re: #54 Targetpractice

Precisely. Even as sole shareholder, he had the power to decide who was in charge and what course the company would take. Saying that you’re sole shareholder and yet have no control over the company whatsoever is absurd.

At best, he could say that he was negligent, and that he didn’t actually make any of the decisions he was responsible for, that he completely neglected any of his responsibilities as CEO, owner, president, etc.

Is that really a quality we want in a guy who’s running for president? Someone who abandons his responsibilities like that?

This is really absurd. What Romney did is fine if you’re a wheeler-dealer CEO type, just out to make as much money as possible. The laws are structured so you can be CEO and not make any decisions, where you can just sign whatever shit you need to, and pass off responsibility while raking in cash. That’s fine— but it’s exactly the opposite qualities of someone that you want leading a country. You don’t want the guy who’s gaming the system to get the best results for himself.

One thing I’m glad of is that I think this is getting people to see more clearly how businesses operate, and how business leadership is not in any way similar to governmental leadership.