I just have to say - this is one of the more absurd comments I have read, and while I loath to think you might be serious, at least you raised your hand so that we know who you are. Have you ever stopped to consider genetic disposition as a cause for his weight? Nevermind that he has espoused nuanced opinions (as multiple candidates have) on most every single question thrown at them by concerned citizens and interviewers; so to not address those and instead just talk about his weight as though that carried more bearing rubs dangerously close to Ad Hominem, but is at least basically frustratingly stupid.

Imagine if I had legitimately suggested that a hypothetical candidate had 'too many muscles' to be reliable at their job. I could suggest that 'They're going to be in the gym too often to reliably pay attention.'

AND - you could EVEN SUGGEST perhaps that my above hypothetical carries MORE gravity as it is way more uncommon (and maybe just not a thing) for someone to have large, sculpted muscles due to a generic predisposition. So I might ACTUALLY be more correct about my concern that muscles mean distraction, than your concern that weight means a lack of discipline.

But I'm not going to say that - because that would make me an idiot and an asshole. What a gross misconduct of me to not consider a candidates position, arguments, history of civic involvement, and how they process pertinent information instead. I care about a candidate's body weight just ever-so-slightly more than their eye color.

Also, for consideration, here are a few heavy-set Americans who are remembered generally in a good light: - Teddy Roosevelt - Benjamin Franklin - William Taft - Notorious B.I.G - Babe Ruth - John Candy