what is it about good people that gets in the way and makes

He was to intelligent to be president

>>2553682
yeah Jimmy Carter is probably the only non sociopath that has been in office

>>2553787
George W. Bush wasn't, he was just retarded

>>2553792
He was a patsy for Cheney and that guy was Bond-Villain tier.

>>2553682
What went wrong with him?

>>2553682
Reagan already solved the Carter Question. He tried to use the government to do good, when the Government is only capable of "good" by being bad to even worse people

>>2553821
agreed

Eisenhower was supposedly a pretty good person.

>>2553913
at the very least he makes a top tier anime grill

File: HUG.jpg (657KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

657KB, 1200x1600px

>>2553682
*wrong pic

Good people often turn out to be sentimentalists. They act like sociopaths towards people they have no sentiment for and usually end up surrounded by sycophants who figure out how to tug at their heart strings.

>>2553682
In your country, I suppose it was an offer he couldn't refuse so he pussied out. How many mmurdered presidents do you have, USA?

>>2553924
Take that back.

Nah, true unfortunately. Should've shot every Confederate general alive, except for Longstreet.

>>2553924
I'm sad now :*(

>>2553792
Ahhh the old Republican leaders are either retarded or evil meme.

>>2554263
no, I'm talking about specifically W. Bush. He managed to fumble up everything, from Iraq to mishandling the beginning of the stock market crash

>>2554276
He was smarter than Jeb

>>2554282
he definitely had more charisma

>>2553924
dude had mad dandruff though.

>>2554301
and more energy.

>>2554282
Literally a useless comparison

>>2554316
and quicker reflexes. how can you call yourself a president if you can't dodge a shoe?

>>2554323
Not necessarily. Jeb was a three term Governor of a major state, so he can't have been that stupid.

>>2553924
He was a great leader. As a general. As a president, his trusting nature screwed him.

>>2553924
>>2554247
>>2554260
>>2555367
>Ulysses S. Grant’s reputation as both a general and as a president has experienced its ups and downs. During his lifetime, the savior of the Union came under heavy criticism as an unimaginative battlefield tactician and mediocre strategist who owed his victory to superior resources that he mindlessly applied to wear down his opponent, at a great cost in lives. Others, however, praised him for his determination, perseverance, and skill, but it would not be until the 20th century that military historians began to reemphasize his brilliance as a strategist and operational planner. More recently, studies have expanded their treatment to offer positive views of Grant’s handling of civil-military relations, his understanding of war aims, and his grasp of the relationship between military means and policy ends, making him the classic Clausewitizan warrior. At the same time, more detailed studies have called into question the image of a plodding butcher, pointing out that much of that impression rests upon a rather selective, incomplete, and uninformed assessment of the Overland Campaign of 1864. Although Grant still has his critics, most military historians today acknowledge his skill and intelligence, ranking him as one of the very best commanders in American history. Grant’s reputation as president took longer to recover after it dipped deeply at the beginning of the 20th century. Portrayed as naïve, bumbling, and gullible, Grant came under particularly heavy criticism for his support of Reconstruction at a time when mainstream scholars had dismissed that process as corrupt and fundamentally flawed in its aspirations to preserve and protect black civil and political rights. Eventually, historians came to understand Reconstruction in a new light, as a gallant if flawed effort to realize the promise of a new birth of freedom. Unfortunately, this let to Grant being criticized for not doing enough to achieve that goal.

>>2555374
>Only when historians began to realize the limits of the possible, due to institutional and political constraints as well as the persistence of racism throughout the postwar United States, did Grant’s presidency come under a more fundamental reassessment. Scholars now show more appreciation for his political skills and suggest that the portrayal of his two terms as riddled by corruption is overblown and misleading. They are more inclined to offer a sympathetic assessment of his presidency, credit his good intentions, and stress that there was only so much he could have achieved under the circumstances, with a few scholars pressing for an even more upward reassessment that might strike others as overcompensation for previous unjust evaluations.

File: herbert-hoover.png (198KB, 451x619px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 451x619px

>>2553682
Most of the good people who were bad presidents were just unlucky.

File: based jimmy carter.jpg (291KB, 800x452px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 800x452px

Name nicer president than Carter
YOU LITERALLLY CAN'T

>>2555567
Someone already did: HUG.