Is Mitt Romney a pathological liar?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Romney would probably tell the truth if his life depended on it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, but he is convinced that the average voter is an ignorant moron with the attention span of a goldfish.

He probably hates Google.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What about Obama and NAFTA, or his complete turn on gay marriage, which may I point out was completely absurd and far less believable then anything Romney has changed positions on? Is Obama a pathological liar?

Well, both politicians have moved significantly to the right, but Romney's flip flops are more hilarious.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's not silly; it's a good point. But I'm still discomforted by the idea of a President who doesn't have a solid understanding of what life is like for most people; that's an understanding that should inform every decision that he or she makes.

(It's possible that Romney's problem is merely that he can't show this understanding. For Christ's sake, there are plenty of politicians who can show it without understanding it. But there's nothing in his platform or background to demonstrate that he does.)

It's clear to me that Romney sees someone's value as whom they know. He constantly mentions how he's friends with some well-connected elites. In Mitt Romney world, you get the job based on whom you know, not actual merit.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But is that not an actual principle- "it's not what you know, it's whom you know"? Romney is hardly alone in that aspect. But I think his name-dropping is again a poorly-fleshed-out attempt at relating. I'm not particularly concerned about a lack of "sharing in the struggle" but rather a lack of a major personal crucible. JFK, McCain, and Bush I all grew up in privileged backgrounds but all underwent great struggle in their youth and later. Romney did not.

I'm not sure if FDR did, so maybe the point is moot, but it doesn't have to necessarily have to be a struggle of the common man, but one to begin with- because that is ultimately what "what life is like for most people"- a struggle. For the wealthy it is one of privilege and ease- we define it by its lack of a struggle.

Well obviously this country would still be definitely not a meritocracy even if the Romney family stopped existing, but it's obvious that he's making it worse. Being a CEO turned governor turned Presidential candidate is a lot easier if your daddy did the same exact thing.  

We've had some Presidents with humble roots (Clinton for one), and others (like FDR) who still helped average Americans despite their own privileged upbringing, but it's pretty clear that Romney is definitely neither of those.