If you didn't know there is an age striction in the USA for the candidates who want to run for president it's 35+ but is it necessarily the best age?
I've once been told age comes with maturity, but is that always true see a younger person knows more about ways to help solve present day problems as this is there time. Whereas an older candidate may not have the same understanding of the "new ways".
Reasons why being a younger president could help:
- they would be able to give fresh new ideas when it comes to changing things;
- there wouldn't be as much of a chance of them passing in the middle of being president;
- they would be able to gain a good amout of money for future family members or anything else.
Reasons why to be president you have to be 35+ should stay:
- younger people wouldn't have as much experience;
- they could make some stupid mistakes;
- they wouldn't of had enough time to make a name for themselves before running.
I'm personally quite mixed, as younger candidates would in my opinion would bring better and more present ideas, they could also be to young or mature enough to always put the country first. Whereas on the older side of things, if you are to mature you would know what's deffinetly right and wouldn't adventure as much with decisions, but saying that if you were older you would have a lot more experience which would help you know what would help their country. So it is really hard to find the balance.
I look forward to reading all your comments and hope to read some clearer opinions to help me decide what I think would be better.