it's important to note that my theory revolves around Brett getting confirmed before the midterms, and Ruthie retiring also before. If she doesn't do it before, she'll be holding on until 2020's election season starts

That would mean she would have to live another 2 full years. Having seen her in an interview lately I wouldn't put money on her outliving this calendar year!

When I talk about the electioneering aspect, I remind people that Gorsuch was perceived to be a more conservative justice than Kavanaugh, but we didn't get near this circus with him

Don't you think that Dems and the Media were so invested in the Trump/Russia hysteria and were still under shock that Ms Glassealing wasn't elected that they hadn't quiet gotten their #Resist-apparatus in motion?

Their resist apparatus was in motion long before 11/9

I don't think they were quiet comfortable to leave everything behind and go full extreme Left.

I think the best part is that the democrats were borderline guaranteed to take the house in november if they had just shut the f up

instead they keep doing stupid shit that makes everyone hate them

We need to figure out how to troll those feminist academic papers.

It would be amazing.

Everyone. I have a MeToo story and it’s hilarious.

Lol

I was legitimately sexually harassed by a drunk girl. She groped my pelvic region. It was awkward. Then I got over it. Zero trauma. Zero ptsd.

I refer to her as the eye of Sauron. A vertical slit, burning around the edges, whose desire for reverse cowgirls is never quenched.

Just want to share my argument, even though I'm sure this won't be read on the show.
Regarding the AnCap position on borders.
AnCap is about the NAP. No aggression is legitimate. Any defense against aggression is legitimate. Illegal immigration is almost entirely about stealing additional funds from my income. Therefore, closing the border to illegal immigrants is in defense against aggression.

You can't control national borders in ancapistan. Only your own borders

We are not in Ancapistan.

The only illegal immigration is based on violation of your property rights

You're arguing from an ancap perspective

Yes

From an ancap perspective you cannot have "illegal immigration" in the conventional sense, merely property violations, so if the border town wants to bring in a fuckton of people who then move to your town, that's a-ok. On the flip side, association is up to you

Why can there be no illegal immigration? Is there not a kind of immigration that is illegal?
They are coming here in aggression of my income.

The same logic that brings me to this is the same logic that points out the violent illegitimacy off government.

Conventional legal/illegal immigration is based on citizenship within a state. Ancapistan is not a conventional state- there is no government by definition

So you can't not be registered to a government that doesn't exist

You either own or rent property in the area or you dont

And if someone owns or rents property in your area, you put up with it or you violate NAP

Lol. You can only defend your own property. Having no state means you can’t have a border. Why should your concerns about wage prevent a property owner from hiring someone who will willingly work for less than you? It’s a peaceful voluntary transaction. You can’t interfere with that in ancap.

Once you establish a state and collective borders, you *do* have an argument against "illegal immigration"

You literally have to use social justice warrior concepts of harm and aggression to justify your position.

@Beemann I think we scared him off. 😦

RIP

I used to hang out with Free Market Anarchists so while I do get annoyed sometimes by the shit tier 101 arguments against AnCapistan I also understand a lot of its potential flaws

@Beemann I don’t fully understand AnCap, but I see it’s limitations. What’s hard for me is figuring out the government’s role with new technologies/products that drastically improve the human condition.

That typically comes through subsidies, tax credits, mandates, government ownership.

Think sewer system to an extent.

I'm not a fan of the notion of government involvement, but there's a few instances where I'd suggest market competition is infeasible. I'm willing to be proven wrong on these, of course

The government's primary role is ultimately the "monopoly on force", mitigated by the rights of a populace that needs to be willing to do what it takes to hold that government to account

Yeah. That would be an interesting discussion.

How would you say environmental issues get dealt with without some limited government intervention?

If I may reply with a question: How effectively are they being dealt with *using* government intervention?
The air is still shit
Water supplies are fucked in some areas of the 'States
Still dependent on oil
Lots of cash wasted on shitty alternatives because everyone's afraid of our glowing saviour
Canada has that nonsense Carbon tax