These are my views, not an expert analysis, but consider the main points in case you encounter a young person seduced by something new and different. 
Is No Labels a political party?  No labels was begun in 2009 by a prominent democratic fund-raiser as  an organization dedicated to encourage bipartisan thinking, working to span the divide between liberal and conservative on some issues.  Initially, that may have been the case.  Some argue that the group has changed focus.  Lately, under the guise of funding those who work to achieve bi-partisan goals, No Labels has given funds to Kristen Sinema and to Henry Cuellar and to the effort to weaken ObamaCare (Slate). No Labels seems to be gearing up to fielding (or just funding?) national candidates seen as between liberal and conservative.   
The group is classified as a 501(c)(4) non-profit social welfare group.  Thus, they are not required to disclose funders.  (Mother Jones and Slate identifies some notorious ones). However, they may have to formally accept being a party as a result of challenges.  In some states, No Labels has been certified as a political party allowed to field candidates.  Other states do not see them that way.  In some states, local affiliates act as go-betweens. No Labels Texas has registered to be a political party. No Labels seems to be acting like a party, but one focused only on the presidential race, disavowing interest in state and local contests.  
No Labels says that it will hold a virtual convention to decide whether or not to support a candidate (or to decide on a candidate). Their website and literature states a position of not endorsing/fielding a Third way candidate unless that candidate can win…  And they go to great lengths to further the position that neither Republican nor Democratic candidates are popular.
The No Labels website is very slick and not directly helpful.  There are links to purchase issue papers.  I was put off, and so have relied on other sources here.
What is a political party?  When a candidate is affiliated with a party, you have some idea of where the candidate is likely to stand, even without analyzing speeches.  (Of course, with Trump, we have seen the tail wagging the dog.)   But No Labels?  The group says it does not have a platform, that comes from the candidate.  So knowing the candidate is identified with No Labels does not give information.  EXCEPT that lately No Labels is talking about fielding a “Unity” candidate. 
But here’s my take on what No Labels brushes over:   Biden is as much a unity candidate as we need.  The voter dissatisfaction with Biden cited by NL actually is not because he is not centrist enough.  On the contrary, many democrats see him as being too centrist!  Political discourse in this country has been pushed right-ward recently, despite MAGA claims to the contrary, and maybe despite media publishers’ wishes.  No Labels idea of a “unity” candidate would be rightward of center—Not the direction we should be happy with.
Why is this important?  I was a dis-enchanted young voter once.  We need to remind young voters of the long view.. past the current election.  A nebulous No Labels is not going that direction.

End of good, long Slate article*:
So what’s the deal with No Labels? Here’s a theory: Its leaders and guiding spirits—the Jacobsons, Penns, and Liebermans—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. They have a faith-like conviction that both sides must always be doing 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 Labels’ plan for 2024?” might be the wrong question; a better one might be “Does No Labels ever have a plan at all?”
Sources, and for more information:
https://nolabelstexas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Adopted-Interim-TX-Bylaws-No-Labels-Texas-12-13-2023.pdf
    NLTX “intends” to operate and qualify as a political party in Texas under the election code.  Authorized by national NL to….. not to nominate or support candidates for state or local offices.  
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/02/1210211164/no-labels-democrats-republicans-third-party-2024-election-trump-biden-pelosi
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/no-labels-coalition-government-electoral-college-rcna130709
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-no-labels-a-political-party-or-social-welfare-organization/
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/04/biden-third-party-peril-00139380
*https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/07/no-labels-third-party-2024-presidential-campaign.html 
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/12/the-new-political-group-no-labels-shows-why-labels-exist.html
Author: D.A. Brock, member

This is just the view of one guy, and may not reflect reality, but this is an alert:  I’m starting to see requests for funding from new groups.  This is, of course, my own fault: I have donated to political campaigns in the past, and of course the mechanisms whereby a new group can get mailing lists insure that my name is “out there”.  (FB has it’s own ways, I’m sure you know.)  Last election cycle I was disturbed by the call from unknown groups for money.  I’m sure I will see the same this year.  But I do want to hear if y’all are seeing/feeling the same.  Here is a message I sent to this group and to Propublica in 2022:  

This is probably not something major, but it bothers me.  As a donor of small amounts to various candidates, my email is being swamped by requests, dire needs, etc.  Nothing new, except….   Here is the text of an email I sent to Hannah Howell of the Texas (where I am) Democrats, Sept 28, 2022 (I did not hear back):  

 I don’t mind getting email requests from candidates I support.  But what bothers me is the torrent of requests I get from PACs I have no connection with: Future Democrats, MarchOn, Elect Southern Dems, EndCitizensUnited, etc.  And it bothers me that after I unsubscribed from a couple of mailing lists, I started to get requests from PACs that hadn’t asked before.  
   I seems to me that a fund-raising entity can be non-fraudulent and still be a vehicle for diminishing donations.

I unsubscribed from some of those email lists, and now (and not before) I daily get multiple email requests from Voter Protection Project.  Earlier, I did a bit of research and found that yes, candidates did report receiving funds from a couple of those entities.  So maybe these aren’t fraudulent siphons.  But maybe these are simple parasites, funding a small office, an income for someone.  Maybe the appearance of new solicitors after old ones are blocked is just via algorithm from  a typical email service.  

I just worry that this is a coordinated effort to distract the less savvy donor from donating to sites more directly benefitting who they want to fund.  I did not check if funds are handed off in a timely manner (I wouldn’t know how).  And I wonder if the deluge is meant to get me to leave all requests behind—fatigue.

I know some of the groups mentioned above have worthy goals I support.  However, I tell myself that the best way for us to advance those goals is through supporting candidates who are most likely to be sympathetic.  ( I don't see TV ads, and I can't trust that online ads are seen by the general public and not just fed to liberals via an algorithm.  So I could be underestimating the contribution of some groups to the election effort.  Let us know.)
​
Donate where your money will do the most good. 

Author: D.A. Brock, member ECDP

Since at least 2009, there has been going around on social media this little set of sentences that seems like a simplistic bit of conservative wisdom, but is something to be called out as wrong, misleading, and illogical.  Here I present the sentences along with my take on counter argument. ​

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.   Antidote:  There is a problem with “legislate into prosperity”—That is a false picture, a red herring.  How about “provide decent wages”.  There is also a problem with “legislate out of prosperity”, because that is not something that needs to happen to achieve the former.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. Antidote:  As if there were just two people and one apple tree—with one apple.  Both can receive.  Our economy is strong enough to give to needy and still have plenty.  And again, helping out those who can’t work can help the broader economy, as they turn around and buy groceries and clothes.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. Antidote:  We are the government.  We have decided that it is in our best interests to provide for some people, on moral grounds and for our country’s future.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.  Antidote: This is not true.  Consider a headman and his workers.  To gain the harvest, the rich headman must make sure his workers can work to bring in the harvest.  And again, giving more people purchasing power is an economic engine which can work to raise the general wealth of the society.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for - that is the beginning of the end of any nation!  Antidote: As if half the people are going to decide to sit on the couch.  People do things.   

Be aware, be prepared.  Review online lists of common illogical arguments.  Don’ let these things pass unanswered.


You might be tempted to just call out the misleading title: Best sentences might be expected to include ones such as these:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.  (M.L. King, Jr.  letter from Birmingham jail)

“You were right, dear.”

etc.

But maybe don’t.  The purpose of the misleading title is to lead you unsuspecting into a barrage of bad argument.

This is a test blog post, a lifted essay from Robert Reich  The Guardian Jan. 2, 2023​ Addressing What We Need To Be Doing

1. Become a political activist to ensure Trump is not elected. For some of us, this will mean taking more time out of our normal lives, up to and including getting out the votes in critical swing states. For others, it means phone banking, making political contributions, writing letters to editors, and calling friends and relations in key states.
2. Do not succumb to the tempting anesthesia of complacency or cynicism. The stakes are too high. Even if you cannot take much time out of your normal life for direct politics, you will need to organize, mobilize and energize your friends, colleagues and neighbors.
3. Counter lies with truth. When you hear someone repeating a Trump Republican lie, correct it. This will require that you prepare yourself with facts, logic, analysis and sources.
4. Do not tolerate bigotry and hate. Call it out. Stand up to it. Denounce it. Demand that others denounce it, too.
5. Do not resort to name-calling, bullying, intimidation, violence or any of the other tactics that Trump followers may be using. We cannot save democracy through anti-democratic means.
6. Be compassionate toward hardcore followers of Trump, but be firm in your opposition. Understand why someone may decide to support Trump, but don’t waste your time and energy trying to convert them. Use your time and energy on those who still have open minds.
7. Don’t waste your time and energy commiserating with people who already agree with you. Don’t gripe, whine, wring your hands and kvetch with other progressives about how awful Trump and his Republican enablers are. Don’t snivel over or criticize Biden and the Democrats for failing to communicate more effectively how bad Trump and his Republican enablers are. None of this will get you anything except an upset stomach or worse.
8. Don’t decide to sit this election out or to vote for a third-party candidate, because you don’t especially like Biden and you’re tired of voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Biden may not be perfect, but he’s not the lesser of two evils. Trump is truly evil.
9. Demonstrate, but don’t mistake demonstrating for political action. You may find it gratifying to stand on a corner in Berkeley or Cambridge or any other liberal precinct with a sign asking drivers to “honk if you hate fascism” and elicit lots of honks. But this is as politically effective as taking a warm shower. Organize people who don’t normally vote to vote for Biden. Mobilize get-out-the-vote efforts in your community. Get young people involved.
10. Don’t get distracted by the latest sensationalist post or story by or about Trump. Don’t let the media’s short attention span divert your eyes from the prize – the survival of American democracy during one of the greatest stress tests it has had to endure, organized by one of the worst demagogues in American history.
It cannot be overstated how critical the outcome of the next 10 months will be to everything we believe in. And the importance of your active participation.