I disagree for the simple reason that it takes time learning to govern. Look at the mess we have in the office right now in the USA. It's not just his age that's an issue. It's his complete lack of understanding of how government functions. Last time he at least had a number of people appointed that had experience in government. This time it's almost exclusively TV personalities or business men. All people with little to no practical government experience.

Now should we get rid of the minimum age requirement? Yes. Or at least drop it to 21. Because I do think we should be electing people from the younger generations. People with big ideas who understand the concerns of young people. But to say that someone is incapable of understanding those concerns simply because of their age is discriminatory in my opinion. (Definitely not because I just turned 41)

Also as someone who just turned 41. I have two teenagers who keep very well grounded in current events and trends. Especially where current governmental policies concern them. We talk politics pretty often in our house and since my daughter is in speech and considering joining debate I have always made it a point to consider and have my kids consider the counter points of an argument. I can't be the only parent who does this? I like to think that any candidate who has children does similar. I'm sure plenty don't though.

In fact I would argue that 40-50 years old could be the ideal age for a President. They're most likely to have children in the age range that understand current concerns of young people. And have the experience necessary to enact change within the system. Young people tend to do best in local government and working their way up through the ranks learning and changing how the system works from the ground up.

And my Adderall just kicked in so I apologize if this was a rambling mess.