Is Romney just thick?

[_MCB]

Romney wouldn't condone convicted murderers to sit in jail for years at the cost to taxpayers of well over 40 thousand dollars a year per criminal.

Right. He would have them all executed. It is Mormon doctrine, denied by many.

[_Drifting]

Romney wouldn't have bailed out the auto industry. Romney wouldn't allow tax credits to be used by businesses who manufacture outside the United States. Romney wouldn't hire more people to work in the government. Romney wouldn't have bailed out the banks the way Obama did and the CEO's get bonuses. Romney wouldn't have allowed people with bad or limited credit to buy homes they way the Democrats did and all but destroyed the housing insutry. Romney would not allow people to just waltz into the United States whenever, however they can do it and use/abuse our benifits. Romney wouldn't condone convicted murderers to sit in jail for years at the cost to taxpayers of well over 40 thousand dollars a year per criminal.

Great, a list of what Romney wouldn't do...
Along with blaming Obama for the sins of Bush.

[_Drifting]

Romney wouldn't condone convicted murderers to sit in jail for years at the cost to taxpayers of well over 40 thousand dollars a year per criminal.

Right. He would have them all executed. It is Mormon doctrine, denied by many.

Instead, Romney would ________________
(fill in the blank Nipper)

[_EAllusion]

Is the suggestion that Romney would've passed regulations preventing subprime lending? Because, no he wouldn't. Republicans, as a general rule, (rightfully) defend that as an example of market pricing of risk. It's the Democrats that are more likely to want to legally restrict subprime loans with expensive, often complicated terms.

I suppose the implication is is that Democrats were somehow forcing or egregiously incentivizing banks to give out bad housing loans, but that's mostly a myth. Federal subprime incentives were only a tiny part of the reason for the explosion in the market. The most substantial culprit was the speculative bubble in mortgage backed securities driven by poor risk assessment and a flood of investment capital from low interest rates and an explosion in developing economy wealth.

It's doubtful that Romney would've been any different than Bush on this front and that's not an example of what he's going to do in the future as it's now a moot point.

[_Brackite]

I don't like Romney and won't be voting for him, but these kinds of criticisms are lame. These presidential candidates give hours and hours of speeches day after day and it is all recorded. Everyone makes these kinds of slip-ups. That's all it is. Like when Obama said "57 states" instead of 50 states. The wingnuts continue to excoriate the President for that verbal miscue, wrongly accusing him of not knowing how many states there are, or worse, asserting that he was cryptically referring to 57 Islamic states. I think we should cut Romney some slack on this one.

+1

[_Doctor Steuss]

Romney wouldn't have bailed out the auto industry. ... Romney wouldn't hire more people to work in the government. Romney wouldn't have bailed out the banks the way Obama did ...

Do you believe this would have resulted in lower unemployment, and a stronger economy than what we currently have?

Romney wouldn't have allowed people with bad or limited credit to buy homes they way the Democrats did and all but destroyed the housing insutry.

I have evidently been confused for a very long time. I thought it was Republicans who were generally against government regulations on finance and lending.

Romney would not allow people to just waltz into the United States whenever, however they can do it and use/abuse our benifits.

What comprehensive plan would Romney have implemented to prevent this? Keep in mind he wouldn't have hired more people to work in the government.

Romney wouldn't condone convicted murderers to sit in jail for years at the cost to taxpayers of well over 40 thousand dollars a year per criminal.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion on this (I definitely have strong feelings about the shortcomings, and privatization of prisons, myself). But... I imagine the 140 death row inmates who have later been found innocent (over the last 40 years), and their families would see this through a slightly different colored lens.

[_EAllusion]

I think the suggestion is that Romney would streamline the capital punishment process, which apparently is what our unconscionably corrupt criminal justice system needs. The problem with that suggestion is that Romney isn't trying to be elected governor of 50 states. At the federal level, there are only 58 people on death row. Even if Romney made it a priority to get these people killed fast, which he's given absolutely no indication that is a priority much less that is his desire, the relative impact of this on the nation would be incredibly small. So for him to list this as one of a handful of things he thinks Romney would do differently is sketchy at best. If, instead, he's hoping that Romney lobbies to open up capital punishment to a much larger range of federal crimes so that many more people are executed, he again has the problem of not having any reason to think Romney is going to successfully pass such a thing, or even that Romney desires to do that.

[_Bond James Bond]

Instead, Romney would ________________

Romney would...use investors who also provided financial support to the Salvadoran death squads during the El Salvador civil war.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/19 ... n-20120719

[_palerobber]

I don't like Romney and won't be voting for him, but these kinds of criticisms are lame. These presidential candidates give hours and hours of speeches day after day and it is all recorded. Everyone makes these kinds of slip-ups. That's all it is. Like when Obama said "57 states" instead of 50 states. The wingnuts continue to excoriate the President for that verbal miscue, wrongly accusing him of not knowing how many states there are, or worse, asserting that he was cryptically referring to 57 Islamic states. I think we should cut Romney some slack on this one.

agreed.

and by the way, he meant to say 47 states, not 50. brings back good memories. the GOP just had nothing -- nothing -- on this guy.

[_palerobber]

I probably will vote for Romney, simply because I won't vote for 4 more years of Obama.

yeah, nothing cures a headache like kicking yourself in the groin.

good luck with that.