Who is the worst U. S. President in history? And why is it G. W. Bush?

Who is the worst U. S. President in history? And why is it G. W. Bush?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ByFfzMORXSM
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>intervention in Iraq based on false assumption, allowing for an instability in the Middle East that eventually created IS
>"freed" the market to such an extent that the largest government intervention and socialization of risks in the never World History had to happen
>because of the points stated above allowed a budget deficit three (!) times that of Barack "Socialist" Obama

Mr Bush sir, Dahnald won't give me his delegates. Can you please make him do it?

...

Woodrow Wilson.

Damnit cruz its over, no more delegates, friend

Ah, almost forgot. But then, I do not think he is directly responsible for this.

Ain't obama like 10 times worse and have done all the things liberal hates on trump?

Thees town aynd big enuff fer the too uf uz Dahnald

Obama, and the end, was a so-so President. He is trolled by the Republican Congress and lacks the commitment to his promises.

>people who don't care about US history

Mohammed this isn't a topic that you would understand. Herbert Hoover was the worst. He ramped up public works projects and increased taxes and that made the Great Depression worse.

Nigger?

...

Read 'Decision Points', Bush's Autobiography. Even if he got some muppet to write it for him (which seems unlikely given his past behavior) it provides a pretty unambiguous account of how excruciatingly stupid he was. His explanation for choosing not to stop reading a fucking story book to a classroom of children when he was informed that the U.S was under attack on 9/11 was: "I didn't want to cause any panic".

Coolidge.

Evidence speaks for itself.

LBJ

Based on foreign policy:
Bush: one of the worst
Obama: one of the most evil

Does not take a genius to recognize a retard. Bushs behavior bordered on outright idiocy in many documented cases.
The bad part is that Bush got smart people behind him to smuggle him into power.

Sometimes I wonder if the American right will only ever be happy if taxes are completely abolished. At least Hoover invested in infrastructure rather than, say, stirring up nearly a decade and a half worth of war in the Middle East.

>sweden
>opinions
Fuck off.

I'd take Dubya back, tbqh. Things are that bad imo.

>sole not soul, dumbfuck

Essentially every politician relies on 'smart people' to get them into power. What was bad about Bush was that he was just not fit to be president. He took more vacation time than any other president in American history, basically did whatever Cheney told him to do, and turned Katrina into a masterclass in government stupidity.

Coolidge.

Take it easy Paco.

Woodrow Wilson, how is this even a question. He gave the Jews power over the USA

Retard

I think it was Malcolm Turnbull. Oh, wait.. you are an Aussie giving yanks advice on American Politics. I'm glad you are here to Correct The Record (TM)!

Coolidge is the best. He didn't intervene.

What did Coolidge do that was worse than Bush?
Really?

Pic related to topic question.

The notion behind "smart people" actually is that he knew how to attract the voices of lesser smart people.

Republicans, and Conservatives in general, often struggle with the obvious fact that their policies - tax cuts for the super rich, as prime example - are objectively against the interests of majorities.

So Conservatives in the US attracted the votes of the broad masses instead with, above all, religious-patriotic sentimentalism. Bush did that masterfully, thanks to his advisors.

Exactly my point.

Sat back and threw parties in the White House while the reckless over-the-top capitalists that owned the country did what they liked during the Roaring Twenties. We all know how that ended.

>giving advice about past presidents
>advice

I made an argument in support of an evaluation. I think Australians end up with a clearer understanding of American politics than our own these days desu,

youtube.com/watch?v=ByFfzMORXSM

Long, but worth a watch

Bill clinton

Jewish conspiracy theorists like you fail to understand the very basics of Central Banking.

Wilson set up League of Nations, precursor to UN.

Well, I reckon 1980s-1990s Wall street, or perhaps the current assortment of capitalists running the U.S were and are way more 'over-the-top' than their predecessors.
I agree that Coolidge was a bit too excited about small government, but at least he didn't actively participate in trying to privatize every single piece of public infrastructure he could.

Nixon ?

I'm sad he didn't. Everything should be privatized.

Central banking is a jewish concept you fucking mongloid

Harding.

also cry more mehmet hurr my family got bombed guise feel bad for me

Must be sad to understand the World only as "Jew / Non Jew" dichtonomy.
Funny coming from a fvcking Norwegian.

This is the only correct answer

Why is that funny? I'm a libertarian.

You are in Norway, one of the few places in the world that has not drunk the neoliberal kool-aid. Be careful what you wish for friend.
This is a more sensible competitor. The war on drugs has probably done more damage to the U.S than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

are you saying that it would be better to throw the book at the children and slam through the door, thus making the whole country shit itself even worse than it was?

its actually the nigger in the white house

What exactly do you mean by this? Government messes whatever it touches up. This is because it has no incentive to do a good job as the public sector workers get paid non-the-less. The free market is great as it is based on growth, wealth creation, merit and incentive. Public infrastructure absolutely sucks in Norway anyway, so you can't come with the "hurr-durr Norway is so great and perfect why can't you be happy?"

>I'm a libertarian.
That is funny.

messes up whatever it touches*

Nothing wrong with freedom, Hans.

>drunk the neoliberal kool-aid
Germany did that, albeit to a moderate extent.
But what other choice did we have, faced with competition from Asia?

Exactly.

But memes aside, LBJ was pretty shit.

Dude, can you only think in extremes? What he should have done is what any responsible/competent leader would do:
>"I'm sorry kids, but I am going to have to cut >this a bit short"
>Teacher: "the president is a very busy man >after all".
>Bush goes straight to nearest command >center and scrambles armed fighter jets. Then >reads the numerous intelligence reports he
>neglected to read warning him of this event.

Zachary Taylor
Andrew Johnson

The meme of self-regulating markets has been disproven again and again and again and again, leading to bankruptcies of many states and the two biggest economic disasters in modern world history (1933 and 2008).

Norway owns its standard of living through a nationalized oil revenue. That is why I thought its funny for a Norwegian to wish for privatization.

This. Swedebro knows.

Yeah, and Germany still has actual industry. I don't know enough about Germany's welfare state to contribute user, but from where I am standing it seems like your country has done a pretty good job of keeping shit together.
What I meant was don't start believing in all the rhetoric that you included in your post. You drank the kool-aid. Well done.

emergency response is not the president's job you nutter
the only thing he could have done was receive the intelligence a bit faster in order to brief the nation or declare war. 5 minutes faster

>Yeah, and Germany still has actual industry. I don't know enough about Germany's welfare state to contribute user, but from where I am standing it seems like your country has done a pretty good job of keeping shit together.

All this sounds like a strong hint towards what happened to the UK, does it?

Is it possible for a country to exist through services only, without industry? The question arises, because, by definition, not every country in the world can run a trade surplus.

The CIA tried to brief Bush on what they had (correctly) identified as an imminent threat - a terrorist attack using hijacked aircraft. Bush ignored them.
Actually, because the president of the U.S is the commander in chief (that means he is in charge of the military) it really was his responsibility to authorize the air-force to shoot down the other hijacked planes.

Well Australia is trying very hard to function as a service economy... I have yet to see any indication of that endeavor bearing fruit anytime soon. A country can exist, but the welfare of it's citizens is a different matter all together.

>clinton
>only correct answer
Confirmed. A lot of policies under the Clinton administration (not pursuing bin laden enough, disastrous trade deals, glass steagall repeal, forcing fannie & freddie to lend to subprime lenders, etc.) lead to the shitty events over the next two decades

Has there ever been a successful transition?

I cannot wrap my head around how this should work.

None that I can think of, although India is taking an interesting stab at it. I think it's possible, considering the dramatic technological developments over the last 60 years. It's also important to keep in mind how capital, labor and tech are so globalised now that we should probably be working on completely new ways of approaching economics anyway.

Fair points. Still, Bush really was an awful president. I think Clinton had good intentions - something Bush clearly did not.

Do you think he would have shot down planes full of civillians?

You assume too much of Bush. Bush, by all accounts I've read, was a "decider" who relied on feeling and was an all around genuine guy you'd want to have a beer with. I see two main problems with the Bush presidency:

1) 9/11 happened shortly after he took office (eight months), and it wouldn't have happened had Clinton killed Bin Laden when he was in the US' scope during his time in office. Once that happened there was such severe concern of recession that they didn't address a lot of the issues that lead to the financial crisis (the Bush white house administration also got cockblocked by dems and lobbying by Fannie/Freddie for reform before the housing bubble burst).

2) Cheney ran the fucking show in the white house (some said he was the "real president") and everything I read about the guy makes me like him less and less.

>that we should probably be working on completely new ways of approaching economics anyway

As for now, every part of the World - the US, China, the European Union - tries to keep its industry with protectionist policies. So I guess it is to early to cooperate globally.

If he had any sense, then yes. I would like to think he would - he didn't seem to mind letting Louisianan civilians die during Katrina, but that was out of inaction, something he probably would have done if he had bumbled on over to an air-force base. I see your point.

He was a decider, but only on very specific things. E.g., his pursuit of the 'war president' legacy. Similarly, the fact that Cheney ran the show undermines the idea that he was a 'decider': he delegated. A lot.

>G. W. Bush?
That's now how you spell Ulysses S. grant, Andrew Johnson (not the guy on the $20, different fella) and Woodrow Wilson

Bush was shit but as long as those guys are remembered, he'll never need to fear being the absolute worst

>Capcha: 1914

Oh for sure, a global government of any imaginable permutation is just not practical yet. I was referring more to analytical approaches. The U.S is an interesting case, because they are trying to retain control of their IT and military hardware industries, but they have also exported most of their secondary industry.

De er for åpen innvandring :/

Wtf, I still hate bush now

more like Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves and shit

Poor Ulysses - he tried so hard during the civil war.

Speaking of the civil war... Another president who tried very hard to keep the country together. Wasn't afraid to exercise his power.

>Poor Ulysses - he tried so hard during the civil war.
He really didn't. He was every bit as shitty of a general as he was a president. Only thing that pulled him through was pure luck and the fact that he had Sherman on his side

President is Master and Commander of armed forces you fucking gypsie

Grant made a lot of mistakes, but he definitely tried. Sherman, on the other hand, was an arrogant and deeply unpleasant dude.

President Trump was easily the worst. He blew half the country's gold reserves on gilding the White House, wasted 4 years building that fucking wall which still isn't done and started WW3 because Putin took too long to text him back once. How the fuck did we ever fall for this huckster's bullshit?

>Sherman, on the other hand, was an arrogant and deeply unpleasant dude.
Be as that may, he was certainly an effiective motherfucker and was/is practically the father of Industrial wrafare