War Hypothesis Revisited

This brings a lot of questions to the fore, and the things we should be taking note of are kind of scary.
1) How the hell did he get into office?
2) Why is the press and government trying to blame Russian interference?
3) Why is the press and government now trying to blame Zuckerburg and Facebook for not only Trump getting into office but violence in Burma (Myanmar) and other political problems?
4) Why are there conversations on censoring Facebook and the internet in general - this goes against American philosophy.

I mean, he did win legally, right?

1) How the hell did he get into office? GOPers were desperate. And now they are desperately hanging on, trying to stand by him so they don't have to admit they F'd up.

2) Why is the press and government trying to blame Russian interference? Lies and misinformation can be considered interference, and the Russians knew a % of the population is gullible.

3) Why is the press and government now trying to blame Zuckerburg and Facebook for not only Trump getting into office but violence in Burma (Myanmar) and other political problems? They didn't do enough to stop the spread of misinformation.

4) Why are there conversations on censoring Facebook and the internet in general - this goes against American philosophy. There are regulations on what news media can publish, and since the gullible take facebook as a news feed, they need to be more accountable.

I mean, he did win legally, right? Yes

Yes.

What is your point?

1) How the hell did he get into office?

HE LOST BY 3 MILLION VOTES

Remember when George Bush Jr lost the popular vote to Al Gore and the social and media uproar it caused? The difference was 513,895 votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election

2) Why is the press and government trying to blame Russian interference?

HE LOST BY 3 MILLION VOTES

Why blame anyone? If the Russians were pumping false propaganda into the Media - which happens all the time not just by Russians - the American voters where not swayed by it. This reflects the level of education and savvy of our voter block today. It is a big Hurrah for our populace. Blaming the Russians implies some sort of guilt and/or admission he shouldn't have won.

3) Why is the press and government now trying to blame Zuckerburg and Facebook for not only Trump getting into office but violence in Burma (Myanmar) and other political problems?

HE LOST BY 3 MILLION VOTES

Zuckerburg and Facebook are now being encouraged to censor their user content. This is like something China or Iran would do to it's internet users. Facebook did not sway the vote toward helping Trump win the election. He lost the popular vote.

What are the regulations governing what the media can publish? Obviously they have to fact check their stories because others can fact check them - but that does not make their stories always true or valid. If there are regulations I am unaware of them. I believe they can be sued in civil court for false stories however.

I mean he did win legally, right?

See everything else above. He lost by 3 million votes. If this is legal why all the apologetic press stories and investigations?

By "regulations" are you asking about laws?

Within any given media organization, there are "rules and regulations" that are guidelines for journalists within the scope of their employment at the media organization.

In terms of "laws": Journalists cannot commit crimes (i.e. libel, slander, inciting riots, etc.). Beyond committing crimes, our Constitution protects freedom of speech... freedom of the press.

Yes.

Trump won.

Surely the fact that Trump won the 2016 presidential election is so obvious that that cannot be the point you are trying to make.

So, again I ask: What is your point?

Nixon won two elections: Why was he investigated?

Clinton won two elections: Why was he investigated?

Trump won one election: Why shouldn't he be investigated for suspected wrong doing?

Side note: I think you are misusing the word "apologetic" but I am not 100% certain. Perhaps you could use a different adjective so I can figure out what you are asking...maybe...

I don't disagree with the current investigation into Trump's alleged activities relating to Ukraine. I'm not a Trump supporter. I'm talking about the actual election and the dangerous rhetoric of censorship it seems to have spawned.

In other words, yeah he won, but was it legal? The press doesn't seem to be convinced.

Trump won. What else about the election are you discussing?




Yes it was legal.

Which parts of "the press" don't seem convinced?



Which rhetoric of censorship?

1. Calling journalism "you" don't like "fake"?

2. Calling journalists or media outlets "you" don't like "the enemy of the people"?

3. Calling opinion pieces "fake news"?

4. Calling things that are actually factual "fake news" and/or "alternate facts"?

5. Something else?

I mean is it too weird to say a president could be installed despite voter intent and the whole incident be turned around to normalize censorship?

Fake news is a broad term. Some fake news is simply the omission of certain facts related to a story. Some fake news is purposefully propagated by spy agencies like the KGB or CIA.
https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-funded-by-cia-2016-9

There is no proof in the history of the USA that this has happened.



So, are you suggesting that Trump was "installed" as president with the intent to "normalize censorship"?