Also note, Biden never "demanded anyone be held accountable". He simply asked for misinformation to be moderated more carefully and removed when harmful. As far as I know he didn't "demand" it and he certainly didn't "demand" that a specific individual be punished like Trump does here.

The only SJW marching orders quoted from the referenced HSGE email are about pledging support for individuals who face discrimination and to uphold values of DEI. So, the rich tapestry of opinion that is lacking here is to not support individuals who face discrimination???

This is a terrible plan.

1. It helps legitimize the tariffs allowing the next bad/illegal thing to seem more legitimate from the start.
2. When people still feel pain, despite the effort, Democrats will share the blame.
3. If it works at all, Trump will take credit for it (and likely get it).

This is a decent statement in general, but I think is sloppy in a dangerous way given the current climate. A warrantless arrest is illegal regardless of whether someone is here legally or not as are most constitutional protections (AFAIK).

In SD, I've ridden the trolley around 100 times over the last 3 years and seen an inspector 1 or 2 times. On the one hand this can't be good for long term sustainability and higher fares for those who pay. But I'd rather see more people using transit than driving even if they're cheating the system.

It's a conservative 2 step. Appeal to the common sense wisdom that smaller things are less complex and easier to manager. So smaller govt sounds good to casual observers. But they want a small govt exactly because it will be inefficient in areas they don't like (collecting taxes, regulation, etc.)

One the one hand there’s a simple theory that explains most cases. On the other there is a complex web of unspecified institutional dynamics that still doesn’t explain much of the explicit bias. I feel like there is an oft cited principal for preferring one of these models.

And, to channel my inner atrios, you can't say in one breath, "Republicans are weird and a threat to our democracy" and then in the next breath say, "we're excited to work with our Republican allies and appoint some to our cabinet." It just completely undermines your whole message.

I think another thing that might be causing friction is that the "good" in "good economy" is generally meant to be interpreted as relative to other economic periods, which generally seems true. But the "good" can easily be interpreted in absolute terms, which it is obviously not.