Why this Harvard Educated Liberal Couple are Voting for Donald Trump

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2016 8:37 PM GMT
    Jon and Elsa Sands, who describe themselves as socially liberal affluent Americans


    Sir, My wife and I are affluent Americans with postgraduate degrees. We are socially liberal and fiscally mildly conservative. We are not the sans-culottes you see as the prototypical Trump voter. We are well aware of his vulgarity and nous deficiency yet we contemplate voting for him. Why?

    Electing the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party seems purposeless. The neanderthal Republicans barely respected the legitimacy of Bill Clinton’s or Barack Obama’s election, let alone that of Hillary who would arrive tainted with scandal and the email lapses hanging over her head. We would get four years of gridlock and “hearings”. The Republican tribunes, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, are backward, foolish and inexperienced. John Kasich, a moderate with extensive governmental experience and a willingness to compromise, is an also-ran. That leaves The Donald, really a moderate in wolf’s garb, who would owe nothing to either party and might strike deals, for instance on tax reform.

    Yes, we could be like the good citizens who voted for a “tameable” Hitler in 1933 to get things back on track. But the alternatives look worse.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/heres-why-this-educated-liberal-couple-are-considering-votin#.mq7WoXJRLd

    ------------------------------------------------------------


    This is why support for Donald Trump continues to grow by leaps and bounds. The more people hear, the more they want to see President Donald J. Trump....taking over the Oval Office on January 20, 2017.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2016 8:52 PM GMT
    I sort of think back to the "tame-able" Hitler concept too. It didn't work so well back then. Of course Wiemar was their first experiment with democracy so there was not a tradition built up over 200 years.

    Obama has shown us that Nixon was an amateur as imperial presidents go. Trump would probably be the same... "I got a pen and I will use it"... But I'm sure the Dem backbenchers would be able to keep the Donald in check.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2016 9:10 PM GMT
    desertmuscl saidI sort of think back to the "tame-able" Hitler concept too. It didn't work so well back then. Of course Wiemar was their first experiment with democracy so there was not a tradition built up over 200 years.

    Obama has shown us that Nixon was an amateur as imperial presidents go. Trump would probably be the same... "I got a pen and I will use it"... But I'm sure the Dem backbenchers would be able to keep the Donald in check.


    I think the couple were likely joking about the Hitler part. Liberals are obsessed with Hitler....possibly because Hitler was also a great believer in the power of a strong government to solve all problems. Hitler confiscated guns, provided gov't funded healthcare, regulated the auto industry, and blamed successful people for the problems of the middle class...things Obama either has done, or indicates a desire to do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2016 9:22 PM GMT
    You don't have to go to college to be stupid.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2016 9:24 PM GMT
    S2Ki said
    desertmuscl saidI sort of think back to the "tame-able" Hitler concept too. It didn't work so well back then. Of course Wiemar was their first experiment with democracy so there was not a tradition built up over 200 years.

    Obama has shown us that Nixon was an amateur as imperial presidents go. Trump would probably be the same... "I got a pen and I will use it"... But I'm sure the Dem backbenchers would be able to keep the Donald in check.


    I think the couple were likely joking about the Hitler part. Liberals are obsessed with Hitler....possibly because Hitler was also a great believer in the power of a strong government to solve all problems. Hitler confiscated guns, provided gov't funded healthcare, regulated the auto industry, and blamed successful people for the problems of the middle class...things Obama either has done, or indicates a desire to do.


    Point taken- and the word "socialist" was in the party name.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2016 9:30 PM GMT
    desertmuscl said
    S2Ki said
    desertmuscl saidI sort of think back to the "tame-able" Hitler concept too. It didn't work so well back then. Of course Wiemar was their first experiment with democracy so there was not a tradition built up over 200 years.

    Obama has shown us that Nixon was an amateur as imperial presidents go. Trump would probably be the same... "I got a pen and I will use it"... But I'm sure the Dem backbenchers would be able to keep the Donald in check.


    I think the couple were likely joking about the Hitler part. Liberals are obsessed with Hitler....possibly because Hitler was also a great believer in the power of a strong government to solve all problems. Hitler confiscated guns, provided gov't funded healthcare, regulated the auto industry, and blamed successful people for the problems of the middle class...things Obama either has done, or indicates a desire to do.


    Point taken- and the word "socialist" was in the party name.



    Yes, thanks for bringing that up. Millions killed under socialist governments. It's a terrible term that liberals are finally returning to after many decades of fleeing from. Coupled with their hatred of white people, and even their hatred for hard working people of all races, it's one more reason to defeat them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2016 1:47 AM GMT
    S2Ki said
    desertmuscl said
    S2Ki said
    desertmuscl saidI sort of think back to the "tame-able" Hitler concept too. It didn't work so well back then. Of course Wiemar was their first experiment with democracy so there was not a tradition built up over 200 years.

    Obama has shown us that Nixon was an amateur as imperial presidents go. Trump would probably be the same... "I got a pen and I will use it"... But I'm sure the Dem backbenchers would be able to keep the Donald in check.


    I think the couple were likely joking about the Hitler part. Liberals are obsessed with Hitler....possibly because Hitler was also a great believer in the power of a strong government to solve all problems. Hitler confiscated guns, provided gov't funded healthcare, regulated the auto industry, and blamed successful people for the problems of the middle class...things Obama either has done, or indicates a desire to do.


    Point taken- and the word "socialist" was in the party name.



    Yes, thanks for bringing that up. Millions killed under socialist governments. It's a terrible term that liberals are finally returning to after many decades of fleeing from. Coupled with their hatred of white people, and even their hatred for hard working people of all races, it's one more reason to defeat them.


    Here is a good paper from Mises Institute providing more detail. It basically agrees with your last comment:

    https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

    "Today, in the United States, government spending, federal, state, and local, amounts to almost half of the monetary incomes of the portion of the citizenry that does not work for the government. Fifteen federal cabinet departments, and a much larger number of federal regulatory agencies, together, in most instances with counterparts at the state and local level, routinely intrude into virtually every area of the individual citizen's life. In countless ways he is taxed, compelled, and prohibited.

    The effect of such massive government interference is unemployment, rising prices, falling real wages, a need to work longer and harder, and growing economic insecurity. The further effect is growing anger and resentment."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2016 2:41 PM GMT
    desertmuscl said
    S2Ki said
    desertmuscl said
    S2Ki said
    desertmuscl saidI sort of think back to the "tame-able" Hitler concept too. It didn't work so well back then. Of course Wiemar was their first experiment with democracy so there was not a tradition built up over 200 years.

    Obama has shown us that Nixon was an amateur as imperial presidents go. Trump would probably be the same... "I got a pen and I will use it"... But I'm sure the Dem backbenchers would be able to keep the Donald in check.


    I think the couple were likely joking about the Hitler part. Liberals are obsessed with Hitler....possibly because Hitler was also a great believer in the power of a strong government to solve all problems. Hitler confiscated guns, provided gov't funded healthcare, regulated the auto industry, and blamed successful people for the problems of the middle class...things Obama either has done, or indicates a desire to do.


    Point taken- and the word "socialist" was in the party name.



    Yes, thanks for bringing that up. Millions killed under socialist governments. It's a terrible term that liberals are finally returning to after many decades of fleeing from. Coupled with their hatred of white people, and even their hatred for hard working people of all races, it's one more reason to defeat them.


    Here is a good paper from Mises Institute providing more detail. It basically agrees with your last comment:

    https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

    "Today, in the United States, government spending, federal, state, and local, amounts to almost half of the monetary incomes of the portion of the citizenry that does not work for the government. Fifteen federal cabinet departments, and a much larger number of federal regulatory agencies, together, in most instances with counterparts at the state and local level, routinely intrude into virtually every area of the individual citizen's life. In countless ways he is taxed, compelled, and prohibited.

    The effect of such massive government interference is unemployment, rising prices, falling real wages, a need to work longer and harder, and growing economic insecurity. The further effect is growing anger and resentment."


    Thanks for posting. Plenty of historical proof to back this up.

    I debated this issue with a friend and used the analogy of gym workouts. If scientists could devise a way to "redistribute" fitness from the buff guys to the fatasses, then of course the fatasses would love it. Politicians like Bernie Sanders would scream that the super buff guys don't need all that muscle, and it's benefits would be of better use helping the super obese. Why, we could eradicate obesity! We could save lives!! But the factor that socialists leave out....is that "taxing" fitness only kills off the motivation of the super buff to continue to work out. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher....eventually, you run out of other people's fitness.

    Follow this analogy down the line, and we see everything Mises shows happens every time, from the ever more powerful government, to rationing, shortages and black markets.....because with every new layer of regulation, motivation is killed off among the producers of society. We are now temporarily cushioning this with ever increasing debt (now $19 trillion). Eventually, this will crash and leave us in the same position.....strongarm gov't, shortages, rationing, etc. Socialists cannot defeat reality.

    If somebody is a flabby fatass, the solution is not to punish buff guys by taking away the fruits of their labor. The harsh reality is that people are not equal. Never have been.
  • badbug

    Posts: 800

    Mar 06, 2016 4:03 PM GMT
    Are you two the same person or just equally stupid?

    It's terrifying watching you converse with each other, feeding and validating each other's paranoia.


    "liberals hate hard working people of all races"

    Really needs to be the only thing said. You believe that, that a large body of people "hate" hardworking people for some reason. I am not sure how to breakdown that reasoning for you, how insane and non-sensical it is to think that, yet to actually write it down on top of that.

    You are saying, you truly believe that liberals hate hard working people. I am not sure how you can think something that stupid and not question every thought you have ever had. I really think you should examine that one sentence you uttered in great detail and follow the logical stream that got you to thinking it made sense, and really strive to identify where you lose touch with reality. I think it's important you do look inward and find whatever it is that leads you to hold thoughts and opinions that baseless and asinine.

    If you want to be an uber conservative and dislike liberals, fair enough. But to be that childish about it is beyond ridiculous for an adult human being.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2016 4:14 PM GMT
    The relevant--and I might say, more revelatory--term used by the Sands is "contemplate." A lot of people "contemplate" things, but many end up not doing what they're contemplating once they've had the opportunity to really think things over. At the risk of sounding morbid and insensitive (my apologies for the analogy), some people contemplate suicide during a depressive moment, but many don't really end up taking their own lives once they've had a moment of clarity. Ultimately the question is whether the Sands, and many others like them, will actually remain solidly tethered to their position as we get closer to the day of reckoning.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2016 5:03 PM GMT
    badbug saidAre you two the same person or just equally stupid?

    It's terrifying watching you converse with each other, feeding and validating each other's paranoia.


    Barking for Hillary again...or just mindless drivel from somebody only able to repeat liberal democrat dogma? Liberals favor forced "economic redistribution" through confiscatory tax hikes. This is a hallmark of socialism, and is a key part of liberal propaganda.

    History speaks for itself. Millions were slaughtered under socialist regimes.

    socialism-red-flags-socialists1b.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2016 5:12 PM GMT
    DOMINUS saidThe relevant--and I might say, more revelatory--term used by the Sands is "contemplate." A lot of people "contemplate" things, but many end up not doing what they're contemplating once they've had the opportunity to really think things over. At the risk of sounding morbid and insensitive (my apologies for the analogy), some people contemplate suicide during a depressive moment, but many don't really end up taking their own lives once they've had a moment of clarity. Ultimately the question is whether the Sands, and many others like them, will actually remain solidly tethered to their position as we get closer to the day of reckoning.


    They clearly have no use for scandal ridden Hillary, and being "mildly economically conservative" don't even mention Bernie.

    They used "contemplate" because obviously, the election is several months away, and several unknowns could happen. Just the fact that Harvard educated liberals spoke up publicly and now in favor of Donald Trump, and even after acknowledging what they saw as his flaws - speaks volumes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2016 5:19 AM GMT
    Trump is really a New York Democrat, which is why conservatives have lined up against him. They call him a “con man” who is “hijacking” their party. But is the Republican party really theirs any more? Or is it undergoing the sort of change the Tory party underwent in the Eighties, when Mrs Thatcher attracted vast numbers with no heritage of voting Conservative? It smells like that.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12183862/Hillary-Clinton-will-find-it-harder-to-crush-Donald-Trump-than-she-thinks.html
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Mar 07, 2016 9:53 PM GMT
    fortunately, there are millions of people like this who are just sick and tired of being sold-out to dirt bags like Hillary and Marco
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14342

    Mar 08, 2016 10:02 PM GMT
    tj85016 saidfortunately, there are millions of people like this who are just sick and tired of being sold-out to dirt bags like Hillary and Marco
    Well let's hope that is the case come November. Otherwise it will be a lost cause if voters allow the media and the establishment to pressure them to vote for lowly scumbags like Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton.