see, these are valid points and everything, but i still think the constitution puts too much power into the congress, here, and even this is overstepping the congressional bounds, if the end goal is actual removal. and, to me, that's the more fundamental question.

the congress should be investigating this kind of thing, of course. but, the maximum extent of it's actual power should be to trigger an election...

https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/a-tragedy-noam-chomsky-slams-democrats-for-narrow-focus-of-trumps-impeachment-trial/

removing the democratically elected president through a bureaucratic process is kind of authoritarian, don't you think?

wouldn't you expect an anarchist to bristle against that, even as she's not the biggest fan of the presidential system in the first place?

...if she takes her politics seriously, that is - if she's not just looking to pragmatically align with a partisan outcome.

like, you don't have to tell me i'm not in the progressives club.

i will volunteer that i'm not, and state clearly that i don't want to be. i'm extremely critical of progressives; i tend to consider them to be interchangeable with conservatives. rather, i'm a couple of rungs over to the left, in the anarcho-communist club.

i volunteer this. every other day, in fact.

you don't have to tell me, i'll tell you.

i'm not going to fault anybody for voting for removal.

but, i don't think it was their place to do so; i think they overstepped their bounds.

and, i would not have voted on the measure, myself.

remember: i'm not a democrat. i'm not a "progressive". i'm a left-anarchist.

while i'm usually ok with governments interfering in markets (because i don't believe in markets anyways), i'm usually very much not ok with heavy-handed governance of much of any sort.

so, i don't want to say i'm in line with small government, because i'm not - i'm in favour of very large government, larger than just about anybody that you'll meet.

but, i am in favour of government that has a hands-off approach towards the actual process of governing.

and, i think this whole fiasco is as much of an abuse of power as the thing that set it off was.

my basic position is not about whether what he did was bad enough to warrant removal from office. i actually think that's a secondary question.

rather, my basic position is that the decision should be up to voters, and not up to congress; congress' power should be restricted to the ability to trigger an early election, only.

and, that is the status quo position in the canadian system.

so, is what he did bad enough to warrant removal? i would argue that that is a decision that voters should make. 

now, as a voter, i would actually vote for removal. but, as a member of congress, i would abstain.

i hope that that's clear.

if there's any confusion about where i stand on the impeachment trial, i can clarify the point: i would have abstained from voting, under the argument that the congress ought not have the legal authority to remove the executive power without an intervening electoral process.

i would then immediately attempt to introduce recall legislation into the body i sat within.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_initiative

but, i'm from a different country, with a different set of governing traditions.

i just simply don't think it's democratic for the parliament to remove the executive like this, and that would be the status quo position in the british-canadian parliamentary tradition - i'm simply reflecting the viewpoints of my own country's legal tradition.

i'm sorry if you find that upsetting, but i don't really give a fuck.

i guess you shouldn't expect too much in terms of discourse from a collection of geriatrics that should be living in homes and eating gerber's out of flying spoons.

i don't know which one is worse. really. trump. pelosi. mcconnell. sanders. bloomberg. biden. they sound like a bunch of little kids bickering with each other.

reminds me of this old floyd tune: