The Founders felt so strongly that each state have an equal vote in the Senate independent of the population of the state that the ONLY thing that can't be amended in the Constitution with approval of ¾ of the states
Actually, the one thing all the founders agreed on was that the structure of the electoral college was not ideal, but acceptable. The southern states put forward the Virginia plan, which would have given representation based on population. Northern states put forward the New Jersey plan, which would have given the same number of representatives to each state regardless of population. They settled for the Connecticut Compromise which resulted in our bicameral legislature and the electoral college as it's formed today.
Hillary Clinton won 300 counties while Trump won 5000. If you think that the election of a nation should be swayed by a handful of cities while the rest of the nation is completely ignored, well, you're an idiot.
Those 300 counties represent 51 percent of the voters while the 5000 counties represent 49 percent. That handful of cities is the majority of Americans. So, on behalf of most American's let me just say, you're an idiot.
Although your examples may not be valid it is true that there are and were false posts targeted at both sides, just more targeted at conservative readers. And it's not just false information, it's misleading information.
Here's an example targeted at liberals today: The Secret Service is opening an office in Trump Towers because Trump's family won't be living at the White House. This implies that it's the Secret Service is doing something unusual and that Trump is misusing government resources. It's not true. Typically Presidents will have a home away from the White House. George H. W. Bush went to Kennibunkport. IIRC Clinton went to the Hamptons. George W. Bush had his farm in Texas. In each case the Secret Service had to do whatever it is they do to keep the President and his family safe. If anything Trump Tower is probably easier to secure because of it's location.
But anyway this isn't a pissing contest. We aren't blaming the right, we're recognizing that people are being manipulated. These posts need to be stopped whether they're targeted at liberal or conservative voters.
I forgot to mention. I don't mind when commentators advocate for conservative positions. In fact I think it's critically important that they do. I do however mind when someone like Rush Limbaugh takes no responsibility for telling the truth. He has been confronted time and again for making false statements. His answer is that he's an entertainer and not a reporter.
Also, people on the left don't describe themselves as socialist or communist because they are not either. They shy away from the liberal label because it has come to imply a more radical position than most on the left hold. The fact is that the most radical left wing politician today is to the right of the most conservative Republicans of the 1970's. How many people remember when Republicans were voting for welfare and public housing? When is the last time you heard a Democrat argue for welfare? Bernie Sander's is the first politician in 25 years to openly support socialism. Did you see the party rally around him? No, the Blue Dog Democrats smashed him like a bug.
Truth is not absolute.
Scenario: Dad asks child if mom gave permission to have a friend over. Child says yes, but doesn't tell dad that mom changed her mind after the child got in trouble. Did the child tell the truth?
This is exactly the type of manipulation that Fox News uses all day every day. Just look at the scrolling news alerts. How many are questions that imply an answer?
When a statement is propagated that is demonstrably false it should be possible to challenge it. That isn't possible with today's social media. If I challenge the truthfulness of a post only a small number of people will see it. That is an important difference between a publisher and a commenter on social media. If the Washington Post publishes something that's demonstrably untrue it can be challenged.
I do think it's important to find a solution that allows people to continue speaking freely. I may disagree with my right-wing friends but I don't want to silence them. Here's the solution I've been mulling over specifically for Facebook. Facebook is the only social media site I use so I can't suggest how this could work for other sites.
It should be possible for readers to flag a post as being untruthful. If enough readers challenge the post, Facebook could add a notice to all the threads it got forwarded to. Challenges could be counter-challenged as well. If that happens another notice would be added. If an accountable publisher writes about the post, a link can be included as well. Once people recognize that other people have questioned the authenticity of a claim they can decide for themselves whether it's true.
The actual article is much more straight forward. Note these lines:
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
he gave classified information to NATO allies without approval
There's nothing ambiguous there. But while I think it's unlikely he damaged national security with his flouting of the rules, the following paragraph is more disconcerting.
Flynn was one of the few high-ranking officers who disdained the Army’s culture of conformity. But McChrystal also knew he had to protect Flynn from that same culture. He “boxed him in,” someone who had worked with both men told me last week, by encouraging Flynn to keep his outbursts in check and surrounding him with subordinates who would challenge the unsubstantiated theories he tended to indulge.
And then there's this:
His subordinates started a list of what they called “Flynn facts,” things he would say that weren’t true, like when he asserted that three-quarters of all new cell phones were bought by Africans or, later, that Iran had killed more Americans than Al Qaeda.
This is the man who will be advising our president on issues pertaining to national security. A man who indulges in unsubstantiated theories
"For a male and female to live continuously together is... biologically speaking, an extremely unnatural condition." -- Robert Briffault