"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," the couple wrote in a letter to the Financial Times.

The letter reads:

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.

Sands, who teaches English to refugees and described herself as a big supporter of refugee resettlement, said that even though Trump is a "big jerk, brash, over the top and egomaniacal" he was also a "big-mouth pragmatist who can get things done." She also said that he was a moderate who "doesn't go around hating people" and called him a "brilliant communicator."

"He tends to be flamboyant and like New Yorkers talks in hyperbole," Sands said. "He exaggerated it to get attention, because a moderate cannot run in the Republican Party." Sands believes that the media has "distorted" Trump's statements and are making him out to be someone they want him to be.