In the US there were similar minimum age limits for other offices. President was 35, upper chamber legislator 30, lower chamber legislator 25.

Why do you find it so offensive that people get to choose who they want to be their leader?

Because those "«people»" choose it for everybody else

I.e., your statement is translated to "that large masses of possibly unqualified people choose wrongly qualified people as having power over other people, with important regard to people in their right mind". It is not a value; it is a concern tackled in systemic planning.

All people in all countries choose who they want to be their leader. If Russians didn't like Putin, they'd string his entrails up from a lamp post.

All governments, democratic or despotic can only govern with the consent of their subjects.

It's thus reasonable to dislike the precise mechanisms by which that consent (explicit and implied) is achieved in any particular country.

They really only need consent of 2-3% of very violent people and for the rest to non-violently not consent.

Most people will become sufficiently violent if unhappy enough. The world's always three meals from anarchy.

Sometimes. On the other hand a surprisingly large number of women are raped and dont fight back because they are overwhelmed with various forceful factors. I imagine being raped feels quite unhappy, possibly even more so than missing 3 meals.

I'll have to look more into the 'seasoning' islands full of slaves in the Caribbean during the slave trade years. IIRC they were treated as bad as you can get, were the majority, and didn't consent yet practically didn't overthrow their dictator in most circumstances (Haiti might count as an exception).