Matt Bors for October 10, 2012

Wow.[]So Bors is calling out Politifact?

“The problem Obama had with the debate is that Romney had all the facts at his fingertips”And chose not to use them. Romney was fact checked and was found lying, as was Obama. Y’all go on and on about how lack luster Obama is while ignoring that your own candidate is also garbage.Once again, the election is between a douche and a turd sandwich.

I think most of us can agree that Obama has been a big disappointment. The question is whether Romney/Ryan will help.I will refrain from repeating what I posted a while back about how their plans for Medicare and Medicaid will force us to choose between borrowing much more and just waiting for people to die without treatment.I will refer readers to a recent Ryan interview with Chris Wallace on Fox. He asked Ryan how the proposed 20% across-the-board tax cut, which will cost $5 trillion over 10 years, would be paid for. Ryan said it was revenue-neutral.To his credit, Wallace asked him for specifics. Twice. Both times, Ryan said it would be revenue-neutral, and nothing more. I guess money will appear from somewhere. I’ll trust him. He seems so very nice.Back to the original question: will things get better under Romney/Ryan? I’m still waiting for any kind of plan to show up. So, I present this challenge to posters on this site: prove to other posters HOW Romney/Ryan will do a better job. The easy ones (he’s not going to be Obama) have been taken. Share a plan or two. Show how the numbers work. Take your time getting it together. My vote hangs with you. Good luck.

While the toon exaggerates, an intelligent version of this is viable. Have a counter and scroll bar for viewers and the candidates. Each lie gets a point and the proof of the lie runs at the bottom of the screen as in other news and sporting events. Make it even more fun for the viewers. Have one score set by independent objective judges in their booths, and another as seen by the news organization of a particular channel. ABC vs NBC vs CBS vs Fox vs PBS. The news organization who proves to have been the most accurate during all debates gets a special emmy.. An emmy for truth might be a good idea anyway.Sadly, these debates are negotiated intensely and the candidates will not allow such verifying to be done on them unless ALL channels and MOST voters force them into it. Even then, they might forgo public debates in order to make sure, “the show must go on”.Sure would be fun tho. C

People finally got to see Romney in an open debate, not in one of the Dems false ads and they saw what a real leader looks like. I think Boors and the Dems need some grief counseling.

There is enough video and written material by the candidates that prior to any debate, fact checkers involved have the technology to quickly compare the comment just spoken to past comments. I doubt if a delay of over two minutes would be needed by prepared professionals. questionable statements. A half truth is a whole lie. An ambiguous statement (love that word) is the responsibility of the moderator who should ask a follow-up that removes the ambiguity. It is doable on a technological level, but as I said before, no candidate wants to be held to facts and truths on a public forum. Political ads would be alot more tolerable if truth was a legal requirement of the candidates.Thank you for your thoughts.C.

If one team can’t fix the problem, then get another team.QUICK!!