Just so I have this right,
A billionaire who hasn’t voted in 26 years suddenly decides she’s the most qualified to run California.
Immeasurable arrogance aside, let’s pretend for a moment there’s a moral preponderance for civic duty (which to date hasn’t been proven in any way).
Regardless of party affiliation, she’s spending too much of her own money.
Is that a precedent that needs to be set?
Does the state need to be run by the person with the most money?
Imagine the possibilities.
Wow, another politician politically dodging questions and futilely attempting to divert the conversation.