Some beliefs are critical, but the important part here is that the line is different for everyone.

I think a lot of people would support a 'perfect' presidential candidate who opposed women's suffrage, simply because they would never get that change through Congress. That's not an idle example, I've heard people say "sure, but Trump's crazy stuff won't pass and I like some of the things he could actually get through Congress."

Even the KKK example isn't totally convincing to me. Daryl Davis is the usual example - a black blues singer who got to know Klansmen and tried to talk them out of their positions. He had a hood collection from all his successes, and there's an argument that he effectively broke the Maryland clan.

Obviously that doesn't obligate anyone to stay friends with someone in the KKK. You don't need to tolerate things you find abhorrent. But I'm genuinely frightened by the recent push to limit how far it's acceptable to extend tolerance.

If someone is consistently pushing back on the ideas you have a problem with (as Davis did), I think it's harmful to demand that they stop associating with the people who hold those ideas.

Why? Unless the candidate will have the power to prevent women from voting he can hold any beliefs he wants in general.

There is a good reason why we have separation of power and why we have a complex political system in which even the president needs political capital to do things.

That said i think it's highly unlikely that there will be such hypothetical candidate that i can agree with on 99% 90% or even 50% of the issues and they'll be say a member of the KKK.

> Unless the candidate will have the power to prevent women from voting he can hold any beliefs he wants in general.

We don't know what powers the Executive Branch has now or will have. It evolves. FDR drastically expanded the power of the President, and he almost took over the Judicial Branch by appointing a bunch of new Supreme Court justices.

The next POTUS will appoint at least one Supreme Court justice and possibly more, which would give him/her enormous power over many decades of US law.

FDR asked Congress to expand the Supreme Court and institute an age limit for justices, but Congress said no. So that was a failure of expansion of Presidential power. But while FDR is a good example in a lot of other ways, most Presidents have managed to expand their power, but Congress can check them if they choose to do so. See the current situation with the Supreme Court, where the Senate is actually reducing the power of the President.

I think you also overestimate the control Presidents have over the justices they nominate, which is to say, none. Anthony Kennedy was supposed to be "Bork through the back door" when Reagan nominated him, but he's been one of the more liberal justices of the past 30 years. Or see how Roberts has, in a couple of key cases, broken with his fellow conservative GOP appointees.

Like the other poster mentioned FDR might be a good example for checks and balances rather than some unfettered expansion of power.

While we might not know what power the executive branch will have in 50 or 100 years we know what power it has now, and we know what power it can have in 4 years unless you really think "Emperor Trump" is a possibility.

Also while POTUS does appoint chief justices they still need to be confirmed by congress.

And regardless of what is going on neither branch of government can go against the constitution, at least not to any major extent before being reigned down.

P.S. It's more than likely that the US had presidents recently that had pretty negative opinions about a certain population including women, I would refer you to the Nixon tapes to see just how "disgusting" a president can be in a private environment. And while I'm fully aware that Nixon is one of the least loved presidents I don't think he was an outlier, just some one who got caught.

P.S. I don't support Trump, I'm not an American, I don't understand how Trump even got into the race in the first place yet alone became a nominee, but I do not support any type of political oppression and thought policing.