Well for starters, he wasn't democratically elected. 

"Oh but you see we're not a Democracy, but a Republic. The founding fathers didn't want a rule of the majority, so they setup the Electoral College to prevent that!"

Yeah, yeah, X people's votes shouldn't count. It's the rallying cry of every fascist regime ever. China, Russia, and every other tinpot dictatorship around the world is technically a Republic too ya know? Not to mention, the creation of the electoral college was a result of the infamous 3/5ths compromise. Northern states didn't think it would be fair for southern states to be able to count slaves as people towards representation. Southern states didn't think it would be fair to not count slaves at all. Of course, in hindsight, obviously having slaves who were ineligible to vote, being electorally represented, at the ballot box, by the very people who put them in chains, is fascist. But the founding fathers either weren't bright enough to see this due to their cultural bias, or were forced to make a compromise either way. 

Second, his list of travel banned countries was authoritarian. But he's not the only authoritarian president. There have been many starting with Andrew Jackson. The office of the presidency needs to be reigned in massively. 

"Well for starters, he wasn't democratically elected. "

the united states is not a democracy... its a republic

"It's the rallying cry of every fascist regime ever. China, Russia, and every other tinpot dictatorship around the world is technically a Republic too ya know?"

the vast majority of people i've seen use this word over the past year or so, do not really understand what it means

ok let me give an example lets say i have a group of 10 people and 6 people (the majority obviously) democratically get to determine what policies the group has to follow... lets say they then decide to silence the opinions of the remaining 4... is this fascism under democracy? or not?

what is the solution to this problem? can you guess?

"Second, his list of travel banned countries was authoritarian. But he's not the only authoritarian president."

how can he be authoritarian towards citizens of other countries? doesn't that only apply to people who are citizens of your own country?

"founding fathers either weren't bright enough to see this or were forced to make a compromise"

the founding fathers were leviathan intelligences and when their gifts are completely thrown away, the consequences for us citizens will be dire

The news should report the facts, all of the facts, and nothing but the facts. If those facts support one candidate over another, then that is not propaganda. It simply means reality is biased against one candidate over another. All opinion pieces in newspapers, and cable T.V. are propaganda to some degree or another, unless the outlet gives equal time, representation, and space to both sides of an issue. For example: Let's say Fox or CNN, or NBC decides to gather up a panel to talk about global warming. Now let's say they bring in a ratio of 5 to 1 either for or against global warming. The minority (whichever it may be) gets hammered by the other five people on the talk show. That is propaganda. A better approach would be to bring in just two experts, one that agrees, and one that disagrees. In the 80's and 90's broadcasters were stuck with a fine for doing this. Republicans and a few Democrats decided to do away with those fines. That gave rise to Fox News, with its reporters that scream over any liberal guests, and cut their mikes. 

Anyway I hope that answers your question of what we should do. Simply go back to fining offenders. 

Any outlets saying that Clinton had a 99% chance to win the election were blatantly lying. The real odds were more like 33% for Trump and 66% for Clinton. That's what sites like 270 were reporting based on detailed analysis. 

It's not about censoring left or right outlets. There should be no left or right outlets, and before 1996 all news networks were simply news. If any network decided to start making propaganda they were struck with fines. But again, after these fines were done away with Rupert Murdoch started Fox News and ran a 24/7 propaganda network. Slowly other networks joined in as a reactionary tactic, and news became more about ratings than actual news. Nine times out of ten, whenever a right winger says that mainstream media is biased, what they really mean is that reality is biased. Some things such as evolution, man made global warming, price controls, and the success of communism are not up for debate. Ninetynine percent of climate and evolutionary scientists agree, because the facts overwhelmingly line up with their assessments. It doesn't matter what religious idiots, or oil companies think. Nintetynine percent of economists agree that price controls, and communism are terrible for the economy. It doesn't matter what New Yorkers with rent control, or Bernie supporters think. The difference here is that you won't hear liberals complaining that the MSM doesn't report on the successes of extreme socialism, because they know that's crazy talk. They secretly know that their extreme positions have been rejected by reality, and understand why the MSM doesn't give their ideas the time of day. 

have you realised that i've asked you about 5 times now for an example of one of the russian lies pushed to influence america ( such as the facebook ads you mentioned ) and so far you have not been able to list one?

Well for starters, he wasn't democratically elected. 

"Oh but you see we're not a Democracy, but a Republic. The founding fathers didn't want a rule of the majority, so they setup the Electoral College to prevent that!"

Yeah, yeah, X people's votes shouldn't count. It's the rallying cry of every fascist regime ever. China, Russia, and every other tinpot dictatorship around the world is technically a Republic too ya know? Not to mention, the creation of the electoral college was a result of the infamous 3/5ths compromise. Northern states didn't think it would be fair for southern states to be able to count slaves as people towards representation. Southern states didn't think it would be fair to not count slaves at all. Of course, in hindsight, obviously having slaves who were ineligible to vote, being electorally represented, at the ballot box, by the very people who put them in chains, is fascist. But the founding fathers either weren't bright enough to see this due to their cultural bias, or were forced to make a compromise either way. 

Second, his list of travel banned countries was authoritarian. But he's not the only authoritarian president. There have been many starting with Andrew Jackson. The office of the presidency needs to be reigned in massively. 

He was legitimately elected as President and you don't know what authoritarian or fascist means considering how you're using the terms.  

Yeah...both Putin and Erdogan (and Hitler btw) were also democratically elected...and all used fear mongering and misinformation and threatening the opposition as tactics to gain votes and confuse and destabilise the opposition and their supporters.

Again, some of you should look up what authoritarian means and how that reflects in policies. Comparing him to the likes of hitler only makes it difficult to take you seriously.