[Bob Seger]

I am not one of those "folks" about whom you speak, so I am not sure why you believe that it helps your position in a debate with me. I concluded years ago that Hillary Clinton is not fit for the White House, but I concluded the same about Trump months ago.

When American citizens, such as yourself, accept the proposition that allegations against presidential candidates must meet the same burden of proof as a criminal conviction, then they encourage the very same actions that Hillary has taken - the deliberate, careful, and systematic destruction of damning evidence.

After nearly 8 years in office, Obama has demonstrated how easy it is for a president and his corrupt administration to stonewall, conceal, and destroy evidence of alleged criminal activity. Every time voters ignore the preponderance of evidence that candidates are corrupt to the core and elect people like Hillary, Obama, or Trump to public office, they pave the path for even more corrupt candidates to make that trek.

Our nation's founders did not go to war to overthrow the English monarchy to replace it with a slightly less onerous system of government. When we vote for corrupt officials and settle for the lesser evils, we send the wrong message to the next generation of candidates.

Our public officials must be held to a higher standard than our convicted criminals. Requiring proof of a crime sets a very, very low bar for disqualifying presidential candidates.

Nope Hoot, you're safe.That would be me he is referring to.....lol

Guess what, that will be the day when I care about what Mr. Sheep thinks.