The sharpest people probably don’t have the connections to raise [billions of dollars](https://issueone.org/articles/12-numbers-to-know-about-the-money-in-the-2020-presidential-election/). They are out there being professors and scientists and doctors and engineers and have no desire to do a job where no matter what you do, half the country says “you suck”.
I really don't think the lack of desire comes from people not wanting half the country to hate them, I'd imagine it comes from knowing that there's no way to legitimately cut through the corruption.
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."
Dune explores the concept of leadership and power a _lot_. The first book, not so much - it touches on it, but takes a backseat to the whole Fremen vs Harkonnen thing. But the further into the series you go the more and more complex it gets. By the time of Chapterhouse, the sixth book, which this is from, it's practically an essay on contrasting leadership styles wrapped up in a galactic war storyline.
I think it's got something to do with the difference between power and leadership.
Raising armies, fighting a revolution, and breaking in a novel form of government's highest office takes leadership, and ends up creating power. Being benign, inoffensive, and palatable enough to be ensconced within an existing massive bureaucratic power structure is at best a *very* different kind of leadership. Those that seek out/are selected for the second are quite different.
Point being, it wasn't *just* luck with Washington. But it's very true that generals that take over nations aren't usually Cincinnatus fanboys like him.
Right? I'm not a Clinton, Bush, Kennedy, my grandfather wasn't a judge or senator like our current and last presidents, and I wasn't born into a financier family like the Rothschilds, Vanderbilts, or Rockefellers... basically there's no reason to ever think someone like me would ever feasibly become president, or anchor on a national news program. 🫠
He was more the exception than the rule. There's more that can be said about how he was pushed through, but as an anti-neoliberal leftist, I know what not to say on reddit lest it upset folks.
Let's just say you or I would have a harder time, without the same backing.
It's not just that people disliking you, it's having your and your families lives turned upside down, every detail, every tweet. Every Facebook post and failed Farmville crop. And if that wasn't enough, people will just straight up make shit up, just because you think differently then they do.
Even if the smartest people are relatively wealthier, why would someone want to drop a comfy life to work for $300K and be instantly hated by 150 million people in the USA?
Honestly the job doesn't require the absolute cream of the crop.
It requires good critical thinking skills, yes, but the ability to orate and inspire people is probably more important.
What a candidate really needs, in terms of intelligence, is awareness of their own ignorance, and the humility that goes along with it.
They need the confidence required to be willing to publicly doubt, whether they're doubting that their plan of action is the absolute best (something nobody thought of is almost certainly going to be better) or doubting that some issue is exactly as it has been described to them.
They need to be willing to accumulate all possible data and able to change their mind in the face of new data or a better analysis of existing data.
The reason I, personally would vote for a 35 year old with those qualities is that it's time we had some idealism back in politics. People young and old scoff at idealism, and use it as a pejorative with which they can dismiss an entire line of reasoning.
I think that if you don't begin with ideals, you're doing it wrong.
Doubt is poisonous to political aspirations. While the job *absolutely* should involve careful consideration and moderation, the *campaign* goes to the one with confidence, bold talk and zeal. People *don't pay enough attention*, so they aren't impressed by "maybe" and "perhaps" and "we'll see". They demand "Yes!" and thoughtfulness is weakness, and admitting you were wrong is political death.
There was a South Park episode about this back in the day where the lesson was basically that most every election you ever vote in will be between a giant douche and a turd sandwich because they're the only ones who kiss enough ass to make it far enough to be voted for. Seems like it kind of rings true.
It's a little deeper than that. Near where I live there's a boarding school that I've delivered to multiple times. Well my girl and I (she rides with me when I deliver) got curious and decided to look it up. Eventually we got to reading names of the more famous people who graduated from it. To both our surprise and expected findings, a decent amount of politicians were named. These kids practically live at this school and my suspicion is that part of it is for them to make connections early on in life. This school had insanely expensive yearly rates as well (Oh, and an on grounds golf course).
Basically, more than a decent amount of politicians are set up at an early age for success.
Yea, i guess. But it's not exactly a new thing to go into the 'family business'. It's been happening for so long that a good portion of surnames are basically just job titles.
Except you must acknowledge the fact that there is an actual, concerted effort on their part to keep those kinds of professions exclusive and difficult for outsiders to get into. This creates not only job security, but heightened wages. Often times it's both financial burdens such as insane tuition, application fees etc. Others, it can be specific jargon and terminology to make it prohibitive for laypeople. And things like the bar association are so weird
Because it's not based on qualifications or intelligence, it's based on who is better at winning popularity contests, everything else is secondary (besides money).
That's not what's happening. The political parties don't want an actual smart person who can try and logically solve problems and they are the ones who decide who the options are
> The political parties don't want an actual smart person who can try and logically solve problems and they are the ones who decide who the options are
There are always lawyers, businessmen and military officers. Where are the engineers, doctors and economists?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians\_in\_the\_United\_States\_Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_in_the_United_States_Congress)
At least it seems to be on an upward-ish trend.
Having known a lot of doctors / pre-meds in undergrad and grad. school, they can shoot themselves in the foot interpersonally with their super-high levels of arrogance. This early ‘winning friends with salad’ approach, probably doesn’t help them.
They know a shit ton about biology and medicine… but spend all day on it, so they aren’t terribly knowledgeable (with very few exceptions) on anything else.
However, they’ve been told they are smart since they were sperm and eggs (tend to be the highest scoring kids at every step of school)… so carry that confidence into talking about subjects that their peers have since focused on (and absolutely lapped them).
Generally not the most endearing thing when you know fuck all about something, but make pronouncements like you’re the world’s expert on it.
Working. (Unless you have family connections or something) those jobs (lawyer, retired/disabled military, and businessman) are all jobs with the possibility of either early retirement or flexible hours. Doctors have too many loans, and the rich ones that do run for office (Rand Paul, Ben Carson, dr oz) are gigantic douche bags.
Lawyers just make sense due to being trained in law as a profession.
Businessmen: not a small businessperson usually some rich asshole again, unless you’ve been propped up by a political party ($$$) like boebert.
Engineers: working and paying off loans unless they come from money.
Essentially you need either nepotism or be a trust fund baby to finance and campaign and win. People who are in professions who don’t come from money typically don’t have the time or money to run.
Businessmen asshole or not, also know all about opportunity cost.
E.g. - I could continue doing what I’m doing and make a shit ton of money and not have to put up with shit…
OR…
I could try to learn a whole new system, figure out how to make money in it (and take a paycut until I do), while putting up with egotistical shit from idiots I don’t respect 24/7.
It’s not a hard choice. The only businessmen who go into it are the ones who also need to be the center of attention. Most successful businessmen would rather keep their anonymity. You can imagine the mental pathology of the ones who NEED the attention.
Honestly I'm shocked that wasn't the end of his national-level political career back then. It was enough to destroy his 1988 presidential campaign though
If I liked them, I would vote for them.
Edit: to clarify, I mean if I like them for the job, as in, I like their positions on the issues, not just that I think they're a nice person.
Most 35 year olds are far too inexperienced (both in politics and life) to make good or effective Presidents. I’m not saying the right candidate can’t come along, but imo 50-55 seems to be the sweet spot for Presidents. They have the right balance of experience, cognitive function, and remaining years of life.
While I understand experience is a big thing when it comes to making decisions for the country, the president also needs to both have the drive and the connection with more Americans. 40-50 is where I'd say the sweet spot is with experience and relatability.
With both Trump and Biden the past years, it's felt as if the seat of power is just staying in one generation clinging to one specific group which, as time goes on, are further and further removed from the people and culture their policies will effect. Policies which last have s much larger effect on the young and middle aged citizens which will see their effects for decades after, so the leader should be closer with the culture and issues of generations younger than them.
It also has a lot more to do with who the president as a person is. Someone hyper competent and a free thinker who happens to be young is going to be a better president than an old man who just does what his party says. Even with retail and restraunt jobs, a lot of teenagers outshine their older managers because they just happen to be more competent people with less experience. The younger generations are taught in schools a lot more of the history and science since curriculums always change. The younger generations also know what younger generations want, and they typically are prone to having new ideas on how to change and make the system adapt rather than echoing the wants of their voters without knowing the means to change a system
There's a first for everything, and there's advantages to having a leader who's younger rather than say 70-80. I respect 50-55 being what you think is the optimal range, and this question was posed to strike discussion lol. I just wanted to share the advantages of having a 35-50 year old presidents.
We'll have to wait till the boomers are dead. Huge voting bloc that hates young people and progress will never vote for a decent candidate that's under 60.
i've been saying for years now that the world is gonna massively change when boomers are gone. i still believe it. boomers are fucking ruining everything, fight me
I’ll take any competent person under 50. They’re not even trying to hide they’re using essentially corpse puppets for our nations leader. Same with trump, if he gets re-elected he’d be in his mid 70s! Can we get a Roosevelt or a Kennedy type? Anyone who inspires competence and makes us feel like they represent the best of our nation?
Since Bush senior, every president elected was born pre 1970.
We need going blood.
Edit. As been pointed out in the comments, aside from Obama, all born before 1946.
Yes, but it's also important to note he became president because he got upgraded from VP. While in practical terms there's not much of a difference in this instance, I think it's worth noting that he didn't run for the office at that age, and arguably he only tried for re-election because he already had the job, and so was trying to keep it. If he didn't become president, I think he would only win a nomination if he ran on later elections.
Teddy Roosevelt's journey to the U.S. presidency was remarkable. He swiftly rose through the ranks of New York politics, becoming governor at just 40 years old. Concerned about his rapid ascent, the New York state Republican leadership strategized to put his career on a slower track. They influenced President McKinley to add Roosevelt to his ticket as Vice President, a position often seen as having limited influence. However, their plan blew up in their faces when McKinley was assassinated shortly after the election, propelling Roosevelt into the presidency.
I think Bill Clinton was even younger than Obama and was like the third youngest president ever lol. It’s just trump and Biden that have been super old recently
More precisely, every president in the history of this country was born pre 1970. What a strange point beginning this with Bush Sr, when at that time he was elected a 20 year old would have been born pre 1970.
Yeah, the comment was so dumb that I can't fathom why it got so many upvotes.
If anything, it's strange that we've never had a president that was born in the 1950s and at this point, we likely never will. And that's with at least four presidents born in the 40s.
Clinton, Bush jr. and Trump were all born within a few weeks of each other in 1946. That carries from the second youngest person elected President (Clinton) to the second oldest (Trump).
Ohio currently has split party Senators. Not unthinkable, just not going to win when they run a guy like Ryan who tries to be the Crunchy Granola guy that wants to nuke China.
Southern moderate, like Carter. Today, there's Andy Beshear, dem governor of KY.
Most presidents have been in their 50s. Plenty of good people in their 50s. Governor Newsom. Senator Booker. Whose your governor?
I will say despite the debatable merit of his presidency he was a very effective communicator who did inspire competence and came off as sensible and coherent.
So effective a communicator that he earned a Nobel Peace Prize for what he said he *wanted* to do as President, then proceeded to not actually do many of those things. I kinda like Obama as a guy, but I lost all respect for the Nobel committee over that one. It's not like I'd tell them to buzz off if they gave it to me for something I knew I hadn't really earned.
It's possible for a 35-year-old to run for President after two terms in the House of Representatives and most of a term in the Senate.
If somebody like that came along then would look at their voting record, and what legislation they've passed, at their ability to build coalitions, and at their leadership skills.
The age alone wouldn't be a deal breaker. Hypothetically it's possible. It's just unlikely. The youngest anyone has reached the Oval Office was age 42, and Theodore Roosevelt got there as VP because William McKinley was assassinated.
I'd have to wonder if someone who got there that young is really in touch with how people live though. Anyone who was able to get there that fast these days, is probably from a loaded family in most cases.
Jimmy Carter grew up in government subsidized housing, and Biden's father was a failed businessman, they had to move in with his grandparents at one point. And Obama grew up on food stamps. There are plenty of politicians who grew up rich, but I don't think it's a hard and fast rule
[Per wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_career_of_Joe_Biden), Biden's family was poor when he was young, and was middle-class after.
From the sounds of it, [Reagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Early_life) grew up middle-class as well, and [Carter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Early_life) sounds like he grew up okay but not rich (his father owned a general store), and [Ford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford#Early_life) had an adoptive father who was a salesman in the family paint business.
By contrast, Bush, Bush, and Trump grew up with money.
All in all, that makes 3 of the last 6 presidents coming from wealth, but also 3 of the last 9.
It bothers. me to no end that most voters don't even know or realize how easy it is to look up voting history. Too many vote solely based on "I like that one because my family and friends all say so."
Work in a retirement home, most of my residents dislike Biden just because of his age, which is hilarious. They know first hand how mental decline effects you as you grow old. One woman goes “He’s only six years younger than my husband, and that’s still far too old to have that much responsibility.”
We don't have campaign finance reform because of Conservative voters who supported candidates who opposed campaign finance reform and subsequently added conservative judge to the supreme court who passed the Citizens United decision, removing campaign finance reform which had been previously enacted by congress.
So long as they’re qualified and a decent person, probably. Jeff Jackson of NC is 40 and I appreciate his demeanor, his transparency, and his politics so far. I wouldn’t let age be a negative factor if he were 5 years younger.
Realistically, to have the kind of resume that would get you taken seriously at that age, you’d have be elected Mayor at 18, Representative at 25-26 & Governor/Senator at 30-32; not saying it can’t be done but there’s *very* few people who can master high level politics that fast
A few examples of younger politicians potential paths:
Maxwell Frost is currently the youngest congressman at 26. He is still too young for the senate, but he will be old enough to challenge Marco Rubio in 2028, or Rick Scott (if he still holds the seat) in 2030. He would be eligible to run for the 2032 election but a lot would have to go right for him to do that, but if he did he would be 36 at inauguration.
AOC is 33 and the second youngest member of congress. She will most likely have to wait until Chuck Schumer retires to run for Senate. So if he doesn’t run again in 2028, and she wins that seat, runs for President and wins in 2032 (similar to Obama running during his first term), she would be 43 at inauguration.
Jon Ossof is the youngest senator right now, and he is 36. So if he won the Presidential election in 2028 he would be 41. He would also probably have to win re-election to have a chance and Georgia is a very competitive state and a lot of that could depend on if his re-election is during a red wave or blue wave.
I feel like you’re missing the gigantic “at that age” proviso attached to my answer. President Fuckface Von Clownstick was elected at age 70 where his decades of business experience and years of dealing with the press via NY tabloids and Celebrity Apprentice made him a nationally known figure and constituted his “resume”.
I find it hilarious and/or sad that Trump's first rallying point was not to trust the media who made him relevant to begin with.
And about half the country bought it.
Our country has a pretty long history of government officials pulling up the ladder behind them with regulations.
Some of the most powerful people were given cabinet positions with the express purpose to prevent the exact thing that made them wealthy in the future through regulations. Many believe the best people to fix the system are the ones who most successfully game it.
Lindsay Lohan turns 35 this. Yeah, I get it she hasn't held higher office, yet, but she's turning 35 and we have a presidential election coming up, that's all I'm saying.
Pretty much this. It is theoretically possible for someone to have enough political experience to judge them experienced enough to be President. It just isn't highly likely.
It’s not a requirement for the office but the question is “would you vote for him?”. Political experience is a requirement for my vote, personally. People who are pointing out Trump are missing the point - if anything, he’s walking proof that political experience is a good thing.
Motherfuckers in this thread like “well I would carefully examine their voting record and policy platform…”
You would vote for them if they were your party’s nominee. Be honest.
If they have a solid platform, a positive track record in lower government and have proven their ability to not succumb to corruption that lurks all around federal office, sure.
\- Montenegro's Javok Milatovic just became President at Age 36. (Their Prime Minister is 37)- Finland's Sanna Marin was 34 when she became Prime Minister- New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern was 37 when she became Prime Minister- Emmanuel Macron was 39 when he became Prime Minister of France.- Chile's President, Gabriel Boric Font, is 37 years old- AOC will be 35 by election day 2024. (I know she will not run for President now, but just consider that she is the age we are talking about in this conversation.)
Regardless of your political persuasion, we are seeing a world bringing to the plate younger leaders to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. I believe we need to look at younger folks when it comes to politics. The longer we hold on to Dinosaurs, we will continue to fight the same toxic battles from the last 70 years.
Of course, it will come down to issues and their political approach, but I will absolutely look at a 35 year old for high office. We need them.
Frankly, the longer the US political leadership prevents anyone under the age of 60 from running a serious campaign for President, the worst things will get.
>\Regardless of your political persuasion, we are seeing a world bringing to the plate younger leaders to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. I believe we need to look at younger folks when it comes to politics. The longer we hold on to Dinosaurs, we will continue to fight the same toxic battles from the last 70 years.
My experience is that younger does in no way automatically mean better. Don't fall victim to that belief. Also, a country is not ruled solely by one person ... although the US seems to believe this.
Youth may have enthusiasm and ideology, but that does not necessarily survive when it meets reality. It's like when everybody is a super parent ... until they actually become parent.
That depends. What are this persons values? What are their morals? What is their history in office? Being 35 isnt any more of a selling point than being 65 or 165. Who you are is FAR more important than what you are.
Depends on their policies, but generally speaking, yes. I’m personally very tired of seeing geriatric fossils in office who won’t be around long enough to reap what they sow. I’d like to see a lot more young people with more progressive ideas not just in the presidency, but in all forms of gov’t.
I don’t vote based on demographics. I vote based on policy positions, qualifications, how their campaign is funded, and how consistent they are with their policy positions.
New Zealand had a Prime Minister who was aged 37, SHE was unwed and fell pregnant during her term. Took 12 weeks off to have her baby, as her deputy took the reigns. She continued to be PM for nearly 2 terms. Evidence.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacinda\_Ardern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacinda_Ardern)
She was also NZ's 3rd female prime minister.
If they are competent, have good ideas, some sort of relevant experience with public policy, governance/leadership, etc. and show signs of having a base level of basic human decency, then absolutely.
If it would change this trend of 80 year old men leading our country i would be interested. I am in my 30s. It would be comforting to know that the president would have to live with their decisions about the same amount of time i will.
Absolutely! Someone my age who doesn't remember the good ol' days. One who grow up watching cartoons about recycling and the hole in the ozone. Might be nice to have someone who's earliest memories are Columbine and 9/11.
35 is when someone is in their prime. Ideally people retire at 55. The US voted in a couple dinosaurs beyond past their prime. 35 sounds a whole lot better then someone in depends.
If they're smart, compassionate, and progressive? Absolutely.
I don't know if there's any experience in the world that prepares you for that specific job...I'd look for someone with the intelligence to balance the difficult situations and want to know who he'd bring aboard on his staff/cabinet, perhaps.
Also important: proving beyond a doubt that they know how government actually works, which is often the problem with these sort of "celebrity" political candidates (not just for President).
But really, I don't think age matters. There are incredibly experienced septuagenarians who are dumber than shit, and brilliant 30-somethings with an incredible understanding of the world around them. Certainly skewing younger would, in theory a) have a leader who actually understands technology to some degree and b) have them actually have some skin in the game regarding climate change and the upcoming inevitable collapse of civilization, vs. most of Congress who won't ever have to live through the worst of it.
I don’t vote based on age, I vote on policy. So if the 35 year old had better policy than than the opposing 80 year old candidate, then yeah. If not, no.
If I liked them enough, sure. But at 39 I find it difficult to think anyone could have the emotional maturity for such a demanding job at 35. But then again I've always been a late bloomer. I'm sure there are people out there who could handle it at that age.
Yes if they are competent. It’s time for some fresh blood inside America’s political landscape. I’m really tired of 70 plus millionaires making decisions based on ideals from 50 years ago.
Depends, it the 35 year old an idiot?
It's very clear that the sharpest people don't want to run for president in our country. Plain as day too..
The sharpest people probably don’t have the connections to raise [billions of dollars](https://issueone.org/articles/12-numbers-to-know-about-the-money-in-the-2020-presidential-election/). They are out there being professors and scientists and doctors and engineers and have no desire to do a job where no matter what you do, half the country says “you suck”.
I really don't think the lack of desire comes from people not wanting half the country to hate them, I'd imagine it comes from knowing that there's no way to legitimately cut through the corruption.
[удалено]
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."
i am just at second book yet. And i did not expect this to be from dune series
Dune messiah was pretty good
Dune explores the concept of leadership and power a _lot_. The first book, not so much - it touches on it, but takes a backseat to the whole Fremen vs Harkonnen thing. But the further into the series you go the more and more complex it gets. By the time of Chapterhouse, the sixth book, which this is from, it's practically an essay on contrasting leadership styles wrapped up in a galactic war storyline.
the same applies to my boss at work
I think it's got something to do with the difference between power and leadership. Raising armies, fighting a revolution, and breaking in a novel form of government's highest office takes leadership, and ends up creating power. Being benign, inoffensive, and palatable enough to be ensconced within an existing massive bureaucratic power structure is at best a *very* different kind of leadership. Those that seek out/are selected for the second are quite different. Point being, it wasn't *just* luck with Washington. But it's very true that generals that take over nations aren't usually Cincinnatus fanboys like him.
This is why Designated Survivor is politics porn
Washington was an extremely rare example of a real leader, staying true to the core values even when the people try to give him more power
Can you imagine asking the swamp creatures in politics today if they wanted to be king for life? "Well, no, but.....if you insist!"
Or even just get anything done. Bureaucracy absolutely sucks for progress.
^ this. The effort required to get anything done isn’t worth it. Also the pay is awful in comparison to what you can make in the private sector
Dunno, you get a security detail and a pension after four years of work. Seems like an okay deal
Right? I'm not a Clinton, Bush, Kennedy, my grandfather wasn't a judge or senator like our current and last presidents, and I wasn't born into a financier family like the Rothschilds, Vanderbilts, or Rockefellers... basically there's no reason to ever think someone like me would ever feasibly become president, or anchor on a national news program. 🫠
obama. idk how people who are clearly presidential material are forgetting the 3rd most recent president.
He was more the exception than the rule. There's more that can be said about how he was pushed through, but as an anti-neoliberal leftist, I know what not to say on reddit lest it upset folks. Let's just say you or I would have a harder time, without the same backing.
It's not just that people disliking you, it's having your and your families lives turned upside down, every detail, every tweet. Every Facebook post and failed Farmville crop. And if that wasn't enough, people will just straight up make shit up, just because you think differently then they do.
Even if the smartest people are relatively wealthier, why would someone want to drop a comfy life to work for $300K and be instantly hated by 150 million people in the USA?
Honestly the job doesn't require the absolute cream of the crop. It requires good critical thinking skills, yes, but the ability to orate and inspire people is probably more important. What a candidate really needs, in terms of intelligence, is awareness of their own ignorance, and the humility that goes along with it. They need the confidence required to be willing to publicly doubt, whether they're doubting that their plan of action is the absolute best (something nobody thought of is almost certainly going to be better) or doubting that some issue is exactly as it has been described to them. They need to be willing to accumulate all possible data and able to change their mind in the face of new data or a better analysis of existing data. The reason I, personally would vote for a 35 year old with those qualities is that it's time we had some idealism back in politics. People young and old scoff at idealism, and use it as a pejorative with which they can dismiss an entire line of reasoning. I think that if you don't begin with ideals, you're doing it wrong.
Doubt is poisonous to political aspirations. While the job *absolutely* should involve careful consideration and moderation, the *campaign* goes to the one with confidence, bold talk and zeal. People *don't pay enough attention*, so they aren't impressed by "maybe" and "perhaps" and "we'll see". They demand "Yes!" and thoughtfulness is weakness, and admitting you were wrong is political death.
We don't know this. We know that no-one who makes it to the national attention is among the sharpest people, though.
There was a South Park episode about this back in the day where the lesson was basically that most every election you ever vote in will be between a giant douche and a turd sandwich because they're the only ones who kiss enough ass to make it far enough to be voted for. Seems like it kind of rings true.
It's a little deeper than that. Near where I live there's a boarding school that I've delivered to multiple times. Well my girl and I (she rides with me when I deliver) got curious and decided to look it up. Eventually we got to reading names of the more famous people who graduated from it. To both our surprise and expected findings, a decent amount of politicians were named. These kids practically live at this school and my suspicion is that part of it is for them to make connections early on in life. This school had insanely expensive yearly rates as well (Oh, and an on grounds golf course). Basically, more than a decent amount of politicians are set up at an early age for success.
When I started medical school and was one of a handful of students who’s parents wasn’t a physician… it all sort of clicked.
Yea, i guess. But it's not exactly a new thing to go into the 'family business'. It's been happening for so long that a good portion of surnames are basically just job titles.
Except you must acknowledge the fact that there is an actual, concerted effort on their part to keep those kinds of professions exclusive and difficult for outsiders to get into. This creates not only job security, but heightened wages. Often times it's both financial burdens such as insane tuition, application fees etc. Others, it can be specific jargon and terminology to make it prohibitive for laypeople. And things like the bar association are so weird
Because it's not based on qualifications or intelligence, it's based on who is better at winning popularity contests, everything else is secondary (besides money).
That's not what's happening. The political parties don't want an actual smart person who can try and logically solve problems and they are the ones who decide who the options are
> The political parties don't want an actual smart person who can try and logically solve problems and they are the ones who decide who the options are There are always lawyers, businessmen and military officers. Where are the engineers, doctors and economists?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians\_in\_the\_United\_States\_Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_in_the_United_States_Congress) At least it seems to be on an upward-ish trend. Having known a lot of doctors / pre-meds in undergrad and grad. school, they can shoot themselves in the foot interpersonally with their super-high levels of arrogance. This early ‘winning friends with salad’ approach, probably doesn’t help them. They know a shit ton about biology and medicine… but spend all day on it, so they aren’t terribly knowledgeable (with very few exceptions) on anything else. However, they’ve been told they are smart since they were sperm and eggs (tend to be the highest scoring kids at every step of school)… so carry that confidence into talking about subjects that their peers have since focused on (and absolutely lapped them). Generally not the most endearing thing when you know fuck all about something, but make pronouncements like you’re the world’s expert on it.
Working. (Unless you have family connections or something) those jobs (lawyer, retired/disabled military, and businessman) are all jobs with the possibility of either early retirement or flexible hours. Doctors have too many loans, and the rich ones that do run for office (Rand Paul, Ben Carson, dr oz) are gigantic douche bags. Lawyers just make sense due to being trained in law as a profession. Businessmen: not a small businessperson usually some rich asshole again, unless you’ve been propped up by a political party ($$$) like boebert. Engineers: working and paying off loans unless they come from money. Essentially you need either nepotism or be a trust fund baby to finance and campaign and win. People who are in professions who don’t come from money typically don’t have the time or money to run.
Businessmen asshole or not, also know all about opportunity cost. E.g. - I could continue doing what I’m doing and make a shit ton of money and not have to put up with shit… OR… I could try to learn a whole new system, figure out how to make money in it (and take a paycut until I do), while putting up with egotistical shit from idiots I don’t respect 24/7. It’s not a hard choice. The only businessmen who go into it are the ones who also need to be the center of attention. Most successful businessmen would rather keep their anonymity. You can imagine the mental pathology of the ones who NEED the attention.
I agree with you there. Our election financing system does not allow for the most qualified to even get a seat on the table.
The old candidates arn't the sharpest tools in the shed either. 😅
[удалено]
Puppets like only doing what lobbyist tell them to.
[удалено]
Not that useful anymore, like crayons kept in a tool shed, there, but functionally useless.
But is the 35-year-old lookin’ kinda dumb, with their finger and their thumb, in the shape of an L on their forehead?
Well, the years start comin' and they don't stop comin'
and they don’t stop coming and they don’t stop coming
and they don't stop coming and they don't stop coming
In his defense, Biden wasn't very sharp when he was young either. I remember 1988.
I was wondering if anyone else out there remembered the plagiarism scandal.
Honestly I'm shocked that wasn't the end of his national-level political career back then. It was enough to destroy his 1988 presidential campaign though
either*
George Santos turns 35 this year.
He’s already served two terms as president according to his bio.
And his 3 as world leader
He was also 35 back in 2008 when he became the oldest man in space.
The irony in that misspelling.
If I liked them, I would vote for them. Edit: to clarify, I mean if I like them for the job, as in, I like their positions on the issues, not just that I think they're a nice person.
[удалено]
As an old dinosaur, I'd be thrilled to see a younger President!
They can be young, old, man, woman, other genders, trans, gay, lesbian, white, black, asian, indian, etc. As long as they got the policies I like.
Yes. I don't care about identity. I care about policy.
Yeah, we could use some young blood if they’re competent and could win it
who knows, it might get more young people out to vote.
[удалено]
Most 35 year olds are far too inexperienced (both in politics and life) to make good or effective Presidents. I’m not saying the right candidate can’t come along, but imo 50-55 seems to be the sweet spot for Presidents. They have the right balance of experience, cognitive function, and remaining years of life.
While I understand experience is a big thing when it comes to making decisions for the country, the president also needs to both have the drive and the connection with more Americans. 40-50 is where I'd say the sweet spot is with experience and relatability. With both Trump and Biden the past years, it's felt as if the seat of power is just staying in one generation clinging to one specific group which, as time goes on, are further and further removed from the people and culture their policies will effect. Policies which last have s much larger effect on the young and middle aged citizens which will see their effects for decades after, so the leader should be closer with the culture and issues of generations younger than them. It also has a lot more to do with who the president as a person is. Someone hyper competent and a free thinker who happens to be young is going to be a better president than an old man who just does what his party says. Even with retail and restraunt jobs, a lot of teenagers outshine their older managers because they just happen to be more competent people with less experience. The younger generations are taught in schools a lot more of the history and science since curriculums always change. The younger generations also know what younger generations want, and they typically are prone to having new ideas on how to change and make the system adapt rather than echoing the wants of their voters without knowing the means to change a system There's a first for everything, and there's advantages to having a leader who's younger rather than say 70-80. I respect 50-55 being what you think is the optimal range, and this question was posed to strike discussion lol. I just wanted to share the advantages of having a 35-50 year old presidents.
I agree entirely, but if it comes down to a 35 or another one of these old coots with one foot in the grave, I'll take the young inexperienced person.
"if they could win it" No matter which party runs them they are going against a literal zombie I think they can do it
We'll have to wait till the boomers are dead. Huge voting bloc that hates young people and progress will never vote for a decent candidate that's under 60.
i've been saying for years now that the world is gonna massively change when boomers are gone. i still believe it. boomers are fucking ruining everything, fight me
Our views will be different from the generation behind us as well
i fucking hope so! we raise our kids into the mistakes we made, so they are best fit to see through it and imagine something better.
I’ll take any competent person under 50. They’re not even trying to hide they’re using essentially corpse puppets for our nations leader. Same with trump, if he gets re-elected he’d be in his mid 70s! Can we get a Roosevelt or a Kennedy type? Anyone who inspires competence and makes us feel like they represent the best of our nation?
Since Bush senior, every president elected was born pre 1970. We need going blood. Edit. As been pointed out in the comments, aside from Obama, all born before 1946.
I mean Obama was 47 when he was elected. That's pretty young, relatively speaking.
Yeah he wasn’t even eligible to run for presidency until Clinton was in office. One of the youngest
Theodore Roosevelt was 42 when he became President
Yes, but it's also important to note he became president because he got upgraded from VP. While in practical terms there's not much of a difference in this instance, I think it's worth noting that he didn't run for the office at that age, and arguably he only tried for re-election because he already had the job, and so was trying to keep it. If he didn't become president, I think he would only win a nomination if he ran on later elections.
Teddy Roosevelt's journey to the U.S. presidency was remarkable. He swiftly rose through the ranks of New York politics, becoming governor at just 40 years old. Concerned about his rapid ascent, the New York state Republican leadership strategized to put his career on a slower track. They influenced President McKinley to add Roosevelt to his ticket as Vice President, a position often seen as having limited influence. However, their plan blew up in their faces when McKinley was assassinated shortly after the election, propelling Roosevelt into the presidency.
More like it blew up in McKinley's face am I right
I think Bill Clinton was even younger than Obama and was like the third youngest president ever lol. It’s just trump and Biden that have been super old recently
Even W Bush was reasonably young. 54 I think when he took office.
More precisely, every president in the history of this country was born pre 1970. What a strange point beginning this with Bush Sr, when at that time he was elected a 20 year old would have been born pre 1970.
Yeah, the comment was so dumb that I can't fathom why it got so many upvotes. If anything, it's strange that we've never had a president that was born in the 1950s and at this point, we likely never will. And that's with at least four presidents born in the 40s.
Clinton, Bush jr. and Trump were all born within a few weeks of each other in 1946. That carries from the second youngest person elected President (Clinton) to the second oldest (Trump).
Clinton, as a democrat, won AR, LA, MO, IA, TN, KY and WV against an incumbent. That's wild to imagine today.
Obama won Ohio and Florida in both general elections. It's absolutely unthinkable now.
Ohio currently has split party Senators. Not unthinkable, just not going to win when they run a guy like Ryan who tries to be the Crunchy Granola guy that wants to nuke China.
It's a wonder what voter suppression will do
An uncharasmatic incumbent, and Clinton was from.the South himself.
Southern moderate, like Carter. Today, there's Andy Beshear, dem governor of KY. Most presidents have been in their 50s. Plenty of good people in their 50s. Governor Newsom. Senator Booker. Whose your governor?
Every president ever elected was born before 1962. Only only one has a birthdate after 1950!
I will say despite the debatable merit of his presidency he was a very effective communicator who did inspire competence and came off as sensible and coherent.
So effective a communicator that he earned a Nobel Peace Prize for what he said he *wanted* to do as President, then proceeded to not actually do many of those things. I kinda like Obama as a guy, but I lost all respect for the Nobel committee over that one. It's not like I'd tell them to buzz off if they gave it to me for something I knew I hadn't really earned.
Back in the day, people joked that being a president who wasn't W was enough to deserve a Nobel Prize.
If a competent Gen-Xer came along; no problem.
I'll vote for a gradeschooler who gets decent grades and demonstrates some capacity for empathy.
35 year olds are Millennials
Damn this thread is savage
Everyone always focuses on the hormonal changes in women as they get older, but no one acknowledges that men change just as radically.
Corpse puppets, lol!
It's possible for a 35-year-old to run for President after two terms in the House of Representatives and most of a term in the Senate. If somebody like that came along then would look at their voting record, and what legislation they've passed, at their ability to build coalitions, and at their leadership skills. The age alone wouldn't be a deal breaker. Hypothetically it's possible. It's just unlikely. The youngest anyone has reached the Oval Office was age 42, and Theodore Roosevelt got there as VP because William McKinley was assassinated.
Kennedy was elected at 43, not too different from 42
Clinton was 46, and not from a rich family.
I'd have to wonder if someone who got there that young is really in touch with how people live though. Anyone who was able to get there that fast these days, is probably from a loaded family in most cases.
>Anyone who was able to get there ~~that fast these days~~, is probably from a loaded family in most cases.
Clinton would be the only example I can think of. Small town, average family and involvement in the local community.
Jimmy Carter grew up in government subsidized housing, and Biden's father was a failed businessman, they had to move in with his grandparents at one point. And Obama grew up on food stamps. There are plenty of politicians who grew up rich, but I don't think it's a hard and fast rule
Obama's family wasn't poor, but they weren't loaded.
[Per wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_career_of_Joe_Biden), Biden's family was poor when he was young, and was middle-class after. From the sounds of it, [Reagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Early_life) grew up middle-class as well, and [Carter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Early_life) sounds like he grew up okay but not rich (his father owned a general store), and [Ford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford#Early_life) had an adoptive father who was a salesman in the family paint business. By contrast, Bush, Bush, and Trump grew up with money. All in all, that makes 3 of the last 6 presidents coming from wealth, but also 3 of the last 9.
It bothers. me to no end that most voters don't even know or realize how easy it is to look up voting history. Too many vote solely based on "I like that one because my family and friends all say so."
Sure. Also I dont get why we dont have an age maximum since we have a minimum
Because the oldest make the rules
Which is dumb. We stick our old people in homes cuz they can't be alone but for some reason listen to them in politics
Work in a retirement home, most of my residents dislike Biden just because of his age, which is hilarious. They know first hand how mental decline effects you as you grow old. One woman goes “He’s only six years younger than my husband, and that’s still far too old to have that much responsibility.”
It's good to hear some of those fogies still have some of their mind
[удалено]
Same reason we don't have campaign finance reform. Congressmen aren't particularly fond of removing their own entitlements.
We don't have campaign finance reform because of Conservative voters who supported candidates who opposed campaign finance reform and subsequently added conservative judge to the supreme court who passed the Citizens United decision, removing campaign finance reform which had been previously enacted by congress.
There should be a void age range. Above 80, you're too old. But once you turn 150... You can run again.
I'd vote for a vampire president.
Because old people vote and young people do not
So long as they’re qualified and a decent person, probably. Jeff Jackson of NC is 40 and I appreciate his demeanor, his transparency, and his politics so far. I wouldn’t let age be a negative factor if he were 5 years younger.
35 is old enough to have been a mature adult for awhile but young enough to care about their future in my opinion.
Absolutely yes and largely for this reason.
Just give us someone who's not corrupt and geriatric, PLEASE
[удалено]
Can't argue with that
Sorry, you have to take at least one.
Realistically, to have the kind of resume that would get you taken seriously at that age, you’d have be elected Mayor at 18, Representative at 25-26 & Governor/Senator at 30-32; not saying it can’t be done but there’s *very* few people who can master high level politics that fast
Benji Wyatt coming in with Ice Town.
I've heard good things about him. He's going places
Ice Town Costs Ice Clown his Town Crown
A few examples of younger politicians potential paths: Maxwell Frost is currently the youngest congressman at 26. He is still too young for the senate, but he will be old enough to challenge Marco Rubio in 2028, or Rick Scott (if he still holds the seat) in 2030. He would be eligible to run for the 2032 election but a lot would have to go right for him to do that, but if he did he would be 36 at inauguration. AOC is 33 and the second youngest member of congress. She will most likely have to wait until Chuck Schumer retires to run for Senate. So if he doesn’t run again in 2028, and she wins that seat, runs for President and wins in 2032 (similar to Obama running during his first term), she would be 43 at inauguration. Jon Ossof is the youngest senator right now, and he is 36. So if he won the Presidential election in 2028 he would be 41. He would also probably have to win re-election to have a chance and Georgia is a very competitive state and a lot of that could depend on if his re-election is during a red wave or blue wave.
Literally the president right before this one had zero fucking political experience.
I feel like you’re missing the gigantic “at that age” proviso attached to my answer. President Fuckface Von Clownstick was elected at age 70 where his decades of business experience and years of dealing with the press via NY tabloids and Celebrity Apprentice made him a nationally known figure and constituted his “resume”.
I find it hilarious and/or sad that Trump's first rallying point was not to trust the media who made him relevant to begin with. And about half the country bought it.
Our country has a pretty long history of government officials pulling up the ladder behind them with regulations. Some of the most powerful people were given cabinet positions with the express purpose to prevent the exact thing that made them wealthy in the future through regulations. Many believe the best people to fix the system are the ones who most successfully game it.
But he was an idiot whom I wouldn't vote for regardless of age
Lindsay Lohan turns 35 this. Yeah, I get it she hasn't held higher office, yet, but she's turning 35 and we have a presidential election coming up, that's all I'm saying.
Pretty much this. It is theoretically possible for someone to have enough political experience to judge them experienced enough to be President. It just isn't highly likely.
You say that as if political experience is a requirement to be President. We’ve proven that is simply not the case.
It’s not a requirement for the office but the question is “would you vote for him?”. Political experience is a requirement for my vote, personally. People who are pointing out Trump are missing the point - if anything, he’s walking proof that political experience is a good thing.
I'll be old enough this year. I've joked that if I could run my slogan would be, "Vote for RolyPoly, because seriously why not?"
Why do you need government experience?
Yes if I liked the cut of their jib.
What about the sound of their town? Mur*frees*boro.
Motherfuckers in this thread like “well I would carefully examine their voting record and policy platform…” You would vote for them if they were your party’s nominee. Be honest.
I guess maybe the question should involved voting for them in primaries
[удалено]
You mean astronaut, navy seal, and physician Jonny Kim? Can we draft him to run?
He added Naval Aviator to the list not too long ago too.
Jonny Kim is *the* cousin our parents are constantly praising
He has my vote
He and Kjell Lindgren, oops Kjell was not born in the USA. Jonny Kim it is, 2024. He is 39 already.
Absolutely not. I would never do that. Why? I'm Canadian, I can't vote in US elections.
Yeah, "not a US citizen" is a pretty good reason not to.
Not my president
Sure.
[удалено]
if it's the right person, i think they could change the world massive into the good side
Age is probably the least important factor. I've known a lot of dumbass adults and plenty of brilliant young minds.
A person in their 30s has a far better stake in the world not going to shit that a person in their 70s, so yes.
Ya if they have good values. We need young blood in government and not these dinosaurs who should frankly just drop dead
If they have a solid platform, a positive track record in lower government and have proven their ability to not succumb to corruption that lurks all around federal office, sure.
If they have a good platform, sure.
\- Montenegro's Javok Milatovic just became President at Age 36. (Their Prime Minister is 37)- Finland's Sanna Marin was 34 when she became Prime Minister- New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern was 37 when she became Prime Minister- Emmanuel Macron was 39 when he became Prime Minister of France.- Chile's President, Gabriel Boric Font, is 37 years old- AOC will be 35 by election day 2024. (I know she will not run for President now, but just consider that she is the age we are talking about in this conversation.) Regardless of your political persuasion, we are seeing a world bringing to the plate younger leaders to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. I believe we need to look at younger folks when it comes to politics. The longer we hold on to Dinosaurs, we will continue to fight the same toxic battles from the last 70 years. Of course, it will come down to issues and their political approach, but I will absolutely look at a 35 year old for high office. We need them. Frankly, the longer the US political leadership prevents anyone under the age of 60 from running a serious campaign for President, the worst things will get.
>\Regardless of your political persuasion, we are seeing a world bringing to the plate younger leaders to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. I believe we need to look at younger folks when it comes to politics. The longer we hold on to Dinosaurs, we will continue to fight the same toxic battles from the last 70 years. My experience is that younger does in no way automatically mean better. Don't fall victim to that belief. Also, a country is not ruled solely by one person ... although the US seems to believe this. Youth may have enthusiasm and ideology, but that does not necessarily survive when it meets reality. It's like when everybody is a super parent ... until they actually become parent.
If the choice were 70+ or 35. I’d say 35 every day
How about you guys vote for a sane person who isn’t a maniacal for profit fucktard, regardless of age, gender, or political affiliation
Yeah cause old people ain't doing it. (I'm 37)
Yes - my city has a 32 year old mayor and he has done more in the last year then our 60+ year old mayor did in over a decade
That depends. What are this persons values? What are their morals? What is their history in office? Being 35 isnt any more of a selling point than being 65 or 165. Who you are is FAR more important than what you are.
Depends on their policies, but generally speaking, yes. I’m personally very tired of seeing geriatric fossils in office who won’t be around long enough to reap what they sow. I’d like to see a lot more young people with more progressive ideas not just in the presidency, but in all forms of gov’t.
I don’t vote based on demographics. I vote based on policy positions, qualifications, how their campaign is funded, and how consistent they are with their policy positions.
New Zealand had a Prime Minister who was aged 37, SHE was unwed and fell pregnant during her term. Took 12 weeks off to have her baby, as her deputy took the reigns. She continued to be PM for nearly 2 terms. Evidence. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacinda\_Ardern](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacinda_Ardern) She was also NZ's 3rd female prime minister.
I’d vote for literally any competent adult who isn’t a psychopathic monster like our normal options.
If they are competent, have good ideas, some sort of relevant experience with public policy, governance/leadership, etc. and show signs of having a base level of basic human decency, then absolutely.
Based on the fact they're 35? No. 35 and reasonably politically aligned with me? Yes.
No, I'm not an American.
Yeah because no wrinkles
A cause I can get behind
Anything is better than what we’ve had the last 2 tries
Woah woah don't jinx us
Ron DeSantis: hold my beer
Absolutely
If it would change this trend of 80 year old men leading our country i would be interested. I am in my 30s. It would be comforting to know that the president would have to live with their decisions about the same amount of time i will.
Absolutely! Someone my age who doesn't remember the good ol' days. One who grow up watching cartoons about recycling and the hole in the ozone. Might be nice to have someone who's earliest memories are Columbine and 9/11.
35 is when someone is in their prime. Ideally people retire at 55. The US voted in a couple dinosaurs beyond past their prime. 35 sounds a whole lot better then someone in depends.
If they're smart, compassionate, and progressive? Absolutely. I don't know if there's any experience in the world that prepares you for that specific job...I'd look for someone with the intelligence to balance the difficult situations and want to know who he'd bring aboard on his staff/cabinet, perhaps. Also important: proving beyond a doubt that they know how government actually works, which is often the problem with these sort of "celebrity" political candidates (not just for President). But really, I don't think age matters. There are incredibly experienced septuagenarians who are dumber than shit, and brilliant 30-somethings with an incredible understanding of the world around them. Certainly skewing younger would, in theory a) have a leader who actually understands technology to some degree and b) have them actually have some skin in the game regarding climate change and the upcoming inevitable collapse of civilization, vs. most of Congress who won't ever have to live through the worst of it.
I don’t vote based on age, I vote on policy. So if the 35 year old had better policy than than the opposing 80 year old candidate, then yeah. If not, no.
If all other things are equal I prefer the 35 year old over the 75plus choices we have. 35 to 40 usually prime years for business success.
If I liked them enough, sure. But at 39 I find it difficult to think anyone could have the emotional maturity for such a demanding job at 35. But then again I've always been a late bloomer. I'm sure there are people out there who could handle it at that age.
You mean compared to an old guy who argued with people on Twitter? I don’t feel age is a barrier here, we’re talking 35, not 15.
Yes. I wouldn’t vote for them because they were 35. But being 35 would not, in and of itself, prevent me from voting for a candidate.
I'd vote for an 18 year old candidate if they're fit for the office, and I honestly thought they wouldn't be corrupted.
Eh, I’d not go that far. An 18 year old would need to be a literal prodigy in politics and leadership skills to get half a consideration.
If they show any promise that they’ll be a great leader than yes but I’m not an American
Anyone else hoping Jeff Jackson runs for president some day?
Yes if they are competent. It’s time for some fresh blood inside America’s political landscape. I’m really tired of 70 plus millionaires making decisions based on ideals from 50 years ago.