Precisely why the two-party system is such an abomination. It boils down ALL politics to a binary system -- are you red, or are you blue? Both you and the previous commenter have completely valid reasoning for switching parties, based on separate issues. But the only method of communication with our democracy requires that you pick one of two awful choices. Sure, you could vote independent -- with the basket of issues that come with opting out of the two majority parties -- and primaries let you cut some of the least-aligned folks in your party from the ballot.

It's kind of like going to a restaurant and being forced to pick raw vs. burned beef, and there's a ton of different sides that come with each option that are nonconfigurable. And then critics constantly debate "raw vs. burned" in polls, and try to gain insight from that on whether people really prefer corn or salad or biscuits. But in reality there's just too much noise to generate any signal.

I feel like Adam Kinzinger talks a similar talk to you, if you're looking for more republicans you can respect (I'm not affiliated in any way, just came across him via twitter)

https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/

I can empathize, but my point was in regards to the accusation of being a “conservative” by just coming down in the other direction on the lesser-of-two evils calculus. Sane Americans are struggling with the fact that there are good arguments to be made that both political parties in the US presently present meaningful existential risk. There are several methods one could argue in how to tie break, purely in the interest in minimizing the risk of collapse, tyrannical overtake, or the development of a police state. From example, you may vote against the ruling class broadly, which is left-aligned, if you feel that the broader ruling class has power superiority over the narrow set of elected leaders at a given time. Under that framework, no tyrant can successfully seize power unless they are aligned with the ruling class.

There never really was a chance of that. There was nothing Trump could of done that day to make that happen. Even if the process would of been disrupted, it wouldn't of caused that.

They could have assigned new electors. They didn't have their shit together to make it happen, but the law is not settled on this.

Or they could have delayed past the constitutionally mandated dates, after which it goes to the Congress where the GOP controlled more delegations.

Say that Mike Pence was killed on Jan. 6th before he could certify the election. Now you have an election with no result which leads to the first succession crisis since the post-civil war era with Hayes. Trump appoints a new Vice President which says that he won and refuses to certify the election. When the senate almost certainly gets bogged down trying to elect a new president we are stuck. Now what? Does Trump remain president? It wasn't even a close election, so they can't manipulate the votes any further in his favor.

At that point we have a ticking time bomb. At the end of his term is Trump still the president? Or are we a country without a president? When that happens, if Trump stays in the White House and acts like a president, what then? Would the republican filled Supreme Court back his play? Would the military follow him? Who would oppose him? Would the secret service still protect him? What happens if some states recognize him as president, but others do not?

That's a lot of what ifs. While technically possible, none seem plausible. Many of those things could of happened outside of the riots as well (Pence dies). It's kind of pointless speculation. I don't think Pence had a serious chance of being killed that day, even if they did get in close proximity. That's just my opinion.

If they had gotten a hold of Mike Pence they intended to kill him.

https://youtu.be/0vzeTgm2qWw?t=1437

Ah yes, "reports" and "journalists" heard them say it