Tangle - The latest on tariffs and the economy.

Episode Date: March 6, 2025

Just after midnight on Tuesday, President Donald Trump imposed 25% tariffs on all Mexican and Canadian imports — with a lower 10% tariff on Canadian energy imports — and doubled the existing tariff on Chinese products to 20%. Shortly thereafter, China imposed up to 15% tariffs on some U.S. imports, and Canada issued a 25% levy. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said that Mexico would issue tariffs on U.S. goods by this Sunday but did not offer specifics. BREAKING: Minutes before publication, President Trump announced he would be pausing tariffs on all Mexican imports that fall under the United States–Mexico–Canada agreement until April 2. You can read the announcement here.Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: What did you think of Trump’s speech? Let us know!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Our logo was created by Magdalena Bokowa, Head of Partnerships and Socials.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

FanDuel Casino's exclusive live dealer studio has your chance at the number one feeling. Winning. Which beats even the 27th best feeling saying I do. Who wants this last parachute? I do. Enjoy the number one feeling. Winning. In an exciting live dealer studio. Exclusively on FanDuel Casino. Where winning is undefeated. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connectsontario.ca. Please play responsibly. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening.

And welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Searle. And on today's episode, we're gonna be talking about Donald Trump, the tariffs, a little bit of an economic roundup, basically where Trump's economic plan is headed. I've got some questions in my take. We're gonna share some views from the left and the right.

And as always, we'll try and give you a wide spectrum of perspectives here, though I gotta say, based on what I'm reading and seeing, there's just a lot of uncertainty right now. Today is Thursday, March 6th. I'm here in Feel Good, Sunny, Philadelphia. I'm gonna pass it off to John for today's main topic, but before I do that, a quick heads up that tomorrow,

in a subscribers-only Friday edition, I am gonna be sharing some reflections and thoughts on six weeks of fatherhood. Something a little different for the Tangle audience. I've been writing a bit about my experience and of course, put on my Tangle hat a little bit and shared some thoughts about how it's impacting my political views on some issues.

But basically just getting a bunch of observations off my chest about what the first month and a half of being a dad has been like. And yeah, my team seems to like the piece. I think it's gonna be pretty good. So you can tune in to our newsletter for that tomorrow or stay tuned for a members only podcast. I'll be doing a recording of it probably later today

or tomorrow morning that we're gonna drop right here on the Tangle Podcast channel. So I'll be doing a recording of it probably later today or tomorrow morning that we're going to drop right here on the Tangle podcast channel. So I'll see you then. With that, I'm going to send it over to John and I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac. And welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, President Donald Trump issued a last warning to Hamas demanding the group release all remaining hostages immediately. Trump said he is sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job if Hamas does not comply. Separately, the Trump administration has reportedly held direct talks with Hamas about the release of U.S. hostages held in Gaza

and a broader deal to end the Israel-Hamas War. Number 2. A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from imposing a 15% cap on research funding from the National Institutes of Health while lawsuits against the administration's directive proceed. Separately, the Department of Veterans Affairs reportedly planned to cut over 80,000 jobs in an effort to return to 2019 staffing levels. Number three, the Justice Department announced charges against 12 Chinese citizens in an alleged cyber espionage scheme that targeted United States contractors, journalists, critics,

and government agencies, including the Treasury Department. Number four, the Senate voted 52 to 46 to confirm Todd Blanche as Deputy Attorney General. Blanche is President Trump's former defense attorney. And number five, Representative Sylvester Turner, the Democrat from Texas, passed away at the age of 70 from enduring health complications. Turner, a longtime Texas state representative, was two months into his first term in the house. Canadian lawmakers say they are unwilling to lift retaliatory tariffs on the U.S. if President Trump leaves the tariffs on Canada in place. The firm stance comes after President Trump spoke with Canadian Prime Minister Justin

Trudeau yesterday. The president lashed out on Truth Social after the call, blaming the prime minister for not doing enough to stop drug smuggling along the Canadian border. Canada was quick to retaliate after President Trump's tariffs went into effect. But earlier today, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick hinted the U.S. may look to reach an agreement to lower tariffs with both Canada and Mexico. Just after midnight on Tuesday, President Donald Trump imposed 25 percent tariffs on all Mexican and Canadian imports, with a lower 10 percent tariff on Canadian energy imports, and doubling the existing tariff on Chinese products to 20%.

Shortly thereafter, China imposed up to 15% tariffs on some US imports and Canada issued a 25% levy. Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum said that Mexico would issue tariffs on US goods by this Sunday but did not offer specifics. For context, tariffs or duties are levies placed on foreign goods paid by domestic importers to Customs and Border Patrol at ports of entry. In his first term, President Trump issued tariffs on select goods from China, which President Joe Biden left in place, as well as steel and aluminum imports from most countries. In February, President Trump instituted 10 percent tariffs on Chinese imports and 25

percent duties on Mexican and Canadian products, except oil, which was taxed at 10 percent. In February, President Trump instituted 10% tariffs on Chinese imports and 25% duties on Mexican and Canadian products, except oil, which was taxed at 10%. However, the tariffs on Canada and Mexico were paused for one month after the countries recommitted to existing promises to station troops at their respective borders with the U.S. President Trump justified the recent duties by saying that tariffs are necessary to correct the U.S. trade deficit with the countries and to staunch the flow of fentanyl from China, Canada, and Mexico into the US.

It may be a little bit of an adjustment period, Trump told Congress on Tuesday. You have to bear with me again, and this will be even better. If war is what the US wants, be it a tariff war, a trade war, or any other type of war, we're ready to fight till the end," China's embassy said on X. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the U.S. tariffs a very dumb thing to do, adding that tariffs will disrupt an incredibly successful trading relationship. On Tuesday, Commerce Secretary Howard Luetnick said the administration was in talks with

Canada and Mexico and was willing to meet in the middle, suggesting further adjustments were upcoming. On Wednesday, after a conversation with the big three U.S. automakers, Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, President Trump granted a one-month exemption on the tariffs for vehicle manufacturers. Furthermore, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rawlings suggested that the administration is considering agricultural exemptions. The ongoing tariff decision comes amid mixed signals on the economy, stoking discussion about a possible recession.

Two weeks ago, jobless claims jumped to a seasonally adjusted 242,000, and pending home sales dropped by 4.6% to their lowest level since the metric began in 2001. However, both GDP growth from the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2024 and year-over-year inflation in January matched economists' expectations. Markets reacted negatively to the initial tariff announcement on Tuesday, with Canada's main stock index dropping 1.7%, the S&P 500 by 1.2%, and the Dow Jones by 1.6%. However, the markets regained much of that ground when the exemption for automakers was announced. Today, we'll get into what the right and the left are saying about the tariffs and the latest economic signals, and then Isaac's

take. We'll be right back after this quick break. FanDuel Casino's exclusive Live Dealer Studio has your chance at the number one feeling, winning, which beats even the 27th best feeling, saying, I do. Who wants this last parachute? I do. Enjoy the number one feeling, winningning in an exciting live dealer studio. Exclusively on FanDuel Casino. Where winning is undefeated.

19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connectsontario.ca. Please play responsibly. First up, let's talk about what the left is saying. The left worries that Trump's policies are leading the U.S. toward a recession. Some say the president's tariffs plan will reignite inflation across the economy. Others say the tariffs could be effective if applied differently. In Bloomberg, Mohammed A. L. Arians said,

U.S. recession odds are becoming unsettlingly high. Several key financial indicators are already flashing yellow. The yield on the 10-year Treasury bonds has fallen about 70 basis points in recent weeks, while oil prices have slipped below $70 a barrel. These moves coincide with a string of disappointing economic data releases, reflecting growing apprehension about the immediate consequences of President Donald Trump's trade policies and public sector reforms," L. Arian wrote. Adding to the unease, inflation, which had shown signs of abating, is proving more stubborn

than anticipated. This whiff of stagflation, that troublesome combination of stagnant growth and rapidly rising prices, raises the specter of another policy misstep by the Federal Reserve. Yet it is important to remember that recession is, at this stage, far from a foregone conclusion. Several factors offer a counterweight to these negative forces," El-Arian said. Lower energy prices boost the purchasing power of consumers and reduce input costs for businesses. The administration's deregulation agenda could unleash a wave of corporate investment. And while the short-term disruptions caused by Trump's trade policies are undeniable,

the potential for long-term productivity gains through innovation in areas such as artificial intelligence, robotics, and life sciences should not be discounted. In MSNBC, Zeytian Alim wrote, Trump won the White House due to inflation. Now he's turbocharging it. The biggest reason President Donald Trump won the White House again was dissatisfaction with the economy under Joe Biden, specifically the public's frustration over a spike in inflation, which, even after it cooled, appeared to leave widespread lingering resentment over the cost of everyday items at the grocery store and elsewhere. Trump has now enacted an extraordinary

tariffs regime that will, by design, cause a spike in many of these items, Aleem said. Beyond grocery store items, tariffs could exacerbate the affordable housing crisis by making the lumber imported from Canada more expensive. Trump's use of tariffs is not only far more sweeping than anything he did during his first term, it's the most sweeping use of tariffs by the U.S. government in about a century. The coming economic plan raises political questions. What will happen to Trump's reputation as an effective steward of the economy as tariffs cause prices to soar and possibly induce a recession, Alim wrote.

Trump occasionally warned us of the hardship to come alongside his tirades against migrants and nonsense about bringing down prices. But the pain is due to arrive now. In The Guardian, Dustin Costello suggested tariffs can help U.S. workers, but Trump's doing them all wrong. Trump's proposed tariffs seem unlikely to improve what ails the U.S. economy. Worse, applying tariffs as broadly as he's proposed and without any supplementary industrial strategy does risk needlessly raising prices while acting like a big corporate giveaway,

Costello said. Yet, despite what elite economists say, tariffs can be sound and progressive economic policy. In fact, liberals might be surprised to learn that during his administration, Joe Biden actually raised the highest tariffs in recent American history, a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles. Why? Because tariffs work. Trump has, for the most part, not focused on raising tariffs on particular imported goods, but instead on all goods coming from certain countries. A 20% tariff on all Chinese goods might make it more expensive for Americans to continue to buy certain things

from China. But nothing in that policy encourages Americans to buy American-made products," Costello wrote. Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs are closer to the mark. By making all steel imports, regardless of national origin, subject to the same tariff, the policy could succeed in making U.S. steel comparatively cheaper for domestic buyers. Alright that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right is mixed on the economic outlook, though many say the risk of recession is far off. Some argue the short-term pain of tariffs will be worth the long-term benefits. Others say Trump is unwisely alienating economic allies.

In The Washington Examiner, James Rogan argued, recession fears are overblown. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta lowered its GDP Now model of economic growth for the first quarter to a negative 1.5 percent annually. The Atlanta Fed's forecast model stirred up talk of recession. One prominent economist said the economy is slowing at an alarming rate. But is it really falling into recession, Rogan wrote. Very importantly, on Monday, the Institute for Supply Management survey of February's manufacturing activity said the United States economy continues to expand.

The survey also found only a modest increase in imports. Economists expect that the U.S. economy created about 160,000 new jobs over the last month. Economists also believe that hourly wage growth will show a healthy increase of around 0.3%, which on an annualized basis would show wage gains of around four percent, well above the inflation rate. If these estimates are met, talk of a recession will evaporate, Rogan said. Yes, over the longer term, tariffs, lower immigration, and uncertainty caused by Trump's policies will prove to be a drag on economic growth.

But over the next year, as long as the labor market remains resilient and healthy and households enjoy real economic gains, the U.S. economy will almost certainly expand. In American greatness, Spencer P. Morrison said Trump's tariffs will create millions of jobs. At its core, this issue is all about time horizons. That is, are we looking at the impact of tariffs here and now, or next year, or ten years down the road? The impact of just about any now, or next year, or ten years down the road? The impact of just about any policy will be different at different times and across different

industries," Morrison wrote. The media hates tariffs. Therefore, they only consider the impact of tariffs on a short-term horizon and in particular industries. As a result, pundits can claim, and accurately claim, that tariffs will destroy jobs. But this is not true in the long run. Economic logic and historical evidence prove that tariffs will increase GDP and create jobs.

However, we need to be patient and remember that America does not belong to us. It belongs to our children, our grandchildren, and every generation that has come before or after us," Morrison said. The trade deficit displaces America's potential GDP. Rather than build it up, we buy it. Therefore, running a trade deficit must reduce GDP. President Trump's tariffs will reduce the trade deficit. In doing so, they will increase GDP by a corresponding amount and reshore the jobs that have been lost to China and friends. The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote, Trump takes the dumbest tariff plunge.

Mr. Trump said at the White House that there was no room left to negotiate with the two American trade treaty partners. Some of his smarter advisors had been hoping he'd start renegotiating the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement. But Mr. Trump wants tariffs for their own sake, which he says will usher in a new golden age, the board said. Mr. Trump is whacking friends, not adversaries. His taxes will hit every cross-border transaction, and the North American vehicle market is so

interconnected that some cars cross a border as many as eight times as they're assembled. Mr. Trump is volatile, and who knows how long he'll keep the tariffs in place. Retaliation that hits certain states and businesses may also cause him to reconsider sooner than he imagines. Investors are trying to read this uncertainty as they also watch growing evidence of a slowing US economy. Unbridled tariff man was always going to be a big economic risk in the second term. And here we are. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take.

All right, that's it for the left and the right are saying which brings us to my take. All right, that's it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So before getting into any debate over tariffs or whether a recession is imminent, I have just like one basic fundamental question. What's the actual plan here? I understand that Trump believes our current trade dynamics are unfair, but is the idea to raise tariffs against our biggest trading partners to negotiate trade deals that are more beneficial for us, thus leading to an era of economic growth and prosperity? Or are the tariffs supposed to raise money for us to pay down our national debt?

If so, I have some immediate questions like what result does Trump want that's different from the last time he negotiated trade deals? I don't mean this as a gotcha. It's a genuine gap in my understanding. Trump called the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, the USMCA, that he signed and negotiated the best agreement we've ever made. That was in 2020. And now he says he can't believe how bad the deals are that we've signed. Also, what's the timeline? Trump was elected primarily because of the affordability crisis Americans just lived through. Trump and his team are now preparing the same people

who voted for him for some quote unquote pain, i.e. increased costs and economic instability on the promise of long-term benefits. I don't think that was the future voters signed up for, but if that's what he's selling, how long will it take? Six months? Two years?

Ten years? We don't know. He doesn't say. I tend to fall into the camp that presidents have limited influence over the economy and that most presidents will only see the economic trees they plant bear fruit after they leave office. For example, yesterday I mentioned the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company plant being built in the US that President Biden made possible with the CHIPS Act yet Trump

is now taking credit for. But tariffs don't fit this rule in that they have nearly immediate impacts. The benchmark price of steel shot up in February on the threat of tariffs alone, not just imported steel, but American steel too. Target's CEO said they're going to raise their prices. Gas, groceries, cars, laptops, and children's toys will all be hit with price hikes in the coming weeks and months. Trump's tariffs will directly and negatively impact his own voters.

He's already asking farmers to bear with me. Car prices have shot up, most notably in the Midwestern swing states that delivered Trump the election. Again, I don't have some fundamental opposition to the idea that some short-term pain could be worth it in the long term, but what is the long-term gain we are after and how long will it take? What's the metric of success? The administration has offered some ideas, like a lower 10-year treasury yield, but we really just don't know. Without answering these questions, Trump's actions become both inexplicable and explainable

by anything he wants. And that's what bothers me most. He flips tariffs on and says it will bring jobs home to America. He turns them off and says we got concessions on border security. Okay, well, if you turn them on to bring back manufacturing jobs, why'd you turn them off when you got border security? Just last night, Trump's secretary of commerce said terrorists will, quote, drive America better, end quote, and that we could, quote, stop paying taxes to the internal revenue service, end quote, and replace them with, quote, external revenue service, end quote.

revenue service and replace them with external revenue service." I'm sorry, what? Is that the plan? No taxes for Americans because we have so much money from tariffs which are paid by American importers? It all makes sense if you don't understand how anything works, which is exactly my issue. The administration can say whatever it wants right now because the plan hasn't been clearly articulated, at least not as far as I can tell. I can't find any definitive answers to my questions, but I have a theory. Trump actually could want a recession. I know that might sound like a radical view, but I've heard from people in his orbit that the administration wouldn't necessarily view it as a bad thing.

At the same time, more and more of his boosters are publicly saying that this would be a good thing. The theory goes like this. A good way to wash out inflation, the oversupply of money in the system and reduce the deficit is to incite negative growth, cut government spending and clear out bad companies propped up by government money. The stock market will tank and unemployment will rise or as Trump has put it, there will be some pain. But Trump could just blame it on Biden. Then the doors open for him to lower interest rates, implement expansionary monetary policy and rebuild the economy under new trade deals with American made products and American paid workers. At least there's a through line here. But again, I don't really get it. Quantitative easing and decades of near zero interest rates is exactly what got us here in the first place.

So we're just going to destroy what we have now to rebuild the same thing in two years? If it sounds like I'm grasping at straws here, it's because I am. The combination of the administration's actions and its stated goals just don't add up to a coherent economic plan. My take today isn't really a take at all. It's just a litany of questions I have about what the administration's goals are and where the economy is headed. As for the politics of Trump's tariffs, I'll say this for the record. If Trump thinks he can oversee a continued rise in prices or a recession without hurting Republicans, I think he is very much misreading the room. His election

victory was decisive, but not nearly sweeping enough to allow elected Republicans to survive more economic turbulence. Criticizing trans people or DEI won't be enough to prop up Republican popularity for the long term. He needs to succeed on the economy and immigration. He's delivering on his promises on immigration already, but economic woes seem to be continuing, if not worsening. If that keeps up, Democrats are going to take back the House in two years, they'll probably win the White House in four, and they could potentially pick up some surprise seats in the Senate. That is the political future economic instability delivers for incumbent parties. To that end, Trump will need a clearly

stated plan and some results sooner rather than later, because where things are headed right now is not a path to economic success or lasting political power. We'll be right back after this quick break. FanDuel Casino's exclusive live dealer studio has your chance at the number one feeling. Winning. Which beats even the 27th best feeling saying I do. Who wants this last parachute? I do. Enjoy the number one feeling. Winning. In an exciting Live Dealer studio.

Exclusively on FanDuel Casino. Where winning is undefeated. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connexontario.ca. Please play responsibly. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one is from Dallas in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dallas said, I've seen a few posts on social media

on the national debt, and one of them framed it as equal to $104,000 per person and $266,000 per household. I was wondering, what is the prevailing wisdom about what an appropriate level of national debt would be? Maybe it was an irrelevant comparison or red herring, but framed that way, the government owes way less per household than I'm sure a lot of households carry themselves. I know for my household, between mortgage, student loans, and cars, the government is ahead of me. So what is the target per capita national debt? First, let me just acknowledge the statistics you shared and the context.

So the debt has gone up a bit since you asked this question. It's now over $36 trillion, or about $106,000 per person, and roughly $274,000 per household. That's a bit more than double the amount of average consumer debt, which is $105,000 per household, two-thirds of which is held in mortgages. Both those figures are record highs, which provides some clues about whether or not those levels are appropriate. And there is no shortage of arguments that housing affordability and the national debt are huge problems. But maybe it's helpful to offer some global and historical context for those figures.

The annual federal deficit, the basic building block of the national debt, has averaged around 3% of annual GDP over the last 50 years. In the last three years, however, it's averaged around 6%. And that doesn't even include pandemic years, which push deficits to over 10% of GDP. As for the national debt itself, it currently sits at 122% of GDP. That's one of the highest in the world. And the countries where it's higher, Italy, Argentina, Lebanon, Japan, they're not really models of where we want our economy to go. So is it a problem? Economists aren't sure. The debt has never been higher, but it comes at a time of relatively low interest rates. Existing debt could hurt the government's

ability to borrow more if they need to, but that was obviously untrue during the pandemic. U.S. government spending relative to GDP is globally quite low, implying that the government has plenty of room to raise revenues to address annual deficits. The national debt has topped 100% of the GDP, but the government owes $6.8 trillion to itself. Debt owed to the public is under 100%, and economists differ on whether 90%, 100% or even 200% is the red line threshold the government can't pass. However, economists overwhelmingly agree that the pattern of increasing debt has become unsustainable and that the government needs to turn its deficit spending habits around.

All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod. And I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your Under the Radar story for today, folks. The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in a case brought by the Mexican government against American gunmakers, alleging that these manufacturers should be legally liable for the weapons being smuggled across the border and used by drug cartels. Mexico has only one gun store, which is managed by the military, and a report by the Gifford Center for Violence Intervention found that over 70% of illegal guns seized in Mexico between 2013 and 2018 were sold in the U.S.

However, the court appeared skeptical of the Mexican government's claims during oral arguments, questioning whether weapons production, rather than illegal trafficking of those weapons, constitutes a proximate cause of gun violence in Mexico. Fox News has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right. Next up is our numbers section. The percentage of U.S. imports in 2024 accounted for by China, Canada, and Mexico is 42%. The total value of U.S. imports from China, Canada, and Mexico in 2024 is $1.36 trillion. The percentage of U.S. adults who say inflation is a very big problem for the United States

today is 63 percent, according to a February 2025 Pew Research poll. The percentage of U.S. adults who say the affordability of food and consumer goods will be better and worse respectively one year from now is 37% and 44%. The percentage of U.S. adults who said they expected their household's financial situation in the next 12 months to be better and worse respectively is 41.8% and 15%, according to an October 2024 YouGov poll. The percentage of U.S. adults who said they expected their household's financial situation in the next 12 months to be better and worse respectively is 45.8% and 15.9% in February 2025. The percentage of Americans who support new tariffs on imported goods from China,

Canada, and Mexico respectively is 48%, 36%, and 40% according to a February 2025 Reuters Ipsos poll. And the percentage of Americans who think it benefits them personally when the United States levies tariffs on imported goods is 19%. And last but not least our Have a Nice Day story. Acid attacks are typically committed by men seeking retribution for a rejected marriage proposal or sexual advance and often leave the victim with significant scarring and disfiguration. A cafe in India has focused on this cause by employing women who have survived acid attacks, dedicating its mission to supporting victims of this particular form of violence.

The cafe, called SheRose, a portamento of She and Heroes, displays posters of survivors Alright everybody, that is it for today's episode. episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to readtangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundle package that gets you a discount on both. As Isaac mentioned at the top, he is pending a Friday edition for tomorrow that is outlining his experience of fatherhood thus far and how it has impacted his views on some big

political issues. In order to receive that edition, you will need to be subscribed to one of our memberships. Isaac and Ari will be here with the Sunday podcast and I will return on Monday. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have an absolutely wonderful weekend, y'all. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited and engineered by John Wall. The script is edited by our managing editor, Ari Weitzman, Will Kedak, Bailey Saul, and

Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was designed by Magdalena Makova, who is also our social media manager. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. If you're looking for more from Tangle, please go to readtangle.com and check out our website. Fandu casino daily jackpots guaranteed to hit by 11 p.m. with your chance at the number one feeling winning which beats even the 27th best feeling saying I do who wants this last parachute I do daily jackpots a chance to win with every spinner and a guaranteed winner by 11 p.m. every day. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem call 1-866-531-2600

or visit connectsontario.ca. Select games only. Guarantee void of platform or game outages occur. Guarantee requires played by at least one customer until Jackpot is awarded or 11 p.m. Eastern. Research and supply. See full terms at canada.casino.fando.com. Please play responsibly.