US President Donald J. Trump Impeachment Megathread - Democrats commit mass political suicide

On September 24th, 2019, Nanci Pelosi did what everyone expected was some exceptional political posturing -- initiating a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The initial "charge," such as it was, was "betraying his oath of office and the nation's security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain." This, amusingly, was after it was discovered and widely reported on that the DNC had contacted the very same foreign power to attempt to tarnish Trump.

Specifically, this was all based on a rumor that Trump had asked the Ukraine to investigate how a prosecutor investigating Joe Biden's son for corruption had gotten fired, and withheld foreign aid until they had agreed. (He did ask the leader of the Ukraine to investigate what happened with the prosecutor, but did not hold up any foreign aid nor threaten anything of the like.)

Around this time, Trump did something they could not, and still cannot, understand: He publicly turned over all the documents. The transcript of the phone call they claimed showed him committing the crime of blackmailing the Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden for him was released, showing that Trump did nothing wrong. The only reaction the radical left had was arguing over the definition of "transcript" and spouting off a conspiracy theory about official state documents being edited.

At the same time, old video evidence of Joe Biden publicly bragging about blackmailing the Ukraine into NOT investigating his son came to light. Yes, this is exactly what they're accusing Trump of doing. The left is nothing if not subtle. Right after this, evidence came to light that Pelosi, Kerry, and Romney's kids had similar fake jobs in the Ukraine, getting paid ungodly amounts of money and embezzling US foreign aid to the Ukraine -- all things that Trump's Attorney General has openly discussed investigating.

By releasing the transcripts, the DNC was tripped up. Instead of being able to leak information from their secret investigation until November 2020, they were forced to play their hand publicly.

And they had no hand to play. The impeachment accusations came from second and third hand sources -- watercooler talk from Unelected Deep State Analysts with Trump Derangement Syndrome, outraged that President Trump refused to obey them when they felt they had a better idea as to how to run Foreign Affairs. Other allegations included that supposedly, the telepathic DNC members working in the state department knew what Trump was thinking (despite him literally saying the exact opposite) or could tell that Trump would do something even worse -- maybe something actually illegal -- in the future, and boy howdy, the imaginary Trump in their minds was a right bastard.

(As an aside, the name of the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, has been censored across pretty much all social media, a test run of whatever censorship they're going to enact in the next few months to try and swing the election.)

At the same time, the DNC performed significant amounts of partisan political fuckery to do this all publicly, but unofficially -- preventing the GOP from bringing forth witnesses or questioning the DNC's witnesses, or even reading the double plus secret evidence the DNC supposedly had. Those GOP that did get access to the evidence have confirmed it's a 3 pound 5 ounce nothingburger.

The charges have since mutated, with them initially being changed to "bribery" -- as "bribery" focus groups easier and is easier to spew out on Twitter.

On December 18th, 2019, along party lines and with bipartisan opposition, they finally drafted their articles of impeachment -- first for "Abuse of Power" and second for "Obstruction of Congress." Neither are actually crimes nor are they impeachable offenses, even if they were true -- which the DNC has provided no evidence of, explaining that it's the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

Narrator: It is not the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

The "Obstruction of Congress" charge is particularly egregious, as they are claiming that Trump, by reaching out to the courts to act as mediators in his dispute over the rules with Pelosi, was obstructing her. In other words, Pelosi's stance is that the President must obey her, even if she's being a batshit insane drunk. Many legal scholars, including Alan Dershowitz, have pointed out that this is absolute bullshit.

The latest development as of this writing on December 21th, 2019, is that Pelosi is demanding that the GOP recuse itself, allowing the DNC to reshape the Senate in order to make the process "fair" -- by creating a Kangaroo court. The GOP is refusing outright, as the Senate's role during this is very specifically to take the charges and all the evidence gathered from the house -- which is none -- and vote yes or no on impeachment. They need 2/3rd majority to vote yes, and the DNC does not have the votes.

Pelosi is refusing to send over the articles of impeachment until the GOP allows her to stack the Senate against Trump, an act that Dershowitz as well as Noah Feldman, the DNC's own star legal expert witness, has said is unconstitutional and "a problem," as Trump isn't impeached until the articles have been filed. Meanwhile, the DNC has put the House on vacation until the new year, while the Senate is exploring options including forcing the articles over without Pelosi's ok. Trump and the Senate have both went to the SCOTUS to ask them if any of this is constitutional.

tl;dr: Trump may have found where the Swamp was embezzling US Foreign Aid. Many politician's children working fake jobs for huge amounts of money in the Ukraine, blatantly selling influence. This caused the DNC to freak out and try and headshot Trump. They missed. The Democrats appear to have committed political suicide, making Trump a Martyr and only realizing in the aftermath that they didn't actually get rid of him or even weaken him in any way. They also appear to realize they fucked up and are trying to slow walk it back, keeping the "he's impeached!" victory while not actually having to let anyone read the evidence or have a trial on it.


@Yotsubaaa did a great writeup here with links to various winner posts: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/nancy...kraine-phone-call.61583/page-135#post-5606264

And @Yotsubaaa did a new version very late on the 21st of December: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/presi...chment-megathread.61583/page-260#post-5754920

Which are too big to quote here.



https://archive.fo/oVGIv

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would initiate a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump, charging him with betraying his oath of office and the nation’s security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain.

Ms. Pelosi’s declaration, after months of reticence by Democrats who had feared the political consequences of impeaching a president many of them long ago concluded was unfit for office, was a stunning turn that set the stage for a history-making and exceedingly bitter confrontation between the Democrat-led House and a defiant president who has thumbed his nose at institutional norms.

“The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution,” Ms. Pelosi said in a brief speech invoking the nation’s founding principles. Mr. Trump, she added, “must be held accountable — no one is above the law.”

She said the president’s conduct revealed his “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”

Ms. Pelosi’s decision to push forward with the most severe action that Congress can take against a sitting president could usher in a remarkable new chapter in American life, touching off a constitutional and political showdown with the potential to cleave an already divided nation, reshape Mr. Trump’s presidency and the country’s politics, and carry heavy risks both for him and for the Democrats who have decided to weigh his removal.

Though the outcome is uncertain, it also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump could become only the fourth president in American history to face impeachment. Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached but later acquitted by the Senate. President Richard M. Nixon resigned in the face of a looming House impeachment vote.

It was the first salvo in an escalating, high-stakes standoff between Ms. Pelosi, now fully engaged in an effort to build the most damning possible case against the president, and Mr. Trump, who angrily denounced Democrats’ impeachment inquiry even as he worked feverishly in private to head off the risk to his presidency.

Mr. Trump, who for months has dared Democrats to impeach him, issued a defiant response on Twitter while in New York for several days of international diplomacy at the United Nations, with a series of fuming posts that culminated with a simple phrase: “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” Meanwhile, his re-election campaign and House Republican leaders launched a vociferous defense, accusing Democrats of a partisan rush to judgment.

“Such an important day at the United Nations, so much work and so much success, and the Democrats purposely had to ruin and demean it with more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage,” Mr. Trump wrote. “So bad for our Country! For the past two years, talk of impeachment had centered around the findings of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections and Mr. Trump’s attempts to derail that inquiry. On Tuesday, Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, told her caucus and then the country that new revelations about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, and his administration’s stonewalling of Congress about them, had finally left the House no choice but to proceed toward a rarely used remedy.

“Right now, we have to strike while the iron is hot,” she told House Democrats in a closed-door meeting in the basement of the Capitol. Emerging moments later to address a phalanx of news cameras, Ms. Pelosi, speaking sometimes haltingly as she delivered a speech from a teleprompter, invoked the Constitution and the nation’s founders as she declared, “The times have found us” and outlined a new stage of investigating Mr. Trump.

At issue are allegations that Mr. Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to open a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son. The conversation is said to be part of a whistle-blower complaint that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress. And it occurred just a few days after Mr. Trump had ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine.

Mr. Trump has confirmed aspects of his conversation with the Ukrainian leader in recent days, but he continues to insist he acted appropriately.

The president said on Tuesday that he would authorize the release of a transcript of the conversation, part of an effort to pre-empt Democrats’ impeachment push. But Democrats, after months of holding back, were unbowed, demanding the full whistle-blower complaint and other documentation about White House dealings with Ukraine, even as they pushed toward an expansive impeachment inquiry that could encompass unrelated charges.

President Trump’s personal lawyer. The prosecutor general of Ukraine. Joe Biden’s son. These are just some of the names mentioned in the whistle-blower’s complaint. What were their roles? We break it down.

Ms. Pelosi told fellow Democrats that Mr. Trump told her in a private call on Tuesday morning that he was not responsible for withholding the whistle-blower complaint from Congress. But late Tuesday, the White House and intelligence officials were working on a deal to allow the whistle-blower to speak to Congress and potentially even share a redacted version of the complaint in the coming days, after the whistle-blower expressed interest in talking to lawmakers.

Although Ms. Pelosi’s announcement was a crucial turning point, it left many unanswered questions about exactly when and how Democrats planned to push forward on impeachment.
 
Last edited:
"It'll never go to the senate, th-there's no case! There's nothing actionable! The democrats have nothing!"
"A-actually, w-we wanted you to make impeachment official the whole time! I'm not owned, I'm not owned!"
Are you going to keep the denial up until orange man is actually put in jail?

Stop lying. It's lazy trolling, cock goblin.
 

A Democrat is arrested for illegally funneling millions to Hillary Clinton, and what picture does the New York Times use?

XuN1WDK.jpg
 
A Democrat is arrested for illegally funneling millions to Hillary Clinton, and what picture does the New York Times use?
My favorite one is this article’s title:
Mueller Witness With Trump Ties Is Charged With Illegally Funneling Money to Support Clinton
So this guy tries everything possible to hide millions of campaign contributions for Clinton, but somehow it’s Trump’s ties to him that’s important to bring up?

Oh also, this Nader guy has multiple charges of child pornography spanning decades. Though, don’t worry. He was given partial immunity on his current charge of cp for his support in the Mueller Investigation. Hurray
 
I still am amazed the madmen actually are trying to argue the President can't investigate his own government for corruption because that's a conflict of interest, since he IS the government...... and would directly benefit from removing corrupt officials because it would only increase the power of those who aren't corrupt.....

That's like arguing a DA can't prosecute someone for theft because that would make it impossible for the thief to spend his stolen money, thereby unfairly increasing the DA's ability to influence the free market with his honestly-earned money.

This is the end-state of loony leftist political ideology - their zombie hive-mind of complete equality of outcome has reached the point where following the law is ILLEGAL because it disadvantages those who don't abide by the law! (Please ignore the bribery, that was off the record so it doesn't count)
 
Last edited:
"It'll never go to the senate, th-there's no case! There's nothing actionable! The democrats have nothing!"
"A-actually, w-we wanted you to make impeachment official the whole time! I'm not owned, I'm not owned!"
Are you going to keep the denial up until orange man is actually put in jail?
You're a decent barometer of how strong the libs feel about impeachment. Having to mischarachterize the entire repub side of the argument makes your case look pretty weak. Also, where you been dude?

We said they'd never send it to the Senate because it'd be suicide, not because they cannot do it. All they have to do is vote, they could send it to the Senate right now. I would love it if they would, but I'm not that optimistic. It would be politically insane.
 
You're a decent barometer of how strong the libs feel about impeachment. Having to mischarachterize the entire repub side of the argument makes your case look pretty weak. Also, where you been dude?

We said they'd never send it to the Senate because it'd be suicide, not because they cannot do it. All they have to do is vote, they could send it to the Senate right now. I would love it if they would, but I'm not that optimistic. It would be politically insane.
The longer they drag these hearings out the worse it'll be
 
Untitled-1.jpg


Hey NBC, I've got a better question for you: How were private phone calls obtained by an inquiry without the legal power to do so, given that this is an inquiry, and not an investigation? I know that your assertion here is that it was a subpoena, but if it was perfectly legal and on the level, why would Schiff decline to comment on how the records were obtained? Why would AT&T and Verizon immediately hand over private information like that without a legal requirement to do so?

I mean it's still funny that Schiff went that far out of his way to obtain these records and still got absolutely jack shit from it other than "He called Hannity! Ree!" but I'm intensely curious as to how they were obtained, especially given that this inquiry has no power to issue subpoenas and definitely because Schiff didn't want to talk about how they obtained them.
 
View attachment 1037585

Hey NBC, I've got a better question for you: How were private phone calls obtained by an inquiry without the legal power to do so, given that this is an inquiry, and not an investigation? I know that your assertion here is that it was a subpoena, but if it was perfectly legal and on the level, why would Schiff decline to comment on how the records were obtained? Why would AT&T and Verizon immediately hand over private information like that without a legal requirement to do so?

I mean it's still funny that Schiff went that far out of his way to obtain these records and still got absolutely jack shit from it other than "He called Hannity! Ree!" but I'm intensely curious as to how they were obtained, especially given that this inquiry has no power to issue subpoenas and definitely because Schiff didn't want to talk about how they obtained them.

I have a still BETTER question

X called Y isn't news. Its Rumor (at best) its barely information.

Rudy does talk to Trump on issues outside his own representation of Trump [he has represented Clients to Trump] could you maybe do...idk...REPORTING. Try to rule out all the other reasons Rudy might have called

Also this is an INQUIRY and not an INVESTIGATION so Did At&t and Verizon disclose info to congress LEGALLY? Was this connected to IDK Congress's quasi legal ability through the IC to get documents from ATT and Verizon?
 
Wall-to-wall impeachment coverage is not changing any minds. Here’s how journalists can reach the undecided.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...4aa658-16c3-11ea-a659-7d69641c6ff7_story.html (http://archive.vn/mS7ML)

Margaret Sullivan
Media columnist


If anything, weeks into the House of Representatives’ public impeachment hearings, Americans’ positions seem to have hardened on whether President Trump should be impeached and removed from office.

Columnist Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times offered a name Wednesday for one aspect of what’s happening before our eyes.

Responding to the absurd statement of Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.) — “there are no set facts here” — she said it summed up the long-term Republican strategy: “epistemological nihilism.”

In other words, there can be no knowledge and no meaning, so don’t even bother.

It brings to mind Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway’s coinage of the infamous term “alternative facts” early in the administration. Or Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes’s on-air comment in 2016: “There is no such thing, unfortunately, anymore of facts.”

That strategy runs in direct opposition to what journalism is supposed to be all about: Establishing facts and knowledge so that citizens can make decisions, armed with what Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein calls “the best obtainable version of the truth.”

How should journalists respond to the stalemate, other than to keep doing exactly what they’ve been doing?

The hint of a possible solution appears in the tracking of public opinion on impeachment at Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight.com, under the headline, “Plenty Of People Are Persuadable On Impeachment.”

A paradox arises herein, and a weird one, at that. There’s a group the trackers call “less-certain Republicans” — about 12 percent of the sample, not huge but given the even split in support for impeachment, mighty important.

“There’s one big hurdle for anyone looking to persuade this group . . . they’re not following developments in the impeachment inquiry very closely,” the site reported. “Only 34 percent of people who aren’t as certain about their stance on impeachment are following the process somewhat or very closely, compared with 66 percent of respondents who are more certain.”

That much larger group, though, seems to be following the hearings, and absorbing the media coverage, largely in order to deepen their own confirmation bias.

(Never doubt that public opinion matters right now: In many ways, it’s what the hearings are all about, as Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton both could have told you.)

In a message, he explains: “Studios spend a $1 million or more on a trailer, because they know it’s essential to boil down the essentials of the film — explaining but not giving away the plot, providing a quick but intense insight into the characters, setting the scene with vivid imagery — to entice people to come back to the theatre a month later for the full movie.”

Similarly, most people (especially the less convinced or more persuadable) will never watch seven hours in a row of congressional testimony, but, as he notes, “many of them would be open to a targeted, well-informed ‘trailer’ approach that is cogently told.”

In some ways, that’s what the nightly newscasts on the three major broadcast networks attempt to do: Boil the complex down to a few minutes.

But that audience, although still substantial — more than 20 million people on average per night — certainly doesn’t include everyone. And far too often, those broadcasts fall prey to false equivalency: This side said this, and this side said that, and we don’t want to make anyone mad, so we’ve got to cut to a commercial now.

With that in mind, I would also very much like to see one other major change: A moratorium on the reflexive use of the word “partisan.”

Mainstream journalists love that word, because it lets them off the hook: We aren’t taking sides, not us! The country is divided, and we can’t help it.

Just uttering the word “partisan” is media Prozac: It soothes journalists’ angst about not being perceived as inoffensively neutral.

It’s too easy, and too often an easy coverup for, yes, epistemological nihilism: The notion that are no facts, so let’s not bother to try establishing them.

But here’s the thing: There are facts. There is truth. We do live in a country that abides by laws and a Constitution, and nobody ought to be above them.

Despite the hardened positions, some members of the public are still uncertain. Some are persuadable, and yes, it matters.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s the job of American journalism in this moment to get serious about trying to reach these citizens.
 
So I guess Pelosi is now actively pushing to draft the Articles.

You can tell some of the shit coming out right now rattled them. I don't think Shiff's phone records trick is playing out as well as he planned.
Someone in this thread accurately described the difference between an impeachment and an inquiry as smashing yourself in the nuts with a sledgehammer and thinking about whether or not to smash yourself in the nuts with a sledgehammer.

Someone get the sledgehammers.


Wall-to-wall impeachment coverage is not changing any minds. Here’s how journalists can reach the undecided.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...4aa658-16c3-11ea-a659-7d69641c6ff7_story.html (http://archive.vn/mS7ML)

Margaret Sullivan
Media columnist

If anything, weeks into the House of Representatives’ public impeachment hearings, Americans’ positions seem to have hardened on whether President Trump should be impeached and removed from office.

Columnist Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times offered a name Wednesday for one aspect of what’s happening before our eyes.

Responding to the absurd statement of Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.) — “there are no set facts here” — she said it summed up the long-term Republican strategy: “epistemological nihilism.”

In other words, there can be no knowledge and no meaning, so don’t even bother.

It brings to mind Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway’s coinage of the infamous term “alternative facts” early in the administration. Or Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes’s on-air comment in 2016: “There is no such thing, unfortunately, anymore of facts.”

That strategy runs in direct opposition to what journalism is supposed to be all about: Establishing facts and knowledge so that citizens can make decisions, armed with what Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein calls “the best obtainable version of the truth.”

How should journalists respond to the stalemate, other than to keep doing exactly what they’ve been doing?

The hint of a possible solution appears in the tracking of public opinion on impeachment at Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight.com, under the headline, “Plenty Of People Are Persuadable On Impeachment.”

A paradox arises herein, and a weird one, at that. There’s a group the trackers call “less-certain Republicans” — about 12 percent of the sample, not huge but given the even split in support for impeachment, mighty important.

“There’s one big hurdle for anyone looking to persuade this group . . . they’re not following developments in the impeachment inquiry very closely,” the site reported. “Only 34 percent of people who aren’t as certain about their stance on impeachment are following the process somewhat or very closely, compared with 66 percent of respondents who are more certain.”

That much larger group, though, seems to be following the hearings, and absorbing the media coverage, largely in order to deepen their own confirmation bias.

(Never doubt that public opinion matters right now: In many ways, it’s what the hearings are all about, as Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton both could have told you.)

In a message, he explains: “Studios spend a $1 million or more on a trailer, because they know it’s essential to boil down the essentials of the film — explaining but not giving away the plot, providing a quick but intense insight into the characters, setting the scene with vivid imagery — to entice people to come back to the theatre a month later for the full movie.”

Similarly, most people (especially the less convinced or more persuadable) will never watch seven hours in a row of congressional testimony, but, as he notes, “many of them would be open to a targeted, well-informed ‘trailer’ approach that is cogently told.”

In some ways, that’s what the nightly newscasts on the three major broadcast networks attempt to do: Boil the complex down to a few minutes.

But that audience, although still substantial — more than 20 million people on average per night — certainly doesn’t include everyone. And far too often, those broadcasts fall prey to false equivalency: This side said this, and this side said that, and we don’t want to make anyone mad, so we’ve got to cut to a commercial now.

With that in mind, I would also very much like to see one other major change: A moratorium on the reflexive use of the word “partisan.”

Mainstream journalists love that word, because it lets them off the hook: We aren’t taking sides, not us! The country is divided, and we can’t help it.

Just uttering the word “partisan” is media Prozac: It soothes journalists’ angst about not being perceived as inoffensively neutral.

It’s too easy, and too often an easy coverup for, yes, epistemological nihilism: The notion that are no facts, so let’s not bother to try establishing them.

But here’s the thing: There are facts. There is truth. We do live in a country that abides by laws and a Constitution, and nobody ought to be above them.

Despite the hardened positions, some members of the public are still uncertain. Some are persuadable, and yes, it matters.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s the job of American journalism in this moment to get serious about trying to reach these citizens.
And speaking of sledgehammers, someone save a good nut smashing for whoever wrote this horseshit. It’s just a journalist bitching and moaning about people not believing his industry’s propaganda.
 
Last edited:
So I guess Pelosi is now actively pushing to draft the Articles.

You can tell some of the shit coming out right now rattled them. I don't think Shiff's phone records trick is playing out as well as he planned.

I think I can help with that question:


Reuters is reporting concern from Ukrainian lawmaker over misuse of US aid within the country. They can’t ignore it anymore. So far they’ve brought a single fucking phone call front and center while everything else about the situation screams deeper corruption.

The house Democrats are banking on hate for Trump as a way to distract people from this but I have a feeling people will see through it.

I really don’t know. I haven’t been convinced by the hearings that this whole ordeal is anything there than partisan bullshit, and the Democrats have specifically failed to refute the idea that there may have been other reasons Trump as the executive would be interested in investigating corruption relating to Ukraine.

I’m eager for a shitshow that blows up in the Democrats face, especially since they haven’t really made a convincing case this anything uniquely corrupt or criminal. That said, I know we don’t have all the information, and this whole thing is a hot potato that could blow up in the hands of either party.

If the polls are to be believed, at the very least I don’t think the public is convinced. Since impeachment is inherently political, this does not bode well. Regardless of the evidence either way, the public inquiry did a piss-poor job of even being coherent on a basic level.
 
View attachment 1037585

Hey NBC, I've got a better question for you: How were private phone calls obtained by an inquiry without the legal power to do so, given that this is an inquiry, and not an investigation? I know that your assertion here is that it was a subpoena, but if it was perfectly legal and on the level, why would Schiff decline to comment on how the records were obtained? Why would AT&T and Verizon immediately hand over private information like that without a legal requirement to do so?

I mean it's still funny that Schiff went that far out of his way to obtain these records and still got absolutely jack shit from it other than "He called Hannity! Ree!" but I'm intensely curious as to how they were obtained, especially given that this inquiry has no power to issue subpoenas and definitely because Schiff didn't want to talk about how they obtained them.
So, legally, how does one attempt to punish this illegal behaviour? He fucking warrantlessly got journalists phone records. How can anyone justify that?

Do it faggots. Send it to the Senate. DO IT!

It's gonna flame out and end in censure with the Dems declaring victory. Then they'll start a new one into Barr or Durham, harass all their friends and associates, and leak bullshit to the media.

The fucking repubs need to find their balls right the fuck now and push back.
 
How comfortable is life in America now that people can squabble over a bike commercial as well as pretending to ignore that husbands don't want sexy wives like they do in the old country.

Comfortable enough that people can use an app to pay someone to come to their house and put their bookshelf together.

Not exactly a land ripe for revolution.
 
Back