Remember - everything Trump does is ultimately for his own benefit.

This isn’t really about the charges the ICC has leveled against Netanyahu. Trump is trying to get out in front of the charges they’re inevitably going to end up leveling against him.

I love everything about this story.

The “choice” to give up your money to avoid physical harm isn’t a choice at all

Exactly as the “choice” to accept a severance package in order to avoid being fired isn’t a choice at all.

And you know that. But you’re too dishonest to admit it.

soooo happy that Trump won

This from the poster who claimed to be a socialist during the campaign…

It’s really sort of astonishing sometimes how complete your lack of integrity is.

Tell me - do you apply this “logic” in other situations?

Like, for instance, if someone were to walk up to you on the street and say, “You can either give me all your money or I’ll beat you up and take it from you,” and you were to then give them your money, that would somehow not count as a robbery since you “accepted” their “offer”?

Ah, but that’ll have to just be a rhetorical question, since the one thing that you’ll never do is actually answer it honestly…

“marital duties”

My male perspective, from that phrase alone, is that he’s an asshole.

and asked how I would react if he just stopped paying the mortgage because he was “too tired.” (For context, I cover about 45% of it

And that just further supports my initial assessment.

But I didn’t think saying no when I’m sleep-deprived and emotionally drained was unreasonable.

It wasn’t.

And the fact that you said no should be sufficient all by itself, and not even just as a sign of respect. From a selfish position it should still be sufficient, since nobody with any measure of concern for their partner should be able to enjoy sex they know to be unwilling.

do most guys feel this way?

That I don’t know. I can say that not all do, but especially at this point in time, more than I’d think reasonably possible do.

That’s sort of immaterial though, since they’re wrong, and remain wrong no matter how many other assholes agree with them.

Even if a change in circumstances is temporary, does a wife have an obligation to always meet her husband’s needs?

Categorically no.

Now that said, a wife should feel some desire to at least try to accommodate her husband, since that’s the nature of partnership, and depending on ones personality, one might treat that as an “obligation.” I’m not sure that that’s healthy, but i see no intrinsic problem with it. But an obligation in the externalized sense - something another might reasonably demand of you rather than something you might demand of yourself? Absolutely not, under any circumstances.

What’s actually a “good” reason to say no?

I want to say any reason, but I don’t think that’s quite true.

I’d say any reason that’s internally valid is okay, which is to say, because you’re tired/emotionally drained/physically ill/just not in the mood/etc - anything that’s an honest expression of your emotional/physical/psychological state and the simple degree of desire you feel.

The bad reasons to say no are things that are other-directed - things like the desire to belittle/punish/torment/manipulate/etc. ones partner.

Yes we do.

He’s leading a coup.

On behalf of the would-be US dictator Donald Trump, he and his mercenaries are taking control of vital government functions away from the duly appointed authorities and claiming it as their own.

I read about half of that and knew who wrote it.

…arguing in bad faith?

I love unintentional irony.

This is a coup.

Yes, because if it was more open, there would be a risk of leftists gaining influence.

It’s really sort of astonishing sometimes how complete your lack of integrity is.

Looks to me as if an active coup is currently under way.

And we’re going to find out if there’s anyone in Washington who’s going to try to stop it.

The leopards lining up for a face buffet.

Huh - apparently just being not-the-Republicans isn’t enough.

The important question is, will the DNC learn anything from this?

I’m guessing no.

It’d be bad enough if that just meant that the US is for all intents a one-party system, but at this particular point in history, the future of the country and the lives of millions depend on effective opposition to those who are building a plutocratic/fascist oligarchy, and the exact institution that should be the vanguard for opposition is just a bunch of greedy pigs and cowards.

There are no depths to which he will not stoop.

And that’s part of what his fans like about him.

I wonder if there’s been any scholarly research on that? It seems on reflection that it’s actually fairly common for autocrats to not only be foul, destructive, self-absorbed pieces of shit, but for them and their supporters to treat that as some sort of badge of honor.

More broadly, it’s striking me that there are likely dominant moods in countries - periods during which for instance, a plurality of progressives elects a progressive or a plurality of patriots elects a patriot or a plurality of warmongers elects a warmonger.

And the current US is a plurality of assholes who elected an asshole (two for the price of one even).

At this point, he doesn’t even bother to try to make sense. He just lets whatever words might serve his purposes fall out of his mouth, and counts on the loyalty of his sycophants to do the rest.

I sincerely expect future historians (if there are any) to have a specific name for this particular period in American history - something like “The idiot Age” or “The Faceplant Years.”

First they came for the immigrants, but I didn’t do anything because I wasn’t an immigrant…

Trying to bring back the good ol’ days, when rivers could catch fire.

Of course they are.

Under Trump, civilian harm is going to become their primary mission.

If you ever want to grow a bit of integrity, ask yourself why you’re avoiding what I said and focusing on the fact that I said it.