Although Social Security is regarded as a "third rail" that would kill the career of any politician foolish enough to mess with it, that hasn't stopped prominent Republicans from advancing numerous strategies to cut or kill the program—despite the program's vast popularity among Americans.

Related: Over half of your Social Security will go to health care costs

In fact, a majority of Americans favor expanding the program, not cutting it, but that's not the view held by Republicans in Congress.

In fact, the Republican party platform itself isn't so sanguine about preserving Social Security as is, particularly since it has endorsed House Speaker Paul Ryan's plans to cut not just Social Security but Medicare as well.

The platform language isn't so outspoken, saying, "Of the many reforms being proposed, all options should be considered to preserve Social Security. As Republicans, we oppose tax increases and believe in the power of markets to create wealth and to help secure the future of our Social Security system."

Related: 9 Social Security myths to bust

Trump has backtracked on numerous issue stances already, including gun control and immigration, and it's likely only a matter of time, should he be elected, until he surrenders concerns over Social Security to party leaders and their plans for the program—particularly given his penchant for delegating tasks to others.

In addition, back in August CNN reported that Tom Barrack, a longtime friend of Trump as well as one of his economic advisors, said in an interview that Trump could change his position on keeping Social Security as is.

Barrack was quoted in the report saying, "My personal belief is that he might do something different, because you have to do something different. Everyone has to give something up. If we don't we're going to crash."

After suggesting that Trump might follow Ronald Reagan's lead in appointing people to lead and oversee changes in various areas, Barrack added, "I think you're going to see Donald do the same thing. And I think you're going to see him do it across the board on entitlements."

In fact, after meeting with Ryan back in May, Trump himself said something that implied his position on keeping Social Security as is was more of a statement of political expediency than any real determination: "From a moral standpoint, I believe in it," he said of keeping the program's benefits untouched.

Then he added, "But you also have to get elected. And there's no way a Republican is going to beat a Democrat when the Republican is saying, 'We're going to cut your Social Security' and the Democrat is saying, 'We're going to keep it and give you more.'" (And in fact, Democrats' position is that Social Security needs to be expanded rather than cut.)

So what are some of the changes that might come about in a Republican administration under Donald Trump? Here are five.

5. Privatization.

This would mean that Social Security funds would be invested in the stock market, rather than held in securities issued by the government, meaning that, in a bad year, benefits could go down—way down.

Investors saw how well having all one's money in one basket worked out in 2007–2008, when the market headed south and took people's 401(k) savings with it.

Now many people are working years longer because they don't have enough saved (or left of their savings) to be reasonably confident that they won't run out of money during retirement. The notion of a guaranteed monthly benefit could become obsolete, since market returns are never guaranteed.

A Public Policy Polling poll found that only two in 10 actually support the concept of privatizing Social Security.

4. Reduce benefit amounts.

Because they don't want to increase the cap on Social Security contributions or levy any additional fees on high-income workers, Republicans have been advocating cuts to benefit amounts—something nearly 90 percent of voters are opposed to, regardless of their political affiliation.

Just five percent of voters are in favor of benefit cuts.

3. Increase the retirement age.

If you don't increase the cap on contributions or raise Social Security taxes on the wealthy, an indirect way to cut benefits is to postpone paying them.

Republicans have been in favor of increasing the retirement age, thus paying benefits later—another plan that's highly unpopular with voters.

While less than 28 percent do support it, more than 62 percent oppose it—and it's a delay that will hit lower-income people hardest. They most often have the most physically demanding jobs, which makes it hard for them to work later in life, thanks to job-related injuries or other conditions.

Related: Golden years redefined as Americans buck trend and keep working

In addition, an increase in the retirement age means a cut in benefits for anyone who claims them early—another way to cut benefits.

But it also comes down harder on blue-collar workers, lower-income workers and those in poorer health with shorter life expectancies, meaning they'll likely not only collect less during their lifetimes but also have a shorter time in which to do it.

2. Cut Social Security inflation adjustments.

Republicans would like to tie any increases in Social Security benefits to the "chained Consumer Price Index," which does not incorporate seniors' largest and most frequent expenses into its calculations and instead is loaded with expenses that seniors either spend less on or no longer need.

Related: Social Security COLA for 2017: Expect minimal increase, if any

If we moved to the chained CPI, expenses that younger people spend more heavily on—which have actually decreased and are included—help to distort the final amount of inflation to which seniors are subject. Just 14 percent of voters favor this move, while more than 62 percent oppose it.

Seniors pay more for medical care than younger people, and that means that when medical costs skyrocket—as they've been doing in the form of prescription drugs, among other forms of care—seniors don't get any accommodation for that in their Social Security checks.

1. Means-test wealthier Americans.

Republicans would like to limit those who are entitled to claim Social Security base on how much money they make.

However, all working Americans pay into the Social Security fund, and even those with higher incomes could find themselves immersed in higher healthcare costs and in need of those Social Security checks.

Social Security is an efficient form of insurance in that everyone who pays the premium and experiences the event—reaching retirement age—is entitled to claim the benefit, at a cost of less than a penny per dollar for program administration.

Means testing could drive up administrative costs for the program, and have other unintended consequences, such as discouraging people from saving.