The ‘Burn It Down!’ Democrats | National Review

I suggest the Democrats put their money where their mouth is.
Propose to repeal the 2d Amendment.
Propose an amendment that abolishes the Electoral College.
Propose to revise Article III to change the make up and confirmation of Supreme Court Justices.

I bet they won't.
Not because they'd surely lose that fight.
But because it is all a ruse to get votes from a very narrow constituency - Democratic Primary Voters and those who fund campaigns.
It would absolutely crush them in a general election.

This is a fundamental thing which separates me from the left. At best when it comes to changes to our Constitution, the more prevalent change I see coming from the right and several prominent conservatives is term limits for Congressional leaders. This in no way changes the balance in favor for either party, as the goal here is to get rid of career politicians and help drain the swamp. Also, both sides of the isle have actually expressed a desire for such a change.

But when I read the comments and demands made by many on the left, we are truly talking about making significant changes to the Constitution aimed at specifically pushing the balance in their favor. Let's see:

Getting rid of the Electoral College - Why? Because in recent history two of their candidates have lost despite getting the popular vote? That's the point of the Electoral college. The left knows that they have a monopoly on the large population centers already and that they stand to take the advantage if there is a popular vote. Meanwhile, a popular vote ignores the rural populations and in turn presidential elections would not be very representative. They've even gone as far as to try a change state laws to force Electors to go with the popular vote regardless of whether their state voted the other way. Sad.

Increase the number of judges on the SCOTUS - But there's a caveat to this isn't there? This is what they desire to do if and when another Democrat takes the office of the President. Why? Are we to believe they are going to pick an judges perceived to be aligned to conservative rulings if they were afforded these picks? No. Their goal would be to simply stack the court. There is no other reason one could have to do this at this time in history. I get it... They're mad Trump got more choices than they anticipated. But I say that's what they get for pushing a terrible candidate such as Clinton. Seriously, as a Conservative I would have considered a good Centrist from the Democrat party against Trump. But they saw fit to weed those candidates out and push a criminal and a socialist.

Term Limits for the SCOTUS - They say this now and again you have to ask why? Could it be because just about all of the "Conservative" judges are pretty young and healthy and will likely be there a while? But ask yourself this... Do we really want to see that many more confirmation hearings? Unlike the congressional seats, I believe having a vast amount experience in this job is important.

Get rid of the 2nd Amendment - Yes, I realize not all Democrats want this but a very significant number of them do and those that don't do very little to make that abundantly clear. Why do they want this? Am I to believe this is all to rid the country of gun violence? Sorry I'm not buying it. Taking guns from citizens is a step closer to pushing more authoritarian control of the government. Again, no thanks.

Limitations on speech - While not directly asking for getting rid of the freedom of speech, I still see a significant effort by those on the left to prevent people from speaking their minds, especially when it does not conform to what is acceptable by them. The way I see it, the only limitation on speech should be the consequences in what you say. But if I want to say something not in line with what's PC (by their standards), that's my right, and my responsibility. The article speaks of Campaign Finance regulations, which drives a good point, but I am also speaking about examples like the one at UC-Berkeley where a man distributing flyers, promoting a political view, was literally beat up by a guy who did not agree with him. Or the many conservative speakers who face constant violence at universities and are even banned from speaking at all. The universities claim they are trying to prevent violence, but what are they doing about those who would initiate violent acts? Nothing. Which is why there is a perception of many universities being bias for the left. Look, I once attended a campus rally to support our troops in the Gulf War. We weren't there to support the war itself (even though I did), but to collect care package items and letters for the troops deployed to the ME. All the sudden a group of people came in with bullhorns and "no blood for oil" signs, chanting their rhetoric, screaming over our organizers and essentially disrupting our efforts. Why? Needless to say people faced off and debated. I (we) didn't feel the need to attack them or beat them up (and believe me, we had the numbers to easily do so). We argued and yelled and left it at that. Of course, had I been at Berkeley, I'm sure the numbers would have been opposite and I would have very likely seen some kind of violent act perpetrated against the organizers of a Support the Troops rally.

If HRC had won none of this would be going on. If the Democrats win the presidency in 2020 then let’s see how fast it takes Texas to succeed.