system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
A politician's private life IS relevant, and is indicative of how well he will serve his electorate. CMV.

My view is that a politician's ability to remain honest, trustworthy, and maintain his promises to his family is reflective and indicative of his ability to remain honest, trustworthy, and maintain his promises to his electorate (eg city, state, country, etc). If he can't keep his promises to his wife, and remain truthful with his wife... then how the hell will he be able to keep his promises, and remain truthful *to his country*?

Some say this is irrelevant because family issues aren't political issues - but that's missing the point: Either a politician keeps his promises, or he doesn't. Either he's a liar, or he is not. For example, a politician who has an affair and lies about it, is clearly a promise-breaker and a liar - and therefore this information should be made public, and the electorate should be informed about it. I don't want to vote liars and promise-breakers into office.

Am I wrong? Why do people keep saying it's irrelevant? Is there something I'm missing here? Please CMV.
gpt
This seems like an easy one.

You value truth and honesty.  Which one of these is likely more honest?

* A politician which appears morally spotless
* A politician who is an admitted alcoholic (without being caught)

The second one, while he/she does have a problem, is being honest with you.  If the second one is taking steps to correct his/her alcoholism and was the one that told you he/she had a problem, you have evidence that is honesty.

What evidence at all do you have the first politician isn't lying to you?