Category Archives: Politics

Animal’s Daily Colorado News

Near Gore Pass.

I’ve lived in Colorado for a little over thirty years.  I moved to Colorado after coming off active Army duty (the first time) in 1989, because I wanted to live in the Mountain West, and the Denver area presented the best opportunity to find a job.  I don’t regret that move; I never have.  There’s a lot I still love about Colorado.  I love the mountains, the plains, the hunting, fishing, the outdoor opportunities; I love the 300+ days of sunshine a year.  There are many things I still love about Colorado.

This isn’t one of those things.  Excerpt:

In the last 20 years, Colorado’s population has increased by a little more than 1.5 million people. As of 2019, the state had 5.7 million residents.

“I think we’re probably going to get to 5.8 million [people] for 2020,” said Elizabeth Garner, Colorado’s state demographer.

Population growth slowed during the 2008 recession.

Since 2010, however, Colorado has welcomed about 700,000 new residents. On average, the state is growing anywhere from 70,000 to 80,000 people each year.

That said, it experienced a bit of a slow-down in 2019, when the population increased by about 67,000 over the prior year.

“Compared to the year before where we increased by about 80,000 — it’s about 13,000 fewer people in terms of total growth we’ve seen over that time period,” said Garner.

Much of the growth has been concentrated along the Interstate 25 corridor.

“Which is also where we’re creating all of the jobs. So it makes sense where we’re seeing the job growth and population growth,” Garner said.

According to state data, in the last two decades, most newcomers moved to the Front Range (about 91%) and nearly 8% decided to call the Western Slope, home.

For the record, I live an eastern suburb of Denver, which sits at the foot of the Front Range.

To be perfectly candid, Colorado has gone frickin’ nuts.  There always was a bean-and-granola set here, mostly in Boulder and some of the nuttier mountain communities like Aspen and Vail.  But the Denver/Boulder Axis is taking over the state, and the results are becoming more and more uncomfortable.

Look back on the Colorado that was.

Mrs. Animal and yr. obdt. have long planned to retire elsewhere – and by elsewhere, I mean Alaska – but we may not wait now until we’re ready to retire.  Our kids that live in Colorado are growing restive as well, as they were raised to appreciate the blessings of liberty, which an increasingly left-leaning state government ever seeks to restrict.

Plenty of folks have told me I should stay, that I should fight for my state.  But part of the fight is knowing when you’re licked.  I think we’ve lost Colorado.  Thirty years ago, Colorado was South Wyoming.  Now it’s East California.  And that’s a shame.  But it’s increasingly looking like it’s time to vote with our feet.

Animal’s Hump Day News

Happy Hump Day!

And now – on to the links!

Right now, I’d buy Ricky Gervais a beer.  I have no idea who he is, but I’d buy him a beer.

Michael Moore is an idiot.

Alexandria Occasional Cortex is an idiot. (Again.)  And so is her Moron Squad buddy Ilhan Omar.

The first British astronaut is an idiot, and possibly nuts.

Hunter Biden is an idiot.  But not too big an idiot to accept enormous fat sacks of cash from Ukraine and China for having the last name “Biden.”

But wait!  There’s more!  Move over, Hunter Biden:  Chelsea Clinton is also getting rich because of her last name.  Great (non-)work if you can get it, I suppose – and if your last name is Clinton or Biden, you can get it, qualifications or not.

Both old Groper Joe and Her Imperial Majesty Hillary I, Dowager Empress of Chappaqua, are laundering payoffs through their children, and there’s no other way to put it.   What crooked, lying, conniving, hypocritical assholes.

Loony old Auntie Maxine Waters, one of the top five finalists for the Stupidest Member of Congress prize (granted she’s up against some pretty stiff competition), got punked.  Heh heh heh.

Cities are responding to poor people’s lack of purchasing opportunities by campaigning against…  affordable purchasing opportunities.

Is the President holding all the 2020 cards?  Maybe, maybe not, but I’d argue that it’s waaaaay too soon to predict.

There may be active volcanoes on Venus.  I think I’ll pass on going there to see for myself.  Speculative image from the article:

Yeah, no.  To make up for that, here’s something else with a little bit of the same color palette:

And with that, we return you to your Wednesday, already in progress.

Rule Five Income Inequality Friday

Thanks as always to our pals over at The Daley Gator for the linkback!

Here’s another take on “income inequality,” and on why it’s not as big a problem as the daffy old Bolshevik from Vermont, Princess Spreading Bull, Occasional Cortex and others would have us believe.  Read the excerpts below and, indeed, the whole article, and then I’ll give my opinion, which is that “income inequality” isn’t a problem at all.

Income cannot be measured precisely. There are definitional issues such as how to define “household” and how to treat unrealized capital gains, non-market transactions such as childcare provided by a stay-home parent and negative taxes like the Earned Income Tax Credit. And there are measurement issues like how to track income from the underground economy and to get accurate information from people who may be evading taxes or protecting privacy.

Finally, the goal is not clear. We want everyone to have enough for comfort and dignity, but do we want wealth equality between someone who works hard to become a world-class surgeon and her brother who only surfs and loafs? Should government clerks with secure jobs, good benefits and 9 to 5 hours earn the same as people who found and run successful businesses? Should people with expensive tastes be allowed to work hard to buy champagne and Teslas, while others can afford only beer and Chevys but can sleep later and spend more time with their kids?


However you feel about any of those proposals, or others, it’s clear that the social problems caused by the economy in the United States should not be viewed through a lens of simple generalized inequality, with crude redistribution the only solution. Low-income and high-income people each, on average, consume adequate amounts for dignified comfort; as do earners and non-earners. There are plenty of social and economic problems to tackle—people missed by government benefits either accidentally or on purpose, economic insecurity even among people with enough to spend today, government programs that make things worse, racism, sexism, crime and discriminatory criminal justice, child abuse and neglect, to name a few—but lumping them all together as inequality and promising to soak the rich until they go away is misguided.

Here’s the problem:  Too many politicians – people who set policy and make laws – think that inequality is a problem, that the problems of the poor and somehow caused by the existence of the rich.  There are a few deep, fundamental flaws with this thinking:

  1. The economy isn’t a zero-sum game.  If it were, then, as this article points out, one person could only amass wealth at the expense of others.  But that’s not how this works.  Wealth is created and earned, not distributed.  We don’t have to divide the pie into smaller or more equal pieces; we can make a bigger pie.
  2. Wealth and income aren’t the same thing.  Wealth can be the result of income, but it’s not synonymous with income.  A person can be “wealthy” while having a relatively low income; a person who owns a large farm, for example, may be “wealthy” in the sense that they own assets worth a great deal, but they may still have a modest income.  That’s a key difference that many, most notably Lieawatha Warren, don’t seem to understand.
  3. “Redistribution” won’t solve the perceived issue, because most causes of income/wealth inequality are either age-related or behavioral.  Most people move through income levels as they grow, as they go through life.  Myself, for example.  At 20, I had a young wife, a baby daughter, and not a pot to piss in.  Now, I’m pushing sixty, in my peak earning years, Mrs. Animal and I are empty-nesters with a good nest egg and a substantial net worth.  Why?  Because we have worked hard, saved and made good choices; which brings us to the behavioral aspect.  A major cause of “inequality” is that rich people will always do things that make them rich, while poor people will continue to do things that make them poor.

That last bit, item #3, is key.  That’s why redistribution schemes will never solve anything; moving money by force in an economy is like shoveling flies across a barn.  Wealth is generally gained by people who make good decisions and lost by people who make bad decisions; but the only time wealth or income is gained by some at the expense of others is when government confiscates it by force and gives it to those who did not earn it.

Income or wealth redistribution by force means that one portion of the population is compelled, by threat of force, to labor involuntarily on the behalf of others.  The only proper response to such redistribution schemes is “fuck off, slavers!”

Animal’s Daily Mixed Bag News

We’ve all got New Year’s Eve celebrations to plan for (even if some of us older folks are planning very quiet holidays) so for today, here’s a mixed bag of links and stories.  Tomorrow for New Year’s Day we’ll have a summery totty dump, followed by a resumption of regular posts on the 2nd. Before we start, go check out the next installment of my Thirty-Something Rifle Cartridges series over at Glibertarians.

Then, without further ado:  The links!

Here’s another take on my ongoing rant about the United States’ insane graduated age-of-majority system.  Excerpt:

The current state of affairs is illogical.

Right now, at age 18, you gain the right to vote and are trusted with full participation in our electoral system. So, too, 18-year-olds are considered “adult” enough to enlist in the military, get married without parental permission, consent to sex, and so on. But our laws, in typical nanny-state fashion, also tell those same young people they can’t be trusted with the freedom to smoke cigarettes, use e-cigarettes, or drink alcohol (or not) as all other adults. In many states, too, the Second Amendment right to self-defense is arbitrarily stripped from legal adults under 21.

This inconsistency is impossible to justify. Surely anyone deemed trustworthy enough to risk his or her life in conflict overseas and have full sexual autonomy should also have legal decision-making power over their own body when it comes to mint-flavored Juul pods.

No shit.  Although I’d say this:  If 18-21 year olds are too irresponsible to smoke, buy a gun, smoke, or drink – why the hell do we let them vote?

Next:  Dave Barry gives his annual recap for 2019.  My favorite piece:   Robert Mueller resigns as special counsel, saying that he plans to return to private life and “whimper in the fetal position.” In his final statement, he clears up any lingering confusion about his investigation by noting that the Justice Department cannot charge the president with a federal crime, adding, “not that I am, or am not, saying, or not saying, that the president did, or did not, do anything that was, or was not, illegal. Or, not.”

Finally:  A would-be mass shooter in Texas attacked a church and killed two parishioners but was stopped by a Good Guy With a Gun, who planted the shooter with a .357 Sig round right through the brain-pan.  That’s a good shot.  Excerpt:

On Sunday we reported that a man entered a church in White Settlement, Texas, and fired on worshippers, before he was shot dead by a member(s) of the church security team.

Two victims, who have not yet been identified, died as the result of gunshot wounds. The assailant was only able to get off two shots before he was taken out by the alert guard, reportedly an ex-FBI agent. (There are some reports that a second member of the church security team fired on the suspect, but it’s not clear at this time if that’s the case.)

Would-be gun-grabbers will ask “how is it better to have more guns in a mass shooting?”  Well, this is why it is better.  Is it better to be helpless in the face of an armed aggressor – or, worse, aggressors?  No.  I’d much rather have at least the chance to defend myself.

But I do take issue with this statement from the church’s minister:  West Freeway Church of Christ Senior Minister Britt Farmer: “I’m thankful our government has allowed us the opportunity to protect ourselves”


Like hell.  The government hasn’t allowed you anything.  Most of the statist fucksticks in the Imperial government would love to strip you of your right to self-defense.  You have that right because you were born.  It’s a natural right – I’m sure Minister Farmer would call it God-given, I call it a natural right, but no matter what you call it, you have it, not because government granted it but because government is prohibited from interfering with it – not that that doesn’t stop elected assholes from trying to do so.

Anyway – to that good guy with a gun, good shooting, and I hope someone gives him a few well-deserved pats on the back.

Finally:  Whatever your plans, Happy New Year!  We’ll see you in 2020.

Goodbye, Blue Monday

Goodbye, Blue Monday!

Thanks as always to Bacon Time and Pirate’s Cove for the Rule Five links!

Last week, Colorado’s own Mike Rosen repeated his regular assertion on why party trumps person in politics.  Excerpt:

A superficial cliché goes something like this: “I’m an independent thinker; I vote for the person, not the party.” This pronouncement is supposed to convey open-mindedness and political sophistication on the part of the pronouncer. Wrong. This is idealism and naiveté about the way our electoral process, government and politics work. It shouldn’t be mistaken for wisdom. In practice, we have a two-party system. Either a Republican or a Democrat is going to be elected president. Minor-party candidates don’t have a chance, at best they can be spoilers – like Nader costing Gore the presidency to Bush in 2000. Ross Perot got 19 million popular votes in 1992, and exactly zero Electoral College votes.

In Europe’s multiparty parliamentary democracies, governing coalitions are formed after an election to include minor parties necessary to form a parliamentary majority. In our constitutional republic, the coalitions are already in place. The Republican coalition is mostly a geographic alliance of middle-America, conservatives, individualists who prefer limited government, those who believe in a-free market economy, American exceptionalism, a strong national defense, social-issues conservatives and supporters of traditional American values. The Democrat coalition is dominated by west coast and northeastern states, it includes guilt-ridden liberals, progressives, collectivists, labor unions (especially the teachers unions), government workers, academics, trial lawyers, net tax-receivers, identity-politics minorities, feminists, LGBTQ’s, enviros, nannyists and activists for assorted anti-gun, anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-military and world-government causes. I say party trumps person because regardless of the individual occupying the White House, the party’s coalition will be served.

Mr. Rosen makes a good point, even though it’s frequently a challenge for one, like me, whose political philosophy doesn’t exactly fit either major party.

As a staunch minarchist libertarian, I look at both parties, and see two groups of people who want to interfere with my life and liberty – just in different areas.  But there’s one big difference, and that’s the Second Amendment.  That’s why, living as I do in a swing state, I vote for Republicans.

Why?  Because the right to bear arms is the right that secures all the others.  Without that, we’re helpless in the face of whatever elected or unelected horse’s ass decides they want to run roughshod over us.  With it, we always have that last resort out of the traditional three:  Ballot box, soap box, cartridge box.

The GOP is far from perfect.  They have a distinct tendency to favor continuing the idiotic War on Drugs, and too many of them also run on legislating morality, which should be a personal and not a political issue.

But for a libertarian, they sure as hell are the lesser of two evils.  It’s sad that we’ve come to this, but here we are.   And that’s why I agree with Mike Rosen on this issue:  Party does indeed trump (pun not intended) person.

Animal’s Hump Day News

Happy Hump Day!

On to the links!

Some zoo chimps were spotted… dancing.  Well, sort of.

I’ve had the chance to see two great apes up close.  The second was a young male chimp, who was on the other side of a thick plexiglass wall at the Honolulu zoo.  He sat there against the wall while I watched him from maybe a foot away.  We made eye contact a few times.

The first time, though, was at the home of an old friend who was an orangutan trainer in Las Vegas.  Mrs. Animal and I sat on the couch in his living room for an hour or so with his young orang Katie.  This was different; we interacted with her, had contact with her; it was fascinating.  Katie seemed fond of Mrs. Animal and held her hand most of the time she was on the couch.

When you look in the eyes of one of these apes, it’s not like looking at a cat or dog, but it’s not like looking at a human, either; there’s a weird uncanny valley thing going on there.

Moving on:  The U.S. has apparently been missing a standard of international measurement by…  a foot.

Virginia Democrats are threatening to call out the National Guard if local law enforcement in 2nd Amendment sanctuary counties refuse to cooperate with a gun confiscation.  I predict that won’t end the way they think it will.

The Post-WWII world order is changing.  Maybe not for the better.

Exercise bikes with benefits.  Uhm… OK…

Chuck Schumer is an idiot.

This city is run by idiots.

All these people are idiots.

I’m just going to leave this here:

Speaking of encroaching senile dementia:

And for the finale:  Last Sunday, Chris Wallace vivisected James Comey in front of a few million people.  Watch it all.  It’s worth it.

I’m feeling generous, so here’s a little something extra from the archives.

And on that note, we return you to your Wednesday, already in progress.

Rule Five Soft Targets Friday

There have been a lot of pixels spent discussing two recent shootings at Pearl Harbor and Pensacola, both naval facilities; among the casualties in Pensacola were active-duty servicemen.

Now, today, I’m not going to discuss the backgrounds or motivations of the shooters, neither of whom I will deign to mention by name.  I’m not going to mention the actions of first responders.  I’m not going to talk about the weapons used.  All that has already been hashed over.

What I am going to talk about is this:  Why are our military bases soft targets for gunmen?

Military bases in the United States are, inconceivably, “gun-free zones.”  Bear in mind that these bases are populated by men and women who are trained in the profession of arms. 

At Pensacola, the shooter walked into classrooms and opened fire, assured that there would be no meaningful response for some time until local law enforcement arrived to save military servicemen.  In this instance the local law enforcement would seem to have done a good job, but my question remains:  Why was their response necessary at all?

At Pearl Harbor, the gunman attacked workers near the dry dock of the U.S.S. Columbia, an attack submarine to which the shooter was evidently assigned; he did so knowing that there would be no meaningful response until local law enforcement arrived, and even though in this case the victims were civilian workers, there were still service members in the immediate area.  Again, my question remains:  Why was their response necessary at all?

I’m particularly concerned about the Pearl Harbor incident, as a Los-Angeles-class attack submarine in dry dock sure seems to me like something you’d guard with armed Marines.  If there are any former Navy types among all of you True Believers out there, please confirm.

Service members are in the profession of arms.  They serve knowing this.  So why are our military bases rendered soft targets by the refusal of the DoD to acknowledge this fundamental fact?

Here’s my proposal:

All officers and all enlisted personnel above the rank of E-5 (I’d be willing to consider raising that to E-7 if necessary to get this done) should be each issued a personal sidearm, should be required to train with that sidearm, to qualify with it at least annually, and to carry it loaded at all times while in uniform and on duty on base.   The sidearm should literally be part of the uniform.

When off-duty and in civilian attire, I’m not sure if I’d require carry of the sidearm, although I’d certainly allow it, and further, I’d consider serving active military to be by default concealed-carry permit holders just as serving law enforcement officers are, and therefore able to legally carry a personal sidearm concealed anywhere they go.

Anywhere they go.

Further, gate guards at closed installations shall be armed.  Back in the late Nineties when I was reactivated for the Balkans fracas, I worked in a Top Secret facility in Heidelberg, Germany; that facility was guarded by three layers of MPs, the first with a holstered sidearm, the second with a loaded M-16, the third at the end of a long approach hallway with a loaded riot shotgun.  Gate guards at secure installations should be no less well armed, and roving patrols of MPs likewise.

Our service members are, as I’ve said, in the profession of arms.  It’s  staggeringly stupid that we can’t acknowledge that by ensuring they be armed, and it’s even more staggeringly stupid that on our domestic bases we deprive them of the very thing that would make our bases secure, and not the soft targets for gunmen that they are today.

President Trump, as Commander in Chief, could fix this with the stroke of a pen.  Where is he on this issue?

Animal’s Hump Day News

Happy Hump Day!

On to the links!

Apparently Barney Google-Schiff has a “guiding philosophy” he’s using for impeachment.  Who knew?  Well, probably not Schiff; he almost certainly said this because he thought it sounded cool.

Want to know which industry isn’t feeling the effects of the Trump boom?  The media.  Surprised?

CNN’s S.E. Cupp is an idiot.

The New Yorker‘s John Cassidy is an idiot.

Business Insider‘s Michael Gordon is an idiot.  By way of evidence, from the linked article:  Ask any middle schooler about the basic role of government and they will answer – correctly – that it is to represent the views and ideas of the American people. Policies supported by a clear majority deserve action.   I searched through the Constitution for some mention of rule by the majority, and couldn’t find it.  Can anyone help out here?

Fort Collins, Colorado, breaks a record for smooches.   There’s worse things to be known for.

ManBearPig is the next logical step.

Sanders and Warren supporters want jail time for “hate speech.”  Here’s some hate speech for them:  Fuck off, slavers.

Here’s something new: The Bongino Report.  I’ve seen Dan Bongino on the news once in a while.  He’s a hoot.

Liberal Democrat and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz says House Democrats are acting like the KGB:  Show us the man, and we’ll find you the crime.

Fuck off, slavers.

Russia has been banned from the Olympics and the World Cup for four years.  Whoops.

Geraldo Rivera tells David Frum to fuck off.  Heh heh heh.

Boy, it sure is a good thing Mexico has such strict gun control.

File this under “terminally clueless”:  Her Imperial Majesty Hillary I, Dowager Empress of Chappaqua, is still the first choice among Democrats to oppose President Trump next year, presumably so she can lose worse than she did in 2016.

And on that sagging, elderly note, we return you to your Wednesday, already in progress.

Animal’s Daily Prescription Spectacles News

Like many men of my vintage (mid-to-late middle age) I have for a few years required some vision correction.  In my late forties I began to notice what was determined to be a fairly routine, normal, expected age-related farsightedness, and since then I have been wearing prescription bifocals.

Now, whenever I go to buy new glasses, I have to have an eye exam prior.  Sometimes I’m glad to do so – my last purchase of spectacles, for example, I sought out the eye exam as I was certain my prescription had changed, and indeed it had.  But what if I broke my glasses and just wanted a new pair?  Not so much.  Excerpt:

In every other country in which I’ve lived—Germany and Britain, France and Italy—it is far easier to buy glasses or contact lenses than it is here. In those countries, as in Peru, you can simply walk into an optician’s store and ask an employee to give you an eye test, likely free of charge. If you already know your strength, you can just tell them what you want. You can also buy contact lenses from the closest drugstore without having to talk to a single soul—no doctor’s prescription necessary.

So why does the United States require people who want to purchase something as simple as a curved piece of plastic to get a prescription, preceded by a costly medical exam?

The standard argument in favor of the American status quo is that impaired vision may point to serious health problems that a new pair of glasses will neither treat nor heal. Compelling Americans to see an optometrist helps to ensure that the largest possible number of cases of progressive eye diseases will be caught at an early stage.

As Barbara Horn, O.D., the president of the American Optometric Association (AOA), told me, “Today, at least 2.2 billion people around the world have a vision impairment, of whom at least 1 billion have a vision impairment that could have been prevented or has yet to be addressed … That’s why it’s clear to health experts, policymakers, the media, and the public that increased access to eye exams and eye doctors are needed to safeguard health and vision.”  

But this argument rather begs the question. After all, the added cost of having to see an optometrist presumably stops many Americans from accessing the corrective lenses they need to improve their vision. Is the desirability of an eye exam performed by a medical professional a sufficient reason to prevent Americans who would rather not—or cannot—visit an optometrist from buying glasses and contacts? We can only answer this question by acknowledging a trade-off between competing goods.

On the one hand, some number of Americans who visit an optometrist to get a new prescription will indeed discover that they have a serious condition that requires immediate care. On the other hand, it is likely that a much greater number keep wearing glasses that are too weak—or won’t wear glasses at all—because they want to avoid the cost, time, or stress of a visit to a doctor.

Let’s cut through the bullshit.  This is cronyism, pure and simple.  If the AOA wants to make the argument above, then let them make it – pure and simple – and let the public decide.  They argue that having to see an optometrist protects them from missing the diagnosis of a serious problem; but as the author here points out, the added cost may well prevent them from seeking new vision correction in the first place, so that argument doesn’t hold much water.

Once again:  It’s not the role of government to shield people from the consequences of their own bad decisions.  Get the government out of the business of mandating eye exams, let people make their own decisions, and let the damned AOA make their case directly to the public instead of lobbying pols to force people to do business with them!

Animal’s Daily Trump Coalition News

Be sure to check out my latest installment of my  Allamakee County Chronicles posted yesterday over at Glibertarians!

Moving along:  The Rust Belt still appears to be Trump country.  Excerpt:

Conservative ideology alone did not unite this (Trump-voting) coalition. What did was conservatism fused with a populist distrust of big institutions including the media, DC politicians, Hollywood and corporations, all based in ZIP codes far removed from the people they supposedly serve.

Three years later, all 24 of the people we interviewed for “The Great Revolt” (except two we’ve been unable to reach) told us they have not wavered in their political allegiances.

Polls echo this dynamic. Earlier this month, Cook Political Report election analyst Amy Walter crunched numbers from a recent New York Times/Siena poll to show that Trump’s edge in the Electoral College remains the same or has even grown a bit since 2016 in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and even Minnesota, which he lost by a hair.

“It is 2016 all over again,” wrote Walter, and she’s not wrong. In many ways, our political climate is like the movie “Groundhog Day” — every day. If you woke up after Trump’s election feeling optimistic about the future, you likely still do. And if you didn’t, your hair is probably still on fire and nothing will extinguish it until the president is removed from the White House.

“If you live and work in Washington, New York or the West Coast, you don’t know anyone like me,” said Smith, who was one of many voters my co-writer and I referred to as “Hidden in Plain Sight.”

Look at that last quote, because it’s key to the whole mess we’re in right now.  Look at the current crop of Democrat candidates for the Imperial Mansion; they are running waaaaay to the left, partly because that’s where their party is going, partly because they are gunning for the votes of the coastal elites.

In so doing, of course, they are alienating voters like the Rust Belt folks described in this article.  Most of these folks aren’t interested in Medicare-For-All (in fact, quite a few of them have generous, union-negotiated health plans) and they sure as hell don’t want to hear a lot of finger-wagging over the carbon footprint of their pickups and SUVs.

This, True Believers, is why Trump won in 2016.  This, True Believers, is why, barring any unforeseen shocking revelations (and really, as much as the Never-Trump/Democrat coalition has been digging, one would think that if there were anything they’d have uncovered it by now) Trump will be re-elected in 2020.

The Democrats are in danger of becoming a regional party, catering to coastal elites and government dependents in the major cities.  That’s not a winning strategy.  And the great irony is that they are being driven to this by President Donald J. Trump, who by all standards is a Tip O’Neill-type Democrat on most issues, and who was in fact a Democrat for most of his adult life.

One takes his ironic humor where one finds it, no?