Not every random blog that says something you like is worthy of posting.

[MineralMan]

Google will find all sorts of stuff when you search for things that confirm your beliefs. Some of it is worthwhile, and some of it is just plain nonsense. For example, a blog written by a 14-year-old native of India living in Italy is probably not a great source of worthwhile information. If a blog is written by someone who is obviously using English as a second language, a little research into the blogger would seem worthwhile before posting it as if it were factual or even worth reading.

Just saying...

[NWCorona]

1. It would probably be better to give examples.

I do agree however that not all sites are equal.

[MineralMan]

2. Well, OK.

What's at this blog:

https://thepoliticalanalyzer.com/2016/05/08/sanders-leads-clinton-over-2-to-1-in-california/

was posted on DU this morning. That's the blog written by a 14-year-old kid from India who lives in Italy. A little digging turns up that information and the poorly-spelled and written English, along with the really ugly design of the blog makes it obvious that it's not worth posting on DU as evidence of anything.

The thread it was posted in has over 50 recs, besides. Confirmation bias does not mean that whatever people agree with is accurate or even coherent.

[NWCorona]

3. I seen that tread but didn't comment until I can research the numbers.

I just scanned the content but it seems well referenced. Especially compared to others posted here.

I'll circle back when I can look at it without interruptions.

[angrychair]

4. Interesting

You speak out about blogs or news stories that are against you chosen candidate but have never heard you speak out against the use of neo-Nazi, anti Semitic, holocaust denial websites like tomato bubble or Stormfront or opinion websites that are actually owned by HRC's campaign manager. Funny coincidence I guess.