Romney Doesn’t Know Why

[Marts]

Romney Doesn’t Know Why Airplane Windows Won’t Open, Calls The Closed Window Policy ‘A Real Problem’

Affluent Imagineer Mitt Romney has some exciting new proposals for the future of airplane design, according to some remarks he made to the L. A. Times at a fundraiser in Beverly Hills Saturday Night.

Romney was quoted in the Times speaking about his chevalier Ann's brush with danger last week, when a plane on which she was a passenger was forced to make an emergency landing after an electrical fire caused the cabin to fill with smoke.

http://gawker.com/5945967/romney-doe...a-real-problem

[Queens Guy]

You don't have to like Mitt Romney, but he isn't this stupid. You'll never see the video of him saying this because you will immediately realize how slanted the 'reporting' of this is. He said the words, but he wasn't serious.

Mitt Romney is not stupid. Just like President Obama is not stupid. They both got Law Degrees from Harvard.

There are real policy differences between the two candidates. Let's discuss them instead of pretending one of them doesn't understand things everybody knows.

[trish]

I have seen a video of this and it's pretty clear that the audience thought he was joking. But that doesn't mean he's not stupid...he does believe in the Angel Moroni and the sacred leaves of gold that con-man and prophet Joe dug up in Palmyra NY last century. There's a sucker born every minute.

[Ben]

You don't have to like Mitt Romney, but he isn't this stupid. You'll never see the video of him saying this because you will immediately realize how slanted the 'reporting' of this is. He said the words, but he wasn't serious.

Mitt Romney is not stupid. Just like President Obama is not stupid. They both got Law Degrees from Harvard.

There are real policy differences between the two candidates. Let's discuss them instead of pretending one of them doesn't understand things everybody knows.

Maybe out of touch, isolated. Because of who he is. His background. And being in the upper echelon of the corporate world. So, the likes of Romney and others like him don't live a so-called normal existence, as it were.
Well, was George Bush stupid? What about Dan Quayle?
Anyway, what does it actually mean? Well, in part, it means: gullible or naive or childlike. Is Romney somewhat, say, childlike? Possibly. Because of his circumstances. So, maybe it's a maturity thing. Who knows.
And:
I don't see "real" policy differences between the two. I mean, both pretty much agree on issues of free trade, foreign policy and serving the same center of power etc., etc.
I mean, the president simply manages the overall system. They simply placate people and institutions that own it and run it. No big mystery. Most Americans know it.
I mean, a Romney presidency may drive up the deficit and debt even further. Military expenditures will probably go up.
Taxation may come down.... Not for middle and working class Americans though.
Oh, remember hope -- and change... ha ha! Bill Clinton also ran on change.
Romney is kinda doing that too.
Will anything actually change? No, of course not.
I mean, the president, again, serves corporate power. And corporations, by their very design, are right-leaning institutions. So, public policy must reflect their interests.
And that'll never change.

[Ben]

As I just wrote: "... the president simply manages the overall system. They simply placate people and institutions that own it and run it. No big mystery. Most Americans know it."
Hereya go.... So much for real and meaningful democracy.
I mean, we should make the sharp distinction between elections and actual meaningful and profound democracy.

[Marts]

The Romney campaign has damage control to deal with, and the fact that he's (Romney) losing, or in Republican terms, "loosing," doesn't help.

[Prospero]

There IS a difference It is simply wrong to claim otherwise. You might not like either. But a GOP president and control of the two houses will usher in a change for the worse.

[trish]

Just think back to the Bush vs Gore election. Had it gone the other way do you think we'd have gone to war in Iraq? Do you think we would have given away a ten year surplus to the richest Americans as a tax cut? Would we have burdened schools with an idiotic testing program where funding depends on performance on exams made up by the individual States? There's a huge difference between what the two parties offer and how they respond to problems. Yes, both parties have to live within the current fluxes of power and a lot of that flux comes from private and corporate fortunes, but all democracies present and future will be influenced and buffeted by concentrations of wealth and power whatever their origin.

[Prospero]

Very succinctly put Trish.

[LABiM75&StrF51]

`

Having a degree does not mean, you're not stupid.
Like everything, stupid is relative.
Sure he may know law and theory, but he may also lack enough common sense to realize how decompression works....
thus, in that case, no matter how many degrees he has he would be considered stupid.
Romney's biggest fault is his disconnect to the reality of the U.S. population outside of the sheltered existence he has had, and that makes him appear very stupid in many average situations.

`