Tangle - Today's debate: No Labels third-party run.

Starting point is 00:00:00 Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.

Starting point is 00:01:00 From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul. And on today's episode, we're going to be talking about No Labels, the bipartisan, nonpartisan group that's talking about launching a third party run in the 2024 presidential race. Before we jump in, though, a quick shout out to all of you who went to our YouTube channel yesterday. We broke 5000 subscribers on the channel. We also published a video about UFOs and David Grush, the UFO whistleblower, that is quickly becoming one of our most watched videos we have published since our launch. It has over 5000 views. views. If you haven't yet, I encourage you to go to youtube.com, Tangle News, check us out,

Starting point is 00:02:10 get on the YouTube channel when you're done listening to this podcast. Very much appreciate all the support. Also, I am thrilled today to announce, finally, after weeks and weeks of preparation, our guests for our Tangle event that is happening live in Philadelphia on August 3rd. We are going to be bringing Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, Henry Olson of the Washington Post, and Anastasia Bowden from the Cato Institute all to the stage. We're going to be discussing and debating the biggest Supreme Court decisions from this term, as well as the current state of the high court. I'll be moderating the discussion. Obviously, Mark is somebody who gets featured in our What the Left is Saying section a lot. Henry is someone who gets featured in our What the Right is Saying section a lot. Anastasia is a libertarian,

Starting point is 00:02:56 right-of-center type voice in this Supreme Court constitutional commentary space. She's a really interesting thinker. All three of them, super persuasive people. I think it's going to be an excellent and lively conversation. As I've said in the past, our goal with this event is to gather the Tangle community and bring the newsletter live to the stage. And I think with these guests, we are on track to do that. Tickets are on sale right now. There's a link in today's episode description. There is a link at readtangle.com forward slash live. There's a link in nearly every newsletter. If you have not gotten your tickets yet, I encourage you to go do that ASAP.

Starting point is 00:03:34 All right, with that out of the way, we'll jump in today with some quick hits. First up, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said he would not agree to be Trump's running mate if he doesn't win the Republican nomination for president. Number two, two IRS whistleblowers who allege political interference in the investigation into Hunter Biden are set to testify before Congress next week. Number three, Ray Epps, who attended the January 6th riot at the Capitol and has been accused of helping orchestrate the riots, is suing Fox News and Tucker Carlson for defamation over their claims that he was an undercover FBI agent. Number four, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before the House Judiciary Committee and defended his agency's handling of politically sensitive cases.

Starting point is 00:04:26 Number five, Sergei Sorvikin, a senior Russian general who was being held for interrogation over his alleged role in the Wagner Group mutiny, is now considered missing. Still more than a year away, but the 2024 presidential campaign is already in full swing. And one organization called No Labels is putting its money where its mouth is, trying to change the political landscape of our country. No Labels is ramping up its efforts to get on the ballot in all 50 states for the 2024 election, but the group doesn't have a candidate. They are pushing for a potential ticket that could serve as an alternative to a hypothetical Biden-Trump rematch. Meanwhile, a group called No Labels is looking for a more moderate third party option. Some Democrats are expressing concern they could take votes away

Starting point is 00:05:21 from Biden. Top Democratic strategists reportedly met with the group last week. No Labels takes an anti-Trump approach, claiming they will back out entirely if the candidate is not Trump in the GOP primary. Next week, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia is set to headline an event in New Hampshire sponsored by the bipartisan group No Labels, stoking speculation that he could be the group's pick for a third-party presidential bid in 2024. No Labels, which calls itself a national movement of people who believe in America and bringing our leaders together to solve our toughest problems, has said it is eyeing a third-party unity ticket, but has not decided the specific

Starting point is 00:06:05 candidates it will support. Manchin will be appearing at the event alongside former Utah Governor John Huntsman, the Republican, for a common-sense town hall. Third-party candidates have historically struggled to compete in presidential elections. Ross Perot's 1992 campaign was the most successful third-party run in modern U.S. history, with the businessman receiving 19% of the vote running against Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Clinton ultimately won the race with 43% of the vote, and many considered Perot a spoiler who cost Bush the election. Still, his run has been used as a model by No Labels, which believes it could win a presidential race by targeting dissatisfied

Starting point is 00:06:45 moderate and independent voters the same way Perot did. Nancy Jacobson, one of the co-founders of No Labels, called the idea of putting forward a unity ticket an insurance policy, saying the group would only push its own candidates in the race if both major parties put forth presidential candidates the vast majority of Americans don't support. Of course, given the dissatisfaction among Americans over the idea of a Biden vs. Trump rematch, the most likely 2024 matchup could fit that description. I haven't ruled anything out or ruled anything in, Manchin told CNN. Last week, No Labels touted its own internal polling, which it says supports the idea that

Starting point is 00:07:24 a unity ticket could win 37% of the popular vote and could get 286 electoral votes from solid, moderate, and independent states. However, the potential for a third-party ticket has been a divisive subject in Washington, D.C., even among groups that would typically be expected to support the idea. Third Way, a center-left think tank that supports bipartisan initiatives, has been an outspoken critic of the idea. Third Way, a center-left think tank that supports bipartisan initiatives, has been an outspoken critic of the idea for this election, saying it would hurt President Biden's chances of re-election and open the door for a second term for Donald Trump. Third Way has also said No Label's own internal data shows it couldn't win the race and would only help Trump. History

Starting point is 00:08:01 makes clear that the No Labelels candidate is unlikely to win even a single state. But if we suspend disbelief to explore their argument that they can pull this off, it would have to start with them winning all of the closely contested 2020 battleground states, Third Way said in a memo critical of No Labels that was released on Monday. Last month, No Labels co-founder William A. Galston left the group and joined the dissent, publishing an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal making the same argument Third Way is now, that all the evidence suggests a third-party ticket would help elect Trump, something independents and moderates should reject. Separately, Andrew Yang's Forward Party continues to recruit candidates

Starting point is 00:08:40 to run his third-party contenders in congressional races. Former professor Cornel West also announced his own presidential campaign for the People's Party before re-registering as a Green Party member. And a group of former members of Congress says it is launching its own bipartisan entity to stop No Labels from running a third-party candidate. At this point, though, No Labels is the group with the most power and influence. Not only is it attracting media attention and household names like Manchin, it also claims to be generating about $11 million of revenue and says it will raise $70 million for its 2024 ticket if it decides to run one. Today, we're going to explore some arguments about the idea of a third

Starting point is 00:09:21 party No Labels ticket with opinions from the right and the left and then my tape. Given today's topic, we're also going to include a no-labels section. So first, let's start there with what people from No Labels are saying about this plan. No Labels itself appears to be split, with current members defending a potential third-party ticket and some former members and donors saying the group is making a mistake. David Walker, a co-founder of No Labels, wrote about what the critics get wrong. Critics are mobilizing against No Labels and making false and misleading assertions about the effort, he said. Democrats and anti-Trump groups seem to be the most upset about a potential third option unity ticket. They assert that such a ticket would likely result in the election of former President Donald Trump without having any extensive objective, reliable, or timely data

Starting point is 00:10:25 to support their claim, Walker said. They continue to ignore the fact that No Labels has made it clear that it will not offer a third option if there is no path to victory in the Electoral College. The decision to have a third option ticket will not be made until the spring of 2024. Contrary to the assertions by some, No Labels has conducted an unparalleled polling effort involving over 26,000 people with statistically valid samples in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., he added. It found a significant majority of American voters do not want Trump or Biden for president in 2024, that historic percentages of Americans believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction, and that given this historic level of dissatisfaction with the likely candidates

Starting point is 00:11:07 and the direction of the nation, there is a path for a unity ticket to win the electoral college in 2024. Former No Labels co-founder William A. Galson left the group, then wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal saying No Labels could lead to the re-election of Donald Trump. It is possible, I suppose, that 2024 will be the year in which disaffection with the two major parties will run so deep that a third force can break their grip on the electorate. But the odds are low, he said. According to Gallup, just over half of today's rank-and-file Democrats identify as liberal or very liberal, compared with nearly three-quarters of Republicans who call themselves conservative or very conservative. A center-seeking candidate would therefore appeal to more Democrats

Starting point is 00:11:50 than Republicans, and a winning Democratic coalition would include far more moderates, including moderate independents, than a Republican coalition. Another indicator of asymmetry between the parties, Republicans are more enthusiastic about Donald Trump than Democrats are about Joe Biden. In a recent survey, only 53% of Democrats said they want Mr. Biden to run again, compared with 61% of Republicans who said the same about Mr. Trump. Democrats will overwhelmingly support the president if the only alternative is the former president. But unenthusiastic Democrats, who are more numerous than unenthusiastic Republicans may seriously consider a third option. Alright, that is it for what the folks from No Labels are saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right is largely supportive of a third party ticket, either because it might help Trump or because it offers an alternative to Trump. Some never

Starting point is 00:12:49 Trump Republicans want to see a unity ticket they could support instead of Biden. Some pro-Trump factions are critical of the attacks on no labels, saying the media is once again doing everything it can to prevent Trump from winning. Charlie Dent, the former Republican Pennsylvania representative, wrote about why he'd back a third-party ticket. Many voters do not want a Biden-Trump rematch in 2024. Trump's never-ending chaos and drama turn off large swaths of the electorate, including significant numbers of independents and consequential number of Republicans. Biden's support appears soft, driven more by an intense dislike of Trump than a genuine admiration of Biden himself as a candidate, Dent said.

Starting point is 00:13:29 As a Republican who never voted for Trump in 2016 or 2020, I will not vote for him in 2024 either. In 2020, I voted for Biden, who ran as a transitional leader, one who would stabilize the functioning of the White House, address COVID like an adult, and return a sense of normalcy to the functioning of government. To be fair, Biden has largely succeeded in that task. In a two-person race, I would still choose Biden over Trump in 2024, but I would much rather see a prominent Republican and prominent Democrat run together on a centrist national unity ticket, Dent said. Notably different from the historically ill-fated third-party ticket, a centrist candidate could focus on fiscal responsibility, social moderation, and a coherent national security strategy. Further, they could stay clear from the grievance,

Starting point is 00:14:16 victimization, class warfare, and identity politics that have divided our nation. That is not asking too much. In PJ Media, Ben Barty was critical of the corporate media for attacking no labels, saying it's all about keeping Trump out of office. The corporate state media would very clearly rather not have Trump or DeSantis in the White House if they have the option of inserting a well-heeled Democrat, as the deep state successfully did in 2020 and then openly bragged about after rigging the election, Barty wrote. The governing class, via its media mouthpieces, no longer makes an attempt to cloak its bias for the sake of maintaining the pretense of electoral integrity. Failing an installation

Starting point is 00:14:55 of a Brandon-esque Democrat, a highly controlled Republican in the vein of Chris Christie or Asa Hutchinson will suffice. These are good boys who know their place. But what the technocrats really won't abide under any circumstances is the rise of a viable third party not fully infiltrated and co-opted, he added. Two parties with respectively controlled leadership are convenient for their purposes, and they are quite content with the status quo. Of course, it should be noted that these technocrats will never attack third party candidates who are perceived to threaten the Republican ticket primarily, such as those from the Libertarian Party, with nearly the same vigor as those more likely to detract from the Democrat

Starting point is 00:15:34 vote. All right, that is it for the rightist saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left is strongly opposed to the idea, worried about the risk that a third-party ticket would help Trump. Some criticize the wealthy donors behind no labels, arguing they believe this will help Trump win. Others say there is nothing wrong with third parties, but 2024 is not the time to have one. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel

Starting point is 00:16:22 a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed.

Starting point is 00:17:00 Learn more at FluCellvax.ca. In Slate, Ben Mathis-Lilley wrote about the well-funded movement of centrist zealots who may elect Trump. When I asked, The Intercept's Ryan Grimm, a student of Democratic Factions whose outlet has reported for years on no labels, his analysis was simple. They want Trump to win, he said. Some outlets have also pointed out that part of no-label spending on media campaigns goes through companies owned by Jacobson's husband, well-known centrist polling entrepreneur and strategist Mark Penn. Donors are typically investment firm, real estate, and venture capital types, including the now infamous Harlan Crow. The Democrats favored by No Label's have a common history of resisting proposals for social spending and

Starting point is 00:17:45 efforts to raise taxes or regulate the financial industry. So what's the deal with no labels? Here's a theory, Mathis Lilly said. Its leaders and guiding spirits are locked in a mutually delusional feedback loop with their donors in which everyone convinces themselves that a random politician whose main attribute is being objectionable to both parties could become president, he said. They have a faith-like conviction that both sides must always do something wrong, a hunger for relevance, and enough confidence to keep going when everyone tells them they're making a mistake. That and $70 million is more than enough to spoil an election with or without having a clear goal in mind. What is No Label's plan for 2024 might be the wrong question. A better one might be, does No Label's ever have a plan at all?

Starting point is 00:18:32 In the Los Angeles Times, Nicholas Goldberg criticized the idea of a third party in 2024. A third party candidacy is a shiny object, a bright bauble that is superficially appealing. But it's actually the last thing we need, Goldberg said. And by we, I mean the sensible, still sane portion of the electorate, Democrats and Republicans alike, that wants to ensure, above all, that Donald Trump or some other truly extremist anti-democracy candidate doesn't become president again. Some Democrats who had ties to No Labels have realized that the alternative ticket plan is a bad idea and have said so publicly in the last few days. No Labels hasn't made a firm decision and Manchin hasn't agreed to run.

Starting point is 00:19:12 But either way, Americans should put out of their heads the crazy notion that Manchin or any third party candidate would be a panacea. There's nothing wrong with third parties in theory, Goldberg added. And if Americans are unhappy with the major party candidates, they have a right to cast protest votes. But let's be clear, that's what this would be, a protest vote. Third party candidates don't win. They haven't in the past and they won't in 2024. What they can do is reshape elections if they get enough votes. And in this case, there's a good chance they'd reshape it in Trump's favor. All right, that is it for what the right and the left and some folks from No Labels are saying, which brings us to my take. Let me start by saying that I support the idea of a third-party ticket, and I support the proliferation of third and fourth and fifth and sixth parties, unequivocally. And I don't think

Starting point is 00:20:12 this position should or can be conditional. The entire point of a third-party ticket is to break the grip of what Andrew Yang calls the duopoly. The most powerful point the duopoly makes is that if you challenge us, the bad guy you hate will win. For Democrats, the bad guy right now is Trump. In our two-party hyper-partisan politics, there will always be a bad guy to vote against. And at some point, if a third-party challenger is ever going to break the duopoly's grip, that candidate will have to accept the risk that it will help one side's bad guy more than the others. Upending the system, bucking precedent, and breaking down the extraordinary power of Republican and Democratic establishments is not something that could possibly happen without courage and

Starting point is 00:20:54 risk. Still, there is plenty I don't like about this scenario. The most obvious criticism of No Labels is that it's a third-party brand whose mission is purportedly to put a moderate in the White House, get the parties working together, and re-inject some civility into our politics. But if it runs a presidential candidate, it will most likely benefit Trump, who many argue embodies the opposite of those values. And I'm not passing any judgment on Donald Trump here or what no labels should or shouldn't do. But if they can reasonably conclude that running a third-party ticket would most likely benefit Trump, they'd be undermining their own stated purpose by entering the race. They have said directly that Donald Trump should never again be president of the United States. The question is what they'll actually do if or when it becomes

Starting point is 00:21:42 clear that their third-party ticket could help that happen. The pursuit of power has a pretty notorious way of changing or corrupting stated principles. Of course, the critics of no labels also seem to be acting hypocritically. The Lincoln Project, an increasingly absurd, uncivil, and bizarre group in its own right, claims to be a pro-democracy group, yet it is actively fighting No Labels, an organization that's simply considering the idea of giving voters more options. Third Way, which says it supports centrist solutions to our biggest problems, is going to war with No Labels, a group actually talking about running a bipartisan ticket and putting its support behind bipartisan candidates

Starting point is 00:22:21 who believe in centrist solutions. It'd all be funny if it weren't so sad. As for what No Labels actually wants or what voters it could court, consider me skeptical of the claims that they secretly support Trump and of their ability to win any general election. The group seems to be mostly a front for very rich, very well-connected pro-business moderates, folks just left and right of center. It is, in a lot of ways, just another arm of the so-called establishment, one that views Trump as a mortal threat and Biden as too big government to get behind. Donors like Harlan Crowe are longtime opponents of Trump, and I don't think they have a secret pro-Trump agenda. More than anything, the people behind no labels seem to be talking themselves

Starting point is 00:23:03 into the idea they might be able to pull this off. But I think they're wrong. What voters want is an impossible thing to write about in broad terms, but I'm not sure where the coalition is out there for a bunch of ultra-wealthy donors backing Joe Manchin for president, now one of the most unpopular senators in the country. What I appreciate about No Labels is that they are at least organized. I've long said that I would love to see a robust third party and probably rank choice voting too. I've also said that what I do not like is random shoot from the hip third party runs that make the entire thing the butt of a joke. People like Cornel West haphazardly deciding

Starting point is 00:23:41 to throw their hat in the ring to become president of the United States with so little experience or preparation that they're switching parties a few weeks into their candidacy due to service to all voters, especially those who want a viable third party in the arena. So kudos to No Labels for actually building an organization, having a mission, courting candidates, surveying Americans, and trying to figure out if there is a path to victory. So many people talk the talk and they're actually walking the walk. I'm not sure 2024 will produce a candidate for the moment, but they deserve credit for at least trying to do something, anything, to offer Americans a way out of our current binary. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered.

Starting point is 00:24:30 Today's question is from an anonymous reader in Washington, Missouri. They asked, in a past newsletter, the comment was made about holding past presidents accountable for their crimes. You mentioned Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and Obama. What crime or crimes were you referring to relative to Obama? Okay, so I know the accusation that has gotten the most play in the time since Barack Obama left office is that he spied on Trump's campaign and interfered in the 2016 election. Obama's role in any surveillance of the Trump campaign has not been proven and today isn't even suggested by investigators who were adversarial to the Biden administration. There is actually much

Starting point is 00:25:10 more evidence that Obama and his administration spied on reporters. What I'm talking about are the war crimes. While president, Obama authorized hundreds of drone strikes that killed thousands of people, and frequently those people were civilians. The Harvard Political Review summed it up best. I'm just going to quote them directly, quote, The alleged peacemaker, very much like his predecessors, should be considered for the label of international war criminal. Let's clarify, President Obama is not a pioneer of the illegal and offensive wars that the United States has engaged in during the last 20 years. Even still, he is an expansionist,

Starting point is 00:25:46 reflected clearly in the development of his drone program. During his presidency, Obama approved the use of 563 drone strikes that killed approximately 3,797 people. In fact, Obama authorized 54 drone strikes alone in Pakistan during his first year in office. One of the first CIA drone strikes under President Obama was at a funeral, murdering as many as 41 Pakistani civilians. The following year, Obama led 128 CIA drone strikes in Pakistan that killed at least 89 civilians. Just two years into his presidency, it was clear that the hope that President Obama offered during his 2008 campaign could not escape U.S. imperialism. Human Rights Watch also adds that Obama continued policies George W. Bush began of surveillance of civilians and holding uncharged detainees at Guantanamo Bay,

Starting point is 00:26:36 although that same article notes that he did limit those programs somewhat. And just to be clear, I'm not saying that Obama's presidency was any less ethical than those that came before or after him, and I'm not saying he was a good or bad president in general. All I'm saying is that he's one president in a list of many presidents who could be charged with crimes. I'm saying that those who have held the presidency have indeed used the office to commit some egregious crimes, and that maybe that would happen less often if we were to prosecute those crimes, and that Barack Obama was not an exception to this trend. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to our Blindspot Report.

Starting point is 00:27:19 Once a week, we present the Blindspot Report from our partners at Ground News, an app that tells you the bias of news coverage and what stories people on each side are missing. The right missed a story last week about Donald Trump's former press secretary saying she saw Trump showing classified documents to Mar-a-Lago guests. The left missed a story about President Joe Biden's short temper and profane outbursts with staffers behind closed doors. All right, next up is our numbers section. The percentage of all voters who said it was somewhat or very likely that they would consider a third party candidate if Biden versus Trump were to rematch in 2024 was 49 percent. That's according to a News Nation decision desk poll. The percentage of those voters

Starting point is 00:28:07 who said they'd back Senator Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont, was 21%. That's the most of any candidate. The percentage who said they'd back former Representative Liz Cheney was 10%. And the percentage who said they'd back Senator Joe Manchin was 7%. The percentage who said they'd support another candidate was 43%. Finally, the percentage of all respondents in that survey who said they approve of the way President Joe Biden is handling his job was 47%. All right, and last but not least, our have a nice day story. Tan Singh grew up poor in New Delhi with two siblings raised by a single father. Singh's

Starting point is 00:28:46 father wanted to be a police officer, but his need to support the family never allowed him to properly prepare himself. After fulfilling his father's dream and becoming a police officer, Singh began to feel something had to be done to help children like him who had to work instead of study. So he took extraordinary action. Singh started his own school for kids who had to work instead of study. So he took extraordinary action. Singh started his own school for kids who had to work rather than study, hoping to get them a little closer to their peers so they could re-enroll in public schools. Of Singh's 80 students last year, 70 were able to enroll in proper government schools, and 10 achieved the highest exam scores in their class. There's no other piece than working for these children. I could be the reason towards

Starting point is 00:29:25 bringing a change in their lives with just a little support. What could have been better than this for me, said Singh. Good News Network has the story and there's a link to it in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's podcast. A quick reminder, our guests are here. Mark Joseph Stern, Anastasia Bowden, Henry Olson. Our event is happening. Philadelphia. Get your tickets. ReadTangle.com forward slash live. And yes, our most viewed YouTube video ever since our video where we launched the channel is cooking on YouTube right now. And it's about aliens and UFOs. So go to YouTube.com, search Tangle News,

Starting point is 00:30:05 subscribe to the channel, watch the video. It would be much appreciated. We'll be back here on Monday, same time as always. And if you want to hear from us tomorrow, don't forget, you got to subscribe retangle.com forward slash membership. Have a good weekend. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited by John Long. Our script is edited by Ari Weitzman, Bailey Saul, and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was designed by Magdalena Bukova, who's also our social media manager. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. For more on Tangle, please go to readtangle.com and check out our website. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu,

Starting point is 00:31:07 a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+.

Starting point is 00:31:24 The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca.

Your Ad Here

Tangle - Today's debate: No Labels third-party run.

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.