Carol Kelly wrote:
Then why is she there? If they can, they should exclude her. Does she even know what the Constitution is?
She is there because the 43 Congressional District in California (almost ALL of Los Angeles county) she supposedly represents v**ed 76.1% in her favor over opponent Omar Navarro who got 23.9% of 219,516 v**es in the 2016 e******n. But she doesn't live like the vast majority of her constitutants---NO...She lives the lavish life that her big money as free speech donors allow her--which is extravagantly lavish life style, not even in her own district if I what I have read is true.
Truly the ugly lifestyle of inner big cities is d********g. It is so blatant that it is reflected in the quality and mindset of those (Maxcine Waters types) they should but do not represent. They are there for the personal gains by playing partisan political grandstanding and not even in a rational way.
But hey, it's present in both arms of the corporate party. Sanctimonious repubs want always to cut funding for programs that help the less fortunate, the elderly, the disabled, poor families, veterans (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, EBT...when not a word is said about excessive, wasteful, fraudulent TRILLIONS of military spending on continual, illegal, unConstitutional, immoral warmongering. ALL TO THE BENEFIT OF A FEW MILITARY WEAPONS CONTRACTORS AND BANKSTERS!!
Hence Carroll Quigley's observation in his book, “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any e******n without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy”
It is all a dog and pony show for the sheople. Both arms (democrats-left and republicans-right) of the corporate party are in on the s**m--fleecing the sheople.