I read an article a couple of weeks ago that the medical community was re-looking at the definition of age and that age should not be based on chronological years but health years. There are very, very healthy 90 year olds (look at how sharp President Bush remained, skydiving at 90) and how sharp McCain remained until his death. Then there are very ill 40 year olds with early onset alzheimers, dementia, and other diseases.
For President, I look at their health age. Are they fit, are they making sound judgements, how has their recent voting record and un-scripted speeches been? I actually prefer an older, experienced stateman, that knows how to deal with the rest of the world at the top. A person that understands the very intricate details of very complex issues like national security and won't accidently blab classified information to our enemies. Experience in that job is critical.
Now Congress, I love to see a mix of ages, from the fresh ideas of Ocasio Cortez to the guidance and teachings of the more experienced. I may not agree with all the young people elected, but they stir things up and make people think. Congress is a great place for that. Not so much the presidency.
For President, I look at their health age. Are they fit, are they making sound judgements, how has their recent voting record and un-scripted speeches been? I actually prefer an older, experienced stateman, that knows how to deal with the rest of the world at the top. A person that understands the very intricate details of very complex issues like national security and won't accidently blab classified information to our enemies. Experience in that job is critical.
Now Congress, I love to see a mix of ages, from the fresh ideas of Ocasio Cortez to the guidance and teachings of the more experienced. I may not agree with all the young people elected, but they stir things up and make people think. Congress is a great place for that. Not so much the presidency.