And get two thirds of both parts of Congress to ratify it, which is borderline impossible. Plus, the people can petition their state governments to pass another Amendment to undo it which, again, would require a two thirds majority in the resultant convention.
Trump won't take over and become our new emperor. That's fearmongering bullshit and not how the god damned government works. He'll be another Bush, Jr. and that's going to be pretty much it.
I wanted to take a few days to think over what I was trying to say because I think you raise a very valid point. To clarify, I am speaking out of two sides of my mouth to an extent. On the one hand, I repeat my prior statement that I think it is the worst form of American exceptionalism to believe that we are somehow immune to falling prey to an authoritarian leader. We have a Constitution, but so have several European nations that fell to fascism in the 40's, and so have many modern African nations that fell prey to dictators more recently. At the end of the day, the Constitution is a piece of paper that outlines division of powers and political institutions and not some magical panacea for the preservation of
democracy.
On the other, Trump represents something fundamentally different than our previous presidents: he has a complete disdain for the facts, glorifies himself above all else, openly discussed curtailing civil liberties during the election season, has no policy experience, has no respect for division of powers of the institutions within government, is probably the most authoritarian president in our history, and largely got elected due to bigotry, xenophobia, and fear.
To clarify, I cannot quantify in terms of percentages the risk that Trump poses, because this is novel territory that we are treading on. That said, I think Trump represents a sort of stress test to our government, the institutions within it, and our separation of powers. He talked about religious tests for entering the United States and for citizenship, he talked about databases and registries for those same religious groups, he has repeatedly called for curtailing the freedom of the press and appears to be taken steps in that direction before elected (threatening the press off the record, threatening to remove access to press that won't say what he wants, going so long without a press conference), he has called to remove jus soli and to be allowed to strip citizens of citizenship, he has showed complete disregard for the 4-6th Amendments and the rights of the criminally accused, and he doesn't understand the divide between state and federal powers as he has several times called for things that violate the 10th Amendment, among other Constitutional provisions. All that said, while he may not be able to achieve every unconstitutional thing he wants, he will achieve some of them because our Constitution's best safeguard is the separation of powers, which is purely hypothetical today as the Republicans in Congress have no interest in standing up against him.
I have started seeing a meme on the net claiming that Jill Stein's recount discovered voter fraud by the Democrats. But most websites that talk about the recount say that there has been no evidence of fraud. Are sites like this one reliable? http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/jill-stein-recount-finds-voter-fraud-hillary-supporters/
I usually go with a good rule of thumb: if the website refers to the liberal, currently minority part of the USA as the "Democrat Party", they're probably not a reliable source.
A very good rule of thumb.
pretending as if she has any remaining claim to relevancy
You are talking about Clinton, right? aka the candidate who won the popular vote in a fucking landslide, right?
Because that doesn't sound like you read that particular memo...
She won the popular vote, yes, but lost states that Democratic candidates hadn't lost in almost thirty years. (Bush Sr. was the last Republican to take Michigan or Pennsylvania, and Reagan was the last one to take Wisconsin.) Her wing of the Democratic Party fell out of touch with what voters in those states think, and they remember all too well that it was Bill Clinton who did NAFTA and Hillary Clinton who called the TPP "the gold standard." As far as many of them are concerned, NAFTA shipped half their jobs out of the country and TPP would do for the other half, and they were not going to vote for someone who supported NAFTA and flip-flopped on the TPP.
She lost the Rust Belt, probably also costing the Democrats the Senate since Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had Republican incumbents, and if the Democratic Party has any designs on getting back into power, they need to ditch the corporatist wing of the party that can't credibly speak to those voters. Hillary Clinton, at this point, is to many voters the personification of that part of the Democratic Party, and as such for the party to have any hope she has to go away. Her clinging onto relevance only hurts the party at this point.
She lost those states because they have a high level of uneducated, white voters. If you take a chance to read The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer, you will see that those people are most susceptible to voting for an authoritarian wanker like Trump (hence why I remain skeptical that they'd vote Bernie over Trump). Also, just because they believe that free trade killed their jobs does not make it so: the CBO did a study in 2003 that found its effect on jobs was negligible while growing the economy by about 3%. What is more, if you look at when most of those jobs were lost, it was following NAFTA, but after the dot-com bubble burst, indicating that free trade is not the jobs killer that so many idiots like to make it out to be.
Further, if Bernie were the nom, while he probably would've won Wisconsin and Michigan, maybe Pennsylvania to a lesser degree of certainty, he would've handily lost Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona. He also probably would have lost Virginia, Nevada, and Ohio, meaning that Trump would still likely hit 270. The trade off was that Bernie did better with whites, but he did not do as well with Hillary's more racially diverse electorate that make up a sizeable population in each of the six states listed. And, if the Superdelegates took the election from Hillary, whom most of them voted for, I can only imagine them feeling pissed that the Supers stole the nomination from their candidate in favor of the White-Man's candidate (as women, racial minorities, and maybe even LGBTQ voters went Hillary, the last one being that the only poll I looked up on LGBTQ voters showed a close race in March, with them favoring Hillary). This circular firing squad that certain Democrats are trying to create, calling to end things like "political correctness" and "identity politics" (as you have done and as Bernie has done) in favor of catering to uneducated whites who don't know the fucking cause of their problems is asinine as it won't win any elections, but it will throw away the larger voting blocs that the Democrats have relied on for almost half a century. Not to mention that "political correctness" caused Pat McCrory to lose North Carolina after trying his whole transgender bathroom bullshit. Tangentially, it is also worth noting that in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, Bernie or Bust got Jill Stein more votes than the difference between Hillary and Trump.
Truth be told, I'm really over you going after Hillary like a dog chasing a car. She lost, it sucks, but give her a break dude. Cracking down on fake news is not a threat to the first amendment as the two are easily distinguishable. And her weakness was not due to being "establishment" or "corporate" (facts indicate she's not nearly as corporate as people like to believe, but I've posted those articles almost a dozen times now) and the selective call for purity with regards to Clinton (but not say, Obama 4 or 8 years ago) for her corporate ties is sexism, plain and simple.* Her weakness was due to a lack of trust, which was borne of 30 years Conservative media smears, two dozen Congressional investigations totaling almost $250 million by the GOP, and good ole fashion sexism, all of which Bernie was more than happy to fan the flames of during the primaries. The Comey letter played on this weakness in the waning days of the election, and as FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver has said, if not for the Comey Letter, Clinton would be president-elect today. Seriously dude, give it a break.
*Now, that is not to say that every individual who has a problem with Clinton's corporate ties is a sexist. However, if those people did not have a problem with Obama's corporate ties (not today, four and eight years ago when he ran), or didn't care enough about the issue to research it and educate themselves, then I have no problem saying that they are sexist. That is also not to say that you could not favor Bernie for having fewer corporate ties, but to hark on it as some sort of disqualifier or big knock against her (yet not Obama) is.