To be fair on one point, the aerosol water... it’s a bit from his HBO comedy special. He mentions the absurdity of the product, says he takes it out and uses it when someone isn’t paying attention to him, then spends a couple minutes (literally) spraying the stuff on his face.

He literally trolls every interviewer for every article. I’m not sure when people will start catching on. It’s irritating! I’m not defending the lines he threw out there, I’m just figuratively pulling my hair out while metaphorically screaming HE’S TROLLING YOU IN REAL LIFE. IF YOU CAN SPOT A TROLL ONLINE, HOW CAN YOU…

Yeah, no kiddin. In that last interview he did, he referred to writers that graduated from Harvard as “That Crimson Trash!” He might as well have winked dramatically at the interviewer.

He also has Yogi Bear 3D, he has nothing to lose

All of his Emoji Movie interviews are being done with the express intention of getting articles written highlighting the absurd things he’s saying during these interviews. We can debate the purpose and effectiveness of his approach but this is all satire.

“They’re taught to suppress their sense of humor during their formative years,”

I just remembered that he had a portion of his brain removed:

Can you read? He doesn’t say that women aren’t funny. He says that women are socially conditioned to suppress their sense of humor, which sounds a lot like an argument against how we raise our daughters under the confines of patriarchy.

I think it’s actually the opposite. He was unable to play any character other than himself. He quit Silicon Valley. That is why on the show he is in an opium den with a pre-paid tab, paid for by Gavin, to ‘support’ him for 5 years.

 Are you just not in on the joke? None of this is serious.

Faux news lies; 45 Tweets the lies. NY Times demand apology, but from Faux news. NY Times silent on 45 who tweeted the lies to the world.

But the main question is WHY should WOC be helped more explicitly than anyone else?

My Representative and one of my Senators are women as well. The Representative seems like a pretty awesome person. Most of her policy positions and her voting record are solid. The Senator, not so much. She’s little more than partisan parrot, voting lockstep with the party and spouting talking points with no apparent…

I don’t think it’s a male/female issue. 2/3 of my representatives in congress are women and they’re just as useless as their male counterparts. Get rid of the 2-party / primary system and maybe we can get representatives who do more than just follow party lines.

If the women are Shelia Jackson Lee or Nancy Pelosi, then no.

No. It’s about ideas, not sex, gender, ethnicity, religion. Get two groups together, women and men, and I guarantee you there are an equal number of chowderheads in each group. So, you can raise the % of women in government, but because it’s politics, you’ll still have the same percentage of evil, sociopathic…

I may just be in a bad mood right now, but I feel like the headline for this article is misleading. Your article is a puff piece on a 501(c)(3) as opposed to an analysis or opinion piece on whether more women in government would change the status quo. The headline should reflect that.

If they are anything like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, or Maxine Waters, the answer is NO. If they are like, say, Tulsi Gabbard, just as an example, then fuck yes they can.

Every morning as I drive to work, listen to NPR, and get angrier and angrier, I think “I should run for office.” I want to fight for positive changes, I’m fascinated by legislation and diplomacy and the whole shebang, but I think I’m too soft for politics. I’m not sure I could face the stress and volatility.

This is fairly timely, as the last year has been terrible for women running for office. Wealthy women from their societies’ dominant/ruling/privileged ethnic group and religious background and wealthy backgrounds running for national heads of state, specifically. Clinton, LePen, and May are the most well known…