re: #88 Daniel Ballard

I’m not sure what you mean by making the perfect the enemy of the good. The ‘fact-checking’ sites do a very valuable service in laying out a logical argument and then stating their conclusion.

Sometimes, the conclusion doesn’t really make sense. Sometimes, the argument’s logic isn’t that good. Sometimes, the facts of the case are not all included in the reasoning.

This has happened enough that I take the conclusions of the fact-checking sites with a grain of salt, and then verify the story.

The should not be relied upon as independent arbiters of truth simply because they’ve declared themselves to be so. That should be reliant on their actual record. They’re good; they’re not great, and they’ve fallen down on some very major issues.