Why can't a person under 35 years old campaign for president?
In my opinion, anyone under 35 years old could not campaign as their are still slightly youthful, and could not have more experience. However, they might actually have more, as they could have already matured between that period. Being younger means less responsibilty and more independant time. This results that most likely most people aged 0-20 would not be altogether experienced than more older people. Yet still being 21-34 should gain you much more authority and weight on your shoulders. I think that this should be modified to being ideally 25 and above, as this would mean you have average intelligence and experience, which would both be particulary useful in political cases. In my opinion, the best age could be around 30 to 50 years. If you are above all of these, and are maybe 67, then you would fit the trend yet could make mistakes. However, this is not very likely.
Why can't a person who was not born in America campaign to be president?
For me, this rule is quite unjust, as what if a person with all the qualities but this one came along? You can hardly tell them to go away. And what if, a person who lived somewhere else but then moved to America when they were exceedingly young, and can ony recall living life in America? In a way it is fair, as you would need to familiarise yourself with it, and also America seems to only recruit people who are native and might understand what state the public is feeling. I think that this should be modified to having lived in America since three years at most. This way, even if you were not born in America, if you were considering a career in politics, (though it would be hard ot tell!) you could move there before becoming an official toddler. The case can be that this is not occuring, and people would just continue with natives for president, and that is a little just, but definitely not entirely.
Why can't a person who doesn't have at least 1 degree become president?
People without any degrees are not likely to become president as 1. it is the law and 2. it would come in handy. Probably the best for this would be one in politics, as politics would be used a lot, as well as debating. Going to university and obtaining a degree could be used in many criteria, but not so good degrees for politics would be thing like music (although that is good!) as it would be very hard to think of a case when the President gets to display musical talent. Another thing would be that degrees could give someone more support, because they might think that you know what you are doing, as you would have you area of expertise based around it. If you are educated it would give you an advantage as it would mean that you would find it much easier to debate and other political targets in your cases. I don't think that this rule should be changed, as it is fair and also helps the actual President or anyone trying to be.
Why can't a person who has lived in America for under 14 years become president?
In my opinion, this rule is fair, yet still should be modified. If you have lived in America for 14 years or over, you should be be quite used to the country and would most likely know how everyone lives, their problems and their skills, and maybe how to solve their problems. I would agree with this type of criteria but I think that it should be changed to under at least 10 years. This way you would probably till have all the necessary skills yet it would be much easier. Another would be that you would only have to want to become it since least 25 instead of 21. (unless you weren't born in America!) This rule would also apply to people just under 14 years in America, as if it was ten, they should be able to become it. Finally, if you were over 14, then you could still campaign, as long as you fit all the othe trend.
Why hasn't a woman become president yet?
This is mainly to do with racism of gender. There were many female candidates for the job of President. Yet none of them made it through. In a BBC article, it claims that 90% of the people are biased againnst women. And also around 75 countries, owning around 80% of the world's population, discovered that nearly half the population feel that men make better leaders. So far, even those wo had good ideas, all of the female candiates have either quit the race or have lost to another male candidate. In this election, Elizabeth Warren left the race, after referring to having sexism put on her. And she had some very clever ideas, such as univesal child-care, and banning harmful weapons. I think that both genders are able ot lead their country, and racism itself should be banned. This way, there would be no judging on the person, but what the person is like on talent alone.
Why is their much fewer black presidents than white?
This is another thing to do with racism. So far, only one black president has come forth- President Barack Obhama, who was definitely good president. He had also had stayed on for another vote, resulting in eight out of ten years in the White House. It is quite offensive to black people when whites say "The black vote". This is all about grouping people together in a certain way. Many people expect all Black people to vote the same way, as KJ Kearney put it, 'a loss of individuality.' If I was being grouped away like that I would certainly feel frustrated. Both candidates are grouping them away, and even Joseph Biden has been critisised for saying that only white people can diffeer between each candidate and that the black citizens will only vote one way. In my opinion, any person should be able to be them and not 'living other's lives for them', whatever skin colour they have.
The first four are actual rules, and should be followed. However, the second two can change, as there could be one more black president or one female president. Or both! However, someone might abide the actual rules, if they have a lot of power, due to extreme superiority. This could literally change the world, as it could result in bargains, or gambling to be a leader.
Thank you for reading my post!