there. And Democrats will say, well, this isn't going to do anything if there isn't an assault weapons ban in it. And it retracts to the things that are just not passable. And that's where we keep getting stuck. All right. One more thing I want to ask about is the National Rifle Association. They are clearly a very powerful interest group. They've helped to stall gun control initiatives over the years, many of them. So, Tim, I know you report a lot on the NRA. Where are they in the discussion right now? How vocal have they been in light

of these shootings? Well, the National Rifle Association draws its power as one of the most powerful conservative groups in America from its membership, right? They have five to six million really dedicated members, and by and large, they vote. And so that's the real power of it. But they've gotten themselves in a pretty serious situation right now. They're facing internal power struggles and allegations of financial misconduct, including, you know, six-figure suit purchases for the CEO, Wayne LaPierre. The New York and D.C. attorney generals are investigating the organization. Board members are resigning because they can't get straight answers on the organization's financials. Their top lobbyist stepped down. It's a total mess. And

this is all happening amid poor fundraising in the Trump era because the NRA just hasn't been able to fundraise as effectively now that their membership sees a president they like in power. I spoke to the president of an NRA opponent every time for gun safety is John Feinblatt. This is what he had to say. The NRA is completely dysfunctional right now. It's like looking at a five alarm fire. But the amazing thing is they lit the match. And the question really is, can the NRA get its house in order to be a player in 2020? really comes from being able to mobilize its members and tell lawmakers, hey, if you go against us, we'll be able to effectively fight you at the ballot box come 2020. If they don't have the resources or ability or attention to be able to do that, they lose a lot of that power.

So just to be clear, is the NRA officially, is their official line, we are against universal background checks, we are against an assault style weapons ban, we are against banning bump stocks? Have they come out with firm positions on a lot of these things? They've historically been against the assault weapons ban, and they've historically been against the background checks. They did, however, go along with the bump stock ban that the White House basically executed through executive action earlier in this administration. All right. We're going to leave that there. When we come back, we're going to talk about what the 2020 candidates are thinking in terms of gun control steps. Support for NPR and the following message come from ExxonMobil, the company that's

working to bring affordable, scalable carbon capture to industries around the world. It's one of the few technologies that could help decarbonize industrial plants by capturing CO2 at its source. Experts agree that it will also play a critical role in reducing global carbon emissions. Find out more at energyfactor.com. Support also comes from BetterHelp. BetterHelp offers licensed professional counselors who specialize in issues such as depression, stress, anxiety, and more. Connect with your professional counselor in a safe and private online environment at your convenience. Get help at your own time and your own pace. Schedule secure

video or phone sessions, plus chat and text with your therapist. Visit betterhelp.com slash politics to learn more and get 10% off your first month. The world is complicated, but knowing the past can help us understand it so much better. That's where we come in. I'm Randa Abdel-Fattah. I'm Ramteen Arablui, and we're the hosts of ThruLine, NPR's history podcast.

Every week, we'll dig into forgotten stories from the moments that shaped our world. ThruLine, from NPR. Listen and subscribe now. And we are back. We are talking about gun violence this week in the wake of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. And the people who are talking about efforts to curb gun violence in the U.S. are not only people on Capitol Hill and not only President Trump, but the nearly two dozen people who are running for the Democratic nomination for president. The Democrats are framing this as a racial or even spiritual conversation about the soul of America and what the future of America looks like. But candidates are also proposing specific gun legislation to combat gun violence, right? field are a couple of ideas. Universal background checks, which we talked about before with Congress

members, and also bans on assault-style weapons. This is something that, for example, Joe Biden has brought up because he was in Congress, in the Senate, when that assault weapons ban was passed. It has, of course, long since lapsed and was not renewed. Aside from those two things, you have a lot of candidates talking about even bigger ideas. And let's stick with Joe Biden right here, because Joe Biden spoke with Anderson Cooper this week. He wants to ban assault-style weapons.

Here's him and Anderson Cooper on CNN. To gun owners out there who say, well, a Biden administration means they're going to come for my guns. Bingo. You're right if you have an assault weapon. The fact of the matter is they should be illegal, period.

Which I don't know about you guys if you guys heard this this week, but I heard that and I kind of sat up straight in my chair because this is one of the lines. It was one of the lines throughout the Obama administration that he is coming for our guns. That was a gun rights argument against Obama. But to be clear, Biden did make it clear that he's not talking about the government walk into people's homes and take their guns away. Here's what else he said. But that's clear, Biden did make it clear that he's not talking about the government walk into people's homes and take their guns away. Here's what else he said. But that's not confiscating people. No, that's not walking into their homes, knocking on their doors, going through their gun cabinets, etc. So people would be allowed to keep the weapons they already have. Right now, there's

no legal way that I'm aware of that you could deny them the right if they had purchased legally purchased them. But we can, in fact, make a major effort to get them off the street and out of the possession of people. Tim, very quickly, can you explain to us what assault-style weapons even means? Because it's not a totally fixed definition, right? Right. So the assault weapons ban was passed in 1994 and it expired in 2004. And what it did is that it prohibits certain features of firearms, as well as banning so-called high-capacity magazines. So what this ban did was it said you couldn't have a folding stock and a pistol grip on the same kind of semi-automatic rifle, for example. And so this is

generally related to the elements and the accessories that are allowed to firearms. The ban also included bans on specific kinds of firearms. But largely, when we talk about an assault weapons ban, what we mean by that is eliminating certain features from being on the same firearm. You also see that assault weapons ban, when you poll it, polls pretty well in the public. It polls pretty high. Majorities of Americans say they're interested in some kind of weapons ban along those lines. That is why I think you also hear Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg talking about the filibuster when they talk about the debate over guns. And the filibuster is what requires that 60 vote supermajority in the Senate to get anything

done. It is that legislative barrier that has made it impossible to get a gun bill through. And I think Democrats are running on things like getting rid of the filibuster because that is their way of saying when I'm president, I will sign an assault weapons ban because I think we should get rid of the filibuster. So it's like a process reform about how your government works. But it is increasingly one that Democrats think is the hurdle to advancing the policies that they believe in. It also strikes me on the campaign trail that it's a process thing that also signals to voters, I care this much. I'm willing to go out and blow up the Senate. Yeah, I'm going to fight for you. Yeah. Well, one thing I think that gets lost in these conversations about gun safety is just how common gun violence can be in America and in ways that don't involve mass shootings and in ways that don't involve these long guns, these rifles. The vast majority of gun deaths don't involve mass shootings. Right. I just want to get at here a few other ideas that are out there on the campaign trail while we're talking about this, some of which are more sweeping. For example, there's one idea for gun licensing. So this is kind of a step beyond universal background checks where you would have to apply for a license, kind of like how you have to apply for a driver's license right now. And there are a few candidates behind this.

New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, and former Texas Representative Beto O'Rourke are four people who have backed this idea. So it definitely has some traction on the campaign trail. And there is some good evidence that would work. But once again, I don't know the possibility of anything that's sweeping of passing. I don't even know if there's polling on it. And I just want to highlight one more idea that's out there that Amy Klobuchar has backed, several other people in Congress have as well, called the boyfriend loophole, because Sue brought up earlier the idea that if you have been convicted of domestic violence against your spouse, it can stop you from passing a

background check. But what members of Congress have pointed out is people's former partners who were not spouses, who have had domestic violence convictions, can get guns, and that amendment does not apply to them. So hence the boyfriend loophole. And so that is one other idea that is being pushed. The House has already also passed the boyfriend loophole. It's inside the Violence Against Women Act. It's another thing that Democrats are saying that the Senate should take up. Gotcha. We're going to hear a lot more from the candidates on this this weekend. There's a gun violence prevention forum in Iowa. I will be in Iowa this weekend, along with our colleague Scott Detrow. We will have reporting from there to bring back and we'll be listening for everything

that the candidates say on this topic. We're going to take a quick break and when we get back, it's going to be time for Can't Let It Go. Hey, it's Maria Hinojosa, host of NPR's Latino USA, the podcast that takes you inside the Latinx conversation. Each week, we'll bring you stories that will fascinate and often surprise you. It's Latino USA. Listen and subscribe now. And we are back, and it is time to end the show like we do every week with Can't Let It Go. This is the part of the show where we talk about the things from the week that we just can't stop thinking about politics or otherwise. And Sue, you are the lucky winner to go first this week. Have you all ever taken a SoulCycle class?

Unfortunately, yes. I hear it's a cult. My Can't Let It Go This Week is a political scandal, and I'm using finger quotes for scandal, involving SoulCycle, which if you don't know what it is, it is boutique, fancy boutique fitness. But I say it's really a spin class. It's a relentlessly positive spin class. One of the major investors in SoulCycle, the Washington Post reported this week, was going to be hosting a fundraiser for Donald Trump in the Hamptons.

And it was tickets were going for up to a quarter of a million dollars. Now, the audience for SoulCycle, I think, is probably fair to say the type that probably leans against Donald Trump politically. Most SoulCycles are in cities. It's very millennial. It's younger. And this sort of shocked the SoulCycle community to its core. There was a lot of celebrity outrage. Chrissy Teigen called for all of her celebrity friends to cancel their SoulCycle memberships. It required the owners of SoulCycle to put out a statement saying that none of our corporate profits go to political donations. Even the investor who's having the fundraiser, Stephen Ross, put out a statement saying, I don't agree with Donald Trump on everything.

And it was just kind of funny to me to see all these people who are spending all their money on SoulCycle classes be like suddenly incredibly politically conflicted. Because if you know SoulCycle people, it is a little bit like a cult. So telling them they would have to break up with SoulCycle because it conflicted with their politics was like watching the implosions of people's thinking about this was kind of comical to me. We have a new demographic. NASCAR dads and SoulCycle nieces? Yeah, I don't know.

This is what I saw people saying also. Like, if you dig deep enough into any company that you patronize, someone in there probably supports someone you disagree with. Yeah, and like occasionally brands just get politicized. Like we've seen it with like Chick-fil-A or other type things. And it was just funny that now it's just like SoulCycle's turn. In defense of the SoulCyclers, which I acknowledge I am not one, but I, you know, I relate to them and I can see them, you know, cycling, pedaling along thinking this is their chance. This is their break. This is their one, you know, half hour, hour to power through the day. Where you get to forget about politics.

They don't need politics in this. You sound like an instructor right now. It's kind of unnerving. Power through the day. Okay, Tim, what can't you let go? Social media has gotten so addictive that lawmakers are now trying to ban certain elements of it that they think are controlling our minds. So Senator Josh.

Like Instagram? Well, it's like certain elements of Instagram, certain elements of YouTube, certain elements of it that they think are controlling our minds. So Senator Josh. Like Instagram? Well, it's like certain elements of Instagram, certain elements of YouTube, certain elements of Facebook. So Senator Josh Howley has a bill out that would ban addictive features on social media. So these are things like the infinite scroll where you scroll down and it keeps reloading new information. Oh, like you don't have to click next to go to another page? So like on YouTube where it loads another video without asking you if you want to see another video. Or even just like awards that are linked to engagement. The legislation even says that all of social media, every 30 minutes you use it,

it needs to have a pop-up that says, you've been on social media for two hours today. To remind you, like, get off your butt and go outside and fly a kite or something. Like when you fall asleep in front of Netflix and it asks you, are you still watching? Are you still watching? Or when you just have been watching television for eight hours? Yes, actually, I am still watching. You're like, no, I have been watching television for six hours straight. I have no idea what that's like. Stop judging me, Netflix. I mean, who hasn't fallen down an Instagram rabbit hole where

you're like, I've been scrolling on this and I'm like five years into someone's Insta and you're like, what's happening? Worst part is if you accidentally like something. I just like someone's 2013 photo. Oh man, that is an embarrassment. We could all use that pop up to be like, you know, you're looking at someone's 2013 photos right now. Are you sure you want to like this? I don't want to pop up. I want an undo button. Danielle, what can't you let go this week? I can't let go of something that Hollywood apparently can't let go of, which is Home Alone. Great movie. Is it? I loved that movie.

So you guys may have heard that Disney has bought the rights to apparently reboot Home Alone for its upcoming streaming service. I've been reading an article about this. It may end up as a feature length film or as a series. Who knows? Most important question, is Macaulay Culkin involved? No, but Macaulay, or at least not that I know of, I may be wrong, but Macaulay Culkin did get involved on Twitter this week. I saw that. What did he say? He said, this is what being Home Alone really looks like. Something to this effect. I'm paraphrasing. With a photo of him, like, stomach hanging out, sitting on the couch with his laptop and a plate of food and looking very slovenly. It was very funny.

But, like, just why? And I'm, you know what? It's reboot culture, right? We're not even making new movies anymore. We're just, like, remaking all the old TV shows and movies again. Or making up superhero franchises one or the other. Well, there's like a deep, deep nostalgia in America right now for a simpler time, a better time. A simpler time when a small child could be left alone and not contact his parents and beat the living bejesus out of Joe Pesci, I guess. Although isn't Home Alone one of these movies that I don't know how you make it in the modern world? Exactly. Because

the whole premise of the original one is that the telephone lines go down and no one can reach them. And in the modern world, like cell phones have just eliminated the entire plot argument for that movie. I forgot the telephone aspect of it. Yeah, like mom couldn't reach them because the phones were down. So I'm like, I don't know how you do Home Alone in the modern tech world. But I'll tell you what, I'm going to watch it and find out. Let's do one more. Franco, why can't you let go of? Well, I just keep thinking about hamburgers. It has been a long week. The family was thinking

about grilling out this weekend, and now I just really don't know because I can't let go that there was this report that just came out from the United Nations on climate change and saying how people really need to change their diets. Oh, and eat less red meat? It's not specifically about eating less red meat. It's about the impacts of agriculture on deforestation and saying farmland needs to shrink. That means you need less land for meat production. But it does remind me of the, I know you guys remember that controversy when former White House aide Sebastian Gorka

was yelling, they're trying to take away your hamburgers about the Green New Deal, the climate proposal. And he was screaming that at a conservative CPAC conference. They want to take your pickup truck. They want to rebuild your home. They want to take your pickup truck. They want to rebuild your home. They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt

about, but never achieved. Now, I want to be clear, the Green Deal deal does not, you know, bar hamburgers. It does not take away your meat. It's non-binding anyway. It's non-binding. But given how much land, you know, from this report, you know, it takes to grow, feed for livestock and raise cattle and how much meat production is leading to deforestation, according to this group. It's just it for me, it's just like another pang of guilt as I take it like a really juicy bite of a very controversial burger. And it's unfair. Well, you know what? I've been seeing all of these plant fiber substitute hamburgers type things in the supermarkets. And the thing is, though, that the technology on them and the processes on them are improving. Right now, they're like, let's say, 75% to 80%. They're not a great hamburger.

But I really am kind of interested to see as the technology develops to make a pretty viable, let's say a 95% as good plant-based hamburger, there are going to be less and less excuses for me, at least from my personal opinion, to be requiring as much resources as goes into, you know, a patty for a hamburger when I can have a, yeah, almost as good, you know, throw a little pepper on there or something. Like, we'll cover it in barbecue sauce or something. And, you know, it's going to be a lot easier to make that shift or arrangement if we had better substitutes. I mean, we'll go to SoulCycle and then we'll all go get veggie burgers. And then we'll watch Home Alone while we eat them. There you go. Sounds like a wonderful Sunday to me. Great night.

With that, we're going to wrap it up for today. We will be back as soon as there is more political news that you need to know about. And we do have exciting news. During the last Democratic debates, we launched our new Facebook group. It's a place for us to connect with our listeners. Some of us are on there. You can come on and chat with us. And our listeners can connect and discuss with each other the latest political

news. We'll also be posting analysis and behind the scenes content from the podcast. So if you want to join, head to n.pr slash politics group to join. Make sure you answer all of the questions when you're requesting access. That is the only way you can get access. So make sure you do that. I am Danielle Kurtzleben. I cover politics. I'm Tim Mack. I also cover politics. I'm Susan Davis. I cover Congress. And I'm Franco Ordonez. I cover the White House. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.