Would you vote for Tom?

[The Blaatschapen]

It's his study group. He can set those parameters if he chooses. Those left out could join another group, it might not be not be nice, but it's also his decision. On the discrimination aspect, I would be skeptical of someone making an untrue allegation that was left out just to try and get payback.

Change "study group" and "group" to country and you have yourself a pickle.

But then Tom stops aligning with my values

[Exxosia]

I guess I would say I would vote for tom because when I think of what politicians do, the concept of discriminating against liars in an elitist way is about as dismissible as you can get for the power-hungry psychopath it takes to run for president.

Also consider that if he aligns with my policies, he's going to have to be an otherwise good person, so the idea of "A prick, that was more of a prick possibly when they were younger, that will stop at nothing for the betterment of mankind" is sort of better than the usual "Monster that will stop at nothing to make the world a worse place."

[Infected Mushroom]

I guess I would say I would vote for tom because when I think of what politicians do, the concept of discriminating against liars in an elitist way is about as dismissible as you can get for the power-hungry psychopath it takes to run for president.

Also consider that if he aligns with my policies, he's going to have to be an otherwise good person, so the idea of "A prick, that was more of a prick possibly when they were younger, that will stop at nothing for the betterment of mankind" is sort of better than the usual "Monster that will stop at nothing to make the world a worse place."

it is of course, possible that this was just an isolated incident from the past when he was maybe less mature (and not the person he is now)

if you're optimistic

[Demokratische Tyrannei]

I'd vote for Tom. People do change, you know.

I'll make an analogy using sex offenders. I know what you're thinking, just bear with me.

Not every sex offender is a rapist or pedophile. Here's an example: two 17-year-olds have mutual, consensual sex. It's more than likely that at least one of them will be registered as a sex offender. While some sex offenders may be rapists and pedophiles, they are a tiny minority. The vast majority of sex offenders committed a nonviolent offense, such as sleeping with someone a year younger than them in high school. Yet they're treated like a violent criminl: stigmatized, ostracized, and never, ever, forgiven. Essentially, become a sex offender, your life is over.

Now let's see how this connects to Tom. Tom may have done some unsavory things two or three decades ago. He may have changed since then. Now he's a kind, polite person.
In conclusion, I see no reason to not vote for him.

[The New California Republic]

I'd vote for Tom. People do change, you know.

I'll make an analogy using sex offenders. I know what you're thinking, just bear with me.

Not every sex offender is a rapist or pedophile. Here's an example: two 17-year-olds have mutual, consensual sex. It's more than likely that at least one of them will be registered as a sex offender. While some sex offenders may be rapists and pedophiles, they are a tiny minority. The vast majority of sex offenders committed a nonviolent offense, such as sleeping with someone a year younger than them in high school. Yet they're treated like a violent criminl: stigmatized, ostracized, and never, ever, forgiven. Essentially, become a sex offender, your life is over.

Now let's see how this connects to Tom. Tom may have done some unsavory things two or three decades ago. He may have changed since then. Now he's a kind, polite person.
In conclusion, I see no reason to not vote for him.

I'm not sure if there was a reason to use a sex offender analogy...

[Thermodolia]

I'd vote for Tom. People do change, you know.

I'll make an analogy using sex offenders. I know what you're thinking, just bear with me.

Not every sex offender is a rapist or pedophile. Here's an example: two 17-year-olds have mutual, consensual sex. It's more than likely that at least one of them will be registered as a sex offender. While some sex offenders may be rapists and pedophiles, they are a tiny minority. The vast majority of sex offenders committed a nonviolent offense, such as sleeping with someone a year younger than them in high school. Yet they're treated like a violent criminl: stigmatized, ostracized, and never, ever, forgiven. Essentially, become a sex offender, your life is over.

Now let's see how this connects to Tom. Tom may have done some unsavory things two or three decades ago. He may have changed since then. Now he's a kind, polite person.
In conclusion, I see no reason to not vote for him.

There is absolutely no way for one of those two 17 year olds to be registered as a sex offender unless one of them committed a sexual based offense

[Thermodolia]

I'd vote for Tom. People do change, you know.

I'll make an analogy using sex offenders. I know what you're thinking, just bear with me.

Not every sex offender is a rapist or pedophile. Here's an example: two 17-year-olds have mutual, consensual sex. It's more than likely that at least one of them will be registered as a sex offender. While some sex offenders may be rapists and pedophiles, they are a tiny minority. The vast majority of sex offenders committed a nonviolent offense, such as sleeping with someone a year younger than them in high school. Yet they're treated like a violent criminl: stigmatized, ostracized, and never, ever, forgiven. Essentially, become a sex offender, your life is over.

Now let's see how this connects to Tom. Tom may have done some unsavory things two or three decades ago. He may have changed since then. Now he's a kind, polite person.
In conclusion, I see no reason to not vote for him.

I'm not sure if there was a reason to use a sex offender analogy...

What you don’t want to add your pet political issues hamfistedly into a an IM thread?

[Demokratische Tyrannei]

I'd vote for Tom. People do change, you know.

I'll make an analogy using sex offenders. I know what you're thinking, just bear with me.

Not every sex offender is a rapist or pedophile. Here's an example: two 17-year-olds have mutual, consensual sex. It's more than likely that at least one of them will be registered as a sex offender. While some sex offenders may be rapists and pedophiles, they are a tiny minority. The vast majority of sex offenders committed a nonviolent offense, such as sleeping with someone a year younger than them in high school. Yet they're treated like a violent criminal: stigmatized, ostracized, and never, ever, forgiven. Essentially, become a sex offender, your life is over.

Now let's see how this connects to Tom. Tom may have done some unsavory things two or three decades ago. He may have changed since then. Now he's a kind, polite person.
In conclusion, I see no reason to not vote for him.

I'm not sure if there was a reason to use a sex offender analogy...

I thought it was reasonably accurate analogy. Why hate people for something they did decades ago when they've clearly changed for the better?

[Rhodesia-Zimbabwe]

Change "study group" and "group" to country and you have yourself a pickle.

But then Tom stops aligning with my values

Tom might not outwardly show that he holds to that doctrine, but it might be that he will show he does once he takes office. That's what makes him seem so untrustworthy.
Also note, OP stated: "His political views are close to your own", Tom might not align with every value of yours.

[The New California Republic]

Change "study group" and "group" to country and you have yourself a pickle.

But then Tom stops aligning with my values

The point is that Tom might not outwardly show that he holds to that doctrine, but that he will show he does once he takes office.
Also note, OP stated: "His political views are close to your own", Tom might not align with every value of yours.

But I wouldn't class someone's views as "close to my own" if they were a racist. There is a limit to how close someone's views can be seen to be with my own if there is a glaring point of difference, such as the person being a racist. This isn't some trivial bit of difference on policy minutiae we are talking about here...

[The Blaatschapen]

The point is that Tom might not outwardly show that he holds to that doctrine, but that he will show he does once he takes office.
Also note, OP stated: "His political views are close to your own", Tom might not align with every value of yours.

But I wouldn't class someone's views as "close to my own" if they were a racist. There is a limit to how close someone's views can be seen to be with my own if there is a glaring point of difference, such as the person being a racist. This isn't some trivial bit of difference on policy minutiae we are talking about here...

Indeed. Political differences are not like statistics, where you can ignore outliers.

[Thermodolia]

But I wouldn't class someone's views as "close to my own" if they were a racist. There is a limit to how close someone's views can be seen to be with my own if there is a glaring point of difference, such as the person being a racist. This isn't some trivial bit of difference on policy minutiae we are talking about here...

Indeed. Political differences are not like statistics, where you can ignore outliers.

I mean you technically could

[Rhodesia-Zimbabwe]

But I wouldn't class someone's views as "close to my own" if they were a racist. There is a limit to how close someone's views can be seen to be with my own if there is a glaring point of difference, such as the person being a racist. This isn't some trivial bit of difference on policy minutiae we are talking about here...

Indeed. Political differences are not like statistics, where you can ignore outliers.

You may feel that way about who you associate with, but objectively if the majority of your political views are the same as someone else's, your political views are close. Facts don't care about your feelings.

You can argue exactly how close they are, but they're still going to be close regardless.

[The Two Jerseys]

This is probably the least important and least serious scandal in American History.

I heard Tom drank a beer before he turned 21! Shock! Horror! Righteous indignation! Impeach him!

[The Blaatschapen]

Indeed. Political differences are not like statistics, where you can ignore outliers.

You may feel that way about who you associate with, but objectively if the majority of your political views are the same as someone else's, your political views are close. Facts don't care about your feelings.

You can argue exactly how close they are, but they're still going to be close regardless.

I'd argue that if we align on everything except on racism, that we're not actually close at all

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

I would vote for Tom. I vote based on ideology and whether the party shares mine.

Modi is certainly a good speaker and a strong leader - but I do not agree with his ideology, so I would never vote for him.

Same goes for the opposition in this scenario - they can be superior to Tom in every sense of the word, but if they do not share my ideology, I will not vote for them.

[The New California Republic]

But I wouldn't class someone's views as "close to my own" if they were a racist. There is a limit to how close someone's views can be seen to be with my own if there is a glaring point of difference, such as the person being a racist. This isn't some trivial bit of difference on policy minutiae we are talking about here...

Indeed. Political differences are not like statistics, where you can ignore outliers.

You may feel that way about who you associate with, but objectively if the majority of your political views are the same as someone else's, your political views are close. Facts don't care about your feelings.

You can argue exactly how close they are, but they're still going to be close regardless.

Bullshit. When there is a point of difference such as racism, which is a big one that looms across their entire belief structure like a pall, it taints everything. You choosing to play it down doesn't change the fact that racism seeps into every part of a person's belief system. For example we could both like the idea of equality, but if the person qualifies that with "except the blacks" then it fundamentally changes it.

[Free Arabian Nation]

You may feel that way about who you associate with, but objectively if the majority of your political views are the same as someone else's, your political views are close. Facts don't care about your feelings.

You can argue exactly how close they are, but they're still going to be close regardless.

I'd argue that if we align on everything except on racism, that we're not actually close at all

The only thing separating a Tankie from a Fascist is 1.) More Government Control of Business and 2.) Less Racism

I would call them pretty distinct.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I would vote for Tom. Discrimination in a study group is irreverent.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Yes I'm going to vote for Tom. Bygones are bygones, especially something as miniscule as that. Establishing Shari'ah is many, many degrees higher than some petty guess from 20 years ago.

[Infected Mushroom]

I would vote for Tom. Discrimination in a study group is irreverent.

but what if it could carry over to other things in the future?

[The Grims]

I do not see what Tom did wrong in this scenario.

[The New California Republic]

I do not see what Tom did wrong in this scenario.

He had an informal club, where he chose the membership.

I don't know either.

[Heloin]

I do not see what Tom did wrong in this scenario.

He had an informal club, where he chose the membership.

I don't know either.

Scandalous.

[The Emerald Legion]

I would vote for his opponent. Me.