Battle of the Sexist

Dateline: Los Angeles, CA
7:30am (PDT)

Yesterday Sen. Elizabeth Warren was in full-attack mode on The_Donald, and many tweets were exchanged.  What is notable about this is the adolescent level (for now) of the sparring between the two; The_Donald questioning and calling Warren “goofy,” and with Warren broadsiding him with:

“Goofy,” @realDonaldTrump? For a guy with “the best words” that’s a pretty lame nickname. Weak!

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) May 7, 2016

No, @realDonaldTrump – your racism, sexism & xenophobia doesn't drive me nuts. It makes me sick. And I'm not alone.

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) May 7, 2016

Come to think about it, it was a pathetic choice of “word” and a term that presumably just came off the top of The_Donald’s toupée …err, implant, err head, so to speak.  Now of course the Twitter-sphere is filled with Trumpeteers and Trumpkins, and or Trumpolines tossing their F-bombs & B-bombs and the matter over Warren’s claim, turned controversy some years back regarding her being a fraction by blood Cherokee, and of her American Indian heritage.

Needless to say it is unlikely that she is even by a fraction, American Indian. However, according to Megan Smolenyak, an independent genealogist who weighed in on this said, “Many more Americans believe they have Native ancestry than actually do (we always suspected this, but can now confirm it through genetic testing) …In fact, in terms of wide-spread ancestral myths, this is one of the top two (the other being those who think their names were changed at Ellis Island). And someone who hails from Oklahoma would be even more prone to accept a tale of Native heritage than most…”  Like the name “Drumph” aka “Drunkph” or “Trump,” and perhaps of one being a bit of a “birther” authority himself?

Now the charge by women (eg. Hillary Clinton, Warren, et al.) of him being an adulterous sexist certainly does possess a whole lot of veracity based on many things he has said about women recently and in the past.  But is he a misogynist?  Unlikely, since he likes and loves women … and as objects, and as tools to utilize, and rule over. Ah but does that make him a “sexist?” Or in the parlance of an age long past, a “SEXIST PIG?”  It is likely that there is a tinge of trepidation with him having encountered strong women, in a ‘blood sport,’ on the battlefield of politics, and not in some Wall Street board room negotiation, or “deal.”

And so goes this political battle of wits, and “the best words” – between a man whose own knee jerk[s] over the size of his hands brought into question in public the size of his manhood, and a woman who believed in tales of her heritage passed on from generation to generation in her family – It is amusing, if not entertaining to say the least.