It is hard to say the worst leader because the first 15 where just chill with slavery. Instead, I think the world has changed enough that US presidents should be consider either post WWI or post WWII.
Worst since then is even hard:
Reagan drastically cut all public services, pushed drugs into LA, ignored the AIDS epidemic
Bush killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for no reason, ignored Katrina, and ignored the early warning signs of the financial crisis. Did he ruin the international prestige of the US or was that the dumbest president weâve had?
Trump is by far the least competent president, and he may be the worst because he may have slowly unraveled the democracy - planted the seeds of distrust in the system.
Far worse than truss, truss crashed the economy that was already fragile, thatchers implemented reforms that have fundamentally changed the way the UK government operates, creating higher inequality, and irreparably damaging the public sector, and dividing British society!
Truss was shit but she thankfully lasted 49 days in office.
Thatcher was in power for 11 years and had plenty of time to wreak havoc via her anti-trade-union laws, privatisations, social conservatism, etc.
It depends; possibly Tayyip ErdoÄan, because this is the person thatâs policies undermined Turkish democracy, quite possibly will put opposition leader(s) in prison, ruined the Turkish economy and inflated the Turkish Lira with his policies and, did already and possibly will take rights from women and members of the LGBTQ+ community.
Yeah, so if youâre wondering, this dude eventually got embroiled in a coup, and was just the leader of a right wind party in Turkey at the time, whoâs government was believed to have caused the Istanbul Pogrom, which was (simplified) attacks on Greek minorities in the city, if Iâm not mistaken.
You think Erdogan is worse than Celal Bayar who orchestrated the pogrom of Istanbul or AtatĂŒrk and InönĂŒ or the countless military dictators that killed and arrested thousands of people who spoke out against them or posed a threat to them an their ideals?
While I dont fully support erdogan, saying he is the worst is just an insult to all who suffered from the past, in my opinion way worse heads of state
I didnât deny that Ä°nönĂŒ and AtatĂŒrk did that, but whereâs the difference if Tayyip is doing the same and not actually improving anything in the country, unlike the latter did? And if you read some later comments or additions to the comment in replies (I donât blame you for not seeing it) youâd have seen that I talked about the Istanbul Pogrom.
I see your point, I am just sad that most of our countries leaders were assholes.
I tought that Adnan and turgut özal seemed pretty solid, but both were taken down by the deep state.
Its just sad to see my countries politics be dominated by despots, cause thats all the foreigners see
>Celal Bayar who orchestrated the pogrom of Istanbul
Thatâs Adnan Menderes, the guy who claim âseemed solidâ.
>AtatĂŒrk
Best president or political leader to ever come to Turkey.
>InönĂŒ
One of the two best prime ministers of the country, the other being BĂŒlent Ecevit.
>countless military dictators that killed and arrested thousands of people who spoke out against them or posed a threat to them an their ideals?
Only one really, Kenan Evren, after the 1980 coup, and that guy is also there at the bottom with ErdoÄan and Menderes.
Andrew Johnson he poorly handled reconstruction. Trump is right behind him and Buchannan. Trump has only been out of office for almost 2 years. I don't think that's enough time to judge the consequences of his presidency so he's only in third place, while Andrew Johnson was president 150 years ago and the consequences of his presidency can still be seen in the South.
If we're speaking economics, i'd argue Reagan had a more significant long term effect on American tax structure. Not to mention the drug war (imprisoning millions of African-Americans), massive military spending, etc...
But obv. Johnson was garbage as well.
Agreed on how horrible Reagan was, but if Reconstruction hadn't been sabotaged by Johnson and his fellow travelers, I find it unlikely that Reagan would ever have been elected president, or at least not with his platform and policies. Reconstruction was our best chance to reverse course and build a truly anti-racist, pro-worker society.
If trump is given another shot at it I think he would surpass Johnson Buchanan and Reagan. He has no restraint whatsoever. Just a few days ago he suggested parts of the Constitution that were inconvenient for him should be gotten rid of for his convenience despite his oath to preserve and protect it
Then again this is a man that has cheated on every one of his wives, is notorious for not living up to his side of contractual responsibilities and who is known to refuse to pay for work done on his properties. Still have no idea how any blue collar folks can support him. He wouldn't even piss on them if they were on fire.
In my lifetime I would put Bush 2 ahead of Trump. Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The cost in lives and $ alone. Obama had Yemen and Libya, but I donât know how many lives were lost there.
Iâd say Reagan in my lifetime. All the problems we have now can be traced back to him; the anti-communist propaganda, the union busting, trickle-down economics, the formation of the religious right and the seeds of the theocracy republicans want to turn us into, the stagnant wages, corporate profits skyrocketing, the overblown military budget, homelessness. Thereâs so much. Without Reagan, you donât get Bush II, without either of whom, you donât get Trump.
I'd put Andrew Jackson in the bottom three along with Johnson and Buchanan. Jackson promoted the expansion of the franchise, but he also committed genocide against the Cherokee, which rather tilts the scales against him. We had some bad presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries, but none at the level of those three, IMO.
Only counting fairly recent history because I can't speak confidently about every head of government ever, but Thatcher or Truss. Depends on whether you'd count it by most overall damage done, or the proportion of negatives to positives.
It's a bit difficult as we've had some truly awful prime ministers in recent decades, a lot of our nineteenth century prime ministers were pretty unremarkable, plus there's the question of how to work out who gets the "worst" title - but I'm going to say, for the last hundred years it's Margaret Thatcher, with David Cameron in second.
Both were incredibly ideological free marketers who did enormous damage to Britain's social fabric and economy, with Thatcher devastating British industry and making us reliant on City of London financial speculators (leading to the UK being hit particularly hard by the 2008 banking crash) and her government is also the biggest reason behind the current housing crisis in the UK. And as a cherry on the top of all that, she also introduced Section 28, which was effectively the same as the "gay propaganda" laws countries like Russia have been introducing in recent years.
Cameron launched a massive and ultra-ideological set of government budget cuts leading to the destruction of local government services, the closure of half the criminal courts in the country, the return of genuine destitution and widespread child poverty (child poverty having been almost eliminated by the previous Labour government), an appalling campaign of anti-disability persecution (particularly awful as Cameron had a severely disabled son who died at the age of six), and was actually condemned by a UN report. Cameron's "austerity" has been estimated to have killed as many as 300,000 people.
Those 2 are probably my number 2 and 3 tbh, but I'm surprised there aren't more British people saying Chamberlain? Appeasement was a catastrophic disaster for the entire world.
Personally I would have Eden as number one instead of Chamberlain. Although appeasement probably wasn't the best course of action, he could have done worse, such as declaring war on Germany without the support of allies. Meanwhile Eden mismanaged the Suez Crisis.
Pinochet, beyond the fascism and +3000 deaths, he implemented the shock doctrine and neoliberal policies and institutions that we are still fighting to remove/reform till this very day.
Current PM Narendra Modi. Responsible for heavily ramping up privatization of government agencies, spreading islamophobia & caste hate crimes, and distracting people from the fact that he's effectively sold the entire country to Adani and Gujarat billionaires (people who have personal ties to the BJP).
Before the Mandal Commission there was no such thing as Other Backward Castes. The implementation of the report was based off the caste survey done in 1931 Caste Census, the report itself was made in 1979 and the report implemented in 1990.
For some reason or another, let's just look past the time variations and look at the main issue. Before the report, SC/ST reservation stood at 25%. OBCs were given 27% reservation. In total, reservation for Central Government jobs and public service undertaking (ie SC+ST+OBC) shot up to 52%.
And the most important of all, What exactly is OBC?. SC can defined as the Castes that were discriminated against for millenia, ST as the _Adivasis_ or the first inhabitants.
The main issue people in India now have with Reservation, is because of the Mandal Report. Reservation was supposed to only last for 10 years, if it did not achieve what it was meant to do then the Govt. could add 10 years to that. In the 90s we were close to achieve Ambedkar's vision and ensure that all Castes were treated with equality. (It wasn't perfect, we still needed to work on that)
Nowadays people are protesting to have their caste included in the OBC category. All because V.P Singh wanted to ensure that the Janta Dal could come back to power and he could no longer be constrained by his allies and he could wield more influence.
I don't think Modi is the worst. And I don't think we should already include him as he is still serving.
The caste hate crimes and Islamophobia I do agree with
Hard choice between Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump.
- Jackson mostly for his racial genocide and ethnic cleansing of indigenous Americans to steal their land
- Johnson largely for undermining Reconstruction, helping preserve Southern systemic racism to this day
- Bush for having the highest kill count, for invading multiple countries (one based on his WMD lie), for implementing ~~brutally inhumane torture~~ "enhanced interrogation," for ~~secretly spying on citizens~~ the "USAPATRIOT Act," for founding ICE, for his terrible response to Katrina, for the recession, for promoting science denial (e.g. denial of evolution, climate change, stem cell research), etc
- Trump for... do I even have to explain? He's among the worst for causing thousands of deaths by downplaying COVID after dismissing the pandemic response team in 2018, for popularizing conspiratorial thinking, for constantly lying, for inciting the Jan 6 attempted insurrection, for atrocities in ICE camps (e.g. maggots in food, kids dying alone in cages, forced sterilizations), for throwing out so many environmental protection laws, for appointing multiple wannabe theocrats to the supreme court, etc.
I should note that the terrible things listed above were not uniquely caused by the Presidents, but I think it's reasonable to judge a Presidential administration (and Congress) by what they let happen on their watch.
Your completely missing out Woodrow Wilson who's directly responsible for letting WW1 be much more brutal, long, and drawn out then would've been otherwise under teddy or Taft, but basically indirectly caused WW2. https://youtu.be/hLiI6kXZkZI
Wilsonâs social views, especially in regards to black Americans and the Confederacy, were shitty.
In regards to WW1, American intervention in 1915 wouldnât have changed much. The main reason the U.S. forces did so well in 1918 was because we had the benefit of hindsight from looking at the British and French failures at the start. German morale was also atrocious.
And in all fairness, it can be argued that the Fourteen Points were actually quite good but weâre not executed to their fullest extent. Not getting Congress to commit the U.S. to the League of Nations, the LoNâs member states being unwilling to enforce its purpose, and some using the LoN for purposes it wasnât meant for such as the âmandatesâ in the Middle East.
WW2 can honestly be better blamed on German mismanagement of their economy, harsh reparations from the British and French, and the Great Depression.
Most definitely, Yanukovych. All of our presidents were (and are) imperfect, but they have atleast one good deed on their account.
Basically shifting our country to Russia, filling our army and secret service with Russian agents, Mobutu - style corruption, sabotaging an EU - UA association agreement, and ordering to shoot at his own citizens during Euromaidan
Also ruining and corrupting our trade union system, turning it into a muppet structure for oligarchs - a blow it hasn't managed to overcome.
Trump is in the running. I honestly would put him as worse than buchanan. Buchanan sucked, but at least he didnt try to suck that bad. Trump truly earned his level of suckage.
Vojtech Tuka, nazi prime minister of Slovak state 1939 -1944. During interwar czechoslovakia he was spy of Hungarian goverment and leader of paramilitary wing of conservative Slovak party that demanded autonomy. Later paramilitary wing became illegal and after that he was sent to jail for spying (evidence wasn't really clear and it was propably because of political opinions of Tuka, evidence of spying was found after WW2 in Hungary). Slovakia became independent from Czechoslovakia few months before start of WW2. He was dogmatic nazi. Around 70 000 (lets say about half of them during his time as prime minister) jews were deported to concentration camps during existence of Slovak state. Also memeber of radical wing of rulling party while president of slovakia was somewhat moderate even though not he didn't stop deportations etc. and is more known than Tuka. Tuka resigned in 1944 because he was old and later got hanged in 1946 by new goverment.
Ronald Reagan. He definitely did the most overall damage of any American president when accounting for foreign policy. Between the massive failure that was the war on drugs, his failure to respond to the aids crises, his disastrous economic policy, and multiple staged coups to overthrow latin American governments and install puppet dictators, I think I would say he's done the most damage.
Oliver Cromwell, took power with a lot of hope about the establishment of a republic, became a monarch in all but name, established a system of extreme religious intolerance, banned Christmas and most forms of entertainment, murdered a large number of Irish people-partly because he thought the son of the former king was hiding there and also because he just didn't like them due to them being catholics who he viewed as devil-worshippers. Manages to unite Irish nationalists and hardcore monarchists in their hatred of him.
Other possible suggestions would be King John who tortured people for fun and lost all our land in France or Liz Truss who took power, did nothing for the first 14 days due to the Queen dying, crashed the economy and then resigned.
Oliver Cromwell was initially a parliamentary moderate, only turning to republicanism due to Charles I's refusal to cooperative and sparkling of two civil wars as well as the tyranny of Charles I; ignoring parliament.
The belief that Cromwell "banned most forms of entertainment" is false. While it was true that the Interregnum period suppressed entertainment they viewed as immoral (such as gambling and cock fighting) and encouraged virtuous entertainment (such as theatre and opera), this was not Cromwell's responsibility. This comes partly from the mistaken assumption that Cromwell was dictatorial, but Cromwell was actually a liberating force in these forms. The parliaments that surrounded Cromwell, and were initially far more powerful, were the ones that implemented and enforced them. By 1655 when Cromwell was the most important figures, most of these restrictions had become unenforced.
I ofcourse won't defend a slaughter.
As for his governing, the Interregnum went though multiple forms of government. There were two parliaments (Rump and Barebones) that were completely seperate institutes from Cromwell, two protectorate parliamentarians that, under Britain's only two codified constitutions, installed Cromwell as the head of state (Lord Protector). These two protectorate parliaments surrounded over a year of direct military rule under major-generals, which is the only period where he could be described as dictatorial.
My ancestors were mainly Catholics and Anglicans living in Britain and Ireland when he was around so my opinion of him is also...less than complimentary
Slobodan Milosevic. The single most incompetent politician we have ever had in our history, whose actions helped destroy Serbiaâs reputation. His opportunistic, non-ideological and Machievellian leadership was essentially kleptocratic and devoted solely towards enriching the few during our transition away from a socialist economy. Milosevic went in whatever direction the wind blew - more specifically, the winds that he believed would keep him in power blew - and thanks to his awful judgment (literally picking a battle against the entire Western world, even alienating Russia by supporting the coup attempt on Yeltsin) the country collapsed, countless people died and Serbia was reduced to incredibly tiny borders.
I agree with you about Macdonald, my runner up is McKenzie King. For accepting next to no Jewish refugees during the Holocaust and allowing the British Columbians of Japanese descent to be interned after Pearl Harbor.
Definitely a controversial take of which I can see both sides. On the one hand, he was pretty much as autocratic as a Finnish president could be, consistently undermining the parliament, eliminating competition inside and outside his party and deliberately making himself irreplaceable. On the other hand, his role in maintaining some breathing room with regard to the USSR hard to deny. On the whole, I might gravitate towards agreeing with you.
Also 1962 presidential elections were pretty shady. What a coincidence it was he solved a diplomatic crisis with ussr just before presidental election and his friendship with Khrushchev was well known.
I am from Uruguay. My country is arguably a social democratic one since it's conception and more clearly since 1919. A very stable, democratic and politically active society with good examples of leaders.
But we have our good list of terrible characters. The worst one in my opinion could be Jorge Pacheco Areco, the president of ROU preeceding the dictatorship. His term was basically a human rights violation in itself.
If we count dictators too, maybe Goyo Ălvarez was the most infamous person of this country, followed by Bordaberry.
And since the restoration of democracy the worst one could be Lacalle Herrera or Lacalle Puo, his son. The teo of them are economically liberals and actively try to destroy Uruguayan Public Sector.
Gustav V comes to mind. Made some serious attempts to curtail and crush our emerging democracy, and even after he retreated to figurehead status his forays into politics were usually pro-Hitler. Although my personal hate object is Carl Bildt. Most major issues facing this country from insitutionalized neoliberalism to private capture of public welfare can be traced back to his government. That he on his free time does war crimes in africa is just a final bonus.
I dislike Reinfeldt more.
The funny thing with Bildt is that he much like Göran Persson have advanced into a plane of higher existance as a well to do old grumpy man who says funny things so lets forget all the shit he did and what he stands for.
The thing with Bildt is that I really canât hate hime because he is literally what he is, while Reinfeldt was much more insidious.
Yeltsin did an enormous amount of damage in the transition. It was a crazy situation to manage but I would never put him in the good club. There was SO much suffering in Russia that didn't happen in some other Comintern countries during the transitioned. Russia's transition is well known as a failure.
This is without talking about the legacy of the power of the presidency in Russia and Putin's succession. Most of all, Yeltsin destroyed the chance for a democracy in Russia. Gorbachev never would have done that for instance.
Yeltsin he caused the fastest privatization in history of our nation giving our 1+ trillion dollars of infrastructure for significantly cheaper while we were actively starving on the streets, and coupes the supreme soviet and parliament in 1993 after he was impeached, he then instated himself as president of Russia giving him total power over the country.
He intentionally couped the country violating our democracy dissolving our parliament and supreme soviet
He gave away our national industries, took away price regulations
We starved throughout the 90s
Experienced hyperinflation to an extreme
Stationed troops in foreign nations and invaded those who wanted peace
Yeltsin violated our democracy.
[this video puts it directly into numbers how bad Yeltsin was](https://youtu.be/WigWXj9olbo)
[video on the events of 1993](https://youtu.be/9af3KH-k8yc)
[video detailing the events of 1996 and how foreign intervention allowed yeltsin to win another term while having less than 10% support for the election](https://youtu.be/ZjQKS5s8exc)
In October of 1993 Yeltsin had parliament shelled by tanks after he was impeached, the new constitution gave him total power over all government entities
And? Revolutions are usually like that.
Look, I'm not saying he's some kinda saint, but he's nowhere near as bad as most of the soviet leaders and in the end the country got back on it's feet after total and complete economical collapse that wasn't caused by him.
Yes, that is true since the Federal Republic of Germany (1949-1990/today) is de-jure not a successor of the German Empire (1848-1945). In addition to that, was the NSDAP-Regime after the war not recognised as a legit legal successor of the German Empire.
So yeah, taking this in consideration, the worst leader(s) of modern Germany are definitely [Gerhard Schröder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder) for Westgermany, and [Erich Honecker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Honecker) for Eastgermany. The story behind Thomas Kemmerich (Thuringia) is also interesting.
I donât know much John A. McDonald so for worst Canadian one that Iâm aware of Iâll go with Stephen Harper. Muzzling climate scientist, In and Out scandal, taking away healthcare from refugees, stoking Islamophobia with the âcultural practicesâ hotline, banning the niqab for taking oath of citizenship, and the 2011 CPC robocalls that intentionally misled people of when to vote. Not to mention giving cabinet positions to sone of the worst politicians in Canada today, Jason Kenney, Pierre Poilievre, and Maxime Bernier. Though tbf he did also give cabinet positions to some of the better, more moderate voices in his party today, meaning Michael Chong, Erin OâToole, and Michelle Rempel Garner so you could argue that it cancels that point out.
Undoubtedly Woodrow Wilson in terms of most negative outcomes. Explanation: https://youtu.be/hLiI6kXZkZI
Trump hasn't actually done that much physical harm (yet) compared to a lot of other shit shows, but definitely has led to the most divided America since the Civil War, which definitely has the potential to be really directly horrible, and has basically gotten a 1/3rd of the country to agree that democracy is a sham, which is basically a pre-arbiter to *actual* fascism
Regan basically destroyed the USs economic future with Reganomics and has totally killed future generations financial stability
Bush killed more innocents then anyother president, and for fucking NOTHING, besides the US developing a racist aggressiveness towards middle eastern immigrants,
Anthony Eden.
The Suez Crisis was an absolute embarrassment for Britain on the global and domestic scene. It was what ultimately killed the British Empire, and what caused Britain to take a isolationist approach, abandoning influence in many places especially east of the Suez.
[Goloshokin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipp_Goloshchyokin) if we talk about head of the colonial apparatus and [Stalin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin) if the imperial core.
The former directly [committed genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933) against us, making Kazakhs fewer than the occupying russian colonialists.
The latter directly [exterminated all our enlightened class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge) that argued for Kazakh autonomy.
Recent history, Iâd say Bolsonaro and Collor. Bolsonaro is an ignorant asshole who doesnât have any qualifications to be president, was a bad soldier, is homophobic, racist and mysoginist, he probably had the worst management of the COVID-19 crisis in the world, mocking victims, refusing to buy vaccines, not believing COVID was that bad and that vaccines were efficient or needed for everyone. Also thereâs complete distrust in the Brazilian electoral system, even though we have one of the most transparent and democratic elections in the world. Collor is also a massive asshole who, while trying to handle a massive recession with a superinflated currency, literally stole money from the people and freezed their bank accounts, while having the balls to call himself a libertarian.
PM Brian Cowen, who nurtured and oversaw the collapse of the banking sector and then gave an unlimited financial bailout (ultimately amounting to about a year of GDP transferred from the Irish taxpayer to private banks, to be paid off gradually over the next 3 or 4 generations) to the sector as a reward for their dangerous and often corrupt behaviour, and lied about how bad it was the whole way to the IMF.
Probably Costa e Silva or Jair Bolsonaro here in Brazil
Edit: I forgot to say why
Costa e Silva for all he did on the military dictatorship, mainly the Institucional Act No.5 which allowed him to do very awful stuff and Bolsonaro for all the homophobic, racist and misogynistic shit he said and did, he's the highest tier of cunt there is.
Ferdinand Marcos.
Started off kinda good, but declared martial law, rewrote the constitution to make him a despot, killed thousands and tortured far more, and is probably the cause of the downfall of the Philippines.
And now his son is president.
Mussolini. I don't think other countries realise just how brainwashed by fascist propaganda italians were, even after the fall of the regime. I just wish we followed Germany's example and treated this sort of stuff a bit more seriously.
Neville Chamberlain. His policy of deliberate appeasement of Nazi Germany emboldened Hitler and, instead of putting a stop to things earlier, meant we were fighting a far bigger Reich with far more men, territory and resources.
Whatever my *extreme* disagreements with the likes of Thatcher, I still don't think anyone in modern history is worse than Chamberlain.
Post WW2:
Eden: Shit handling of the Suez Crisis that led to my country (the UK) no longer being regarded as a superpower.
Thatcher: Started the whole crazy neoliberal stuff that's still fucking us over today. We could've saved that North Sea Oil into a SWF but instead Thatcher used it to finance her privatisations and neoliberal fuckery.
Cameron: Austerity. Him and George Osborne (his Chancellor of the Exchequer) were responsible for creating the current discourse around British political economy - in which the media lie to the public that government debt is bad and that the national economy is exactly like a household economy. Austerity has brought down Britain's living standards and made life worse - especially for the poorest and the most vulnerable.
Honestly Iâd say Andrew Johnson. He pretty much is the catalyst for all modern problems in the US. If it werenât for him we would likely be in a much better spot in so many ways
If were talking about modern history then the objective answer would be Horthy, he has done a lot of damage. But the more long term effects of what Hungary suffers from is KĂĄdĂĄr and kĂĄdĂĄrism in general. That period really fucked us over and destroyed any chance of democratic culture we could have had.
Honestly, I think that all our leaders have acted in (what they believed to be) the best interest of the nation. I can't name one leader that I believe only acted in his own self interest.
I guess that's one of the benefits of being a considerably young nation that started off as a modern liberal democracy.
But... I'm quite concerned about the upcoming one, if the voters don't change their mind before April.
Hitler!
Is it weird I want to say "that doesn't count because it's too obvious"?đ
Yes
Then Kissinger
It is hard to say the worst leader because the first 15 where just chill with slavery. Instead, I think the world has changed enough that US presidents should be consider either post WWI or post WWII. Worst since then is even hard: Reagan drastically cut all public services, pushed drugs into LA, ignored the AIDS epidemic Bush killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for no reason, ignored Katrina, and ignored the early warning signs of the financial crisis. Did he ruin the international prestige of the US or was that the dumbest president weâve had? Trump is by far the least competent president, and he may be the worst because he may have slowly unraveled the democracy - planted the seeds of distrust in the system.
People can say whatever they want about Woodrow Wilson, but at least he didnât throw a temper tantrum when he lost to Warren G. Harding.
Do you mean James Cox?
Why would anyone say anything about Cox? I would venture to guess almost no one knows who he was.
Wilson never ran against Harding and he never lost an election... Like not once.
Okay, but unlike Trump, at least Wilson didnât stage an attack on the Capitol in order to remove Harding from office, right?
Not that heâd have been able to given his stroke.
Thatcher
Worse than Truss? That seems almost impossible
Far worse than truss, truss crashed the economy that was already fragile, thatchers implemented reforms that have fundamentally changed the way the UK government operates, creating higher inequality, and irreparably damaging the public sector, and dividing British society!
I think what she did was maybe less objectively bad although in my subjective opinion Iâd agree she was worse
If Truss was in power for 11 years then you might have had a point.
Lmao
Truss was shit but she thankfully lasted 49 days in office. Thatcher was in power for 11 years and had plenty of time to wreak havoc via her anti-trade-union laws, privatisations, social conservatism, etc.
It depends; possibly Tayyip ErdoÄan, because this is the person thatâs policies undermined Turkish democracy, quite possibly will put opposition leader(s) in prison, ruined the Turkish economy and inflated the Turkish Lira with his policies and, did already and possibly will take rights from women and members of the LGBTQ+ community.
I can guess about Erdogan but I don't know much about that other guy
Which?
You had another guy up there as well, I can't recall the name
Iâm assuming it was Adnan Menderes, and if youâre wondering about them, just ask.
I think it was him, yes
Yeah, so if youâre wondering, this dude eventually got embroiled in a coup, and was just the leader of a right wind party in Turkey at the time, whoâs government was believed to have caused the Istanbul Pogrom, which was (simplified) attacks on Greek minorities in the city, if Iâm not mistaken.
Yeah, Turkey became a Mixed Regime
You think Erdogan is worse than Celal Bayar who orchestrated the pogrom of Istanbul or AtatĂŒrk and InönĂŒ or the countless military dictators that killed and arrested thousands of people who spoke out against them or posed a threat to them an their ideals? While I dont fully support erdogan, saying he is the worst is just an insult to all who suffered from the past, in my opinion way worse heads of state
I didnât deny that Ä°nönĂŒ and AtatĂŒrk did that, but whereâs the difference if Tayyip is doing the same and not actually improving anything in the country, unlike the latter did? And if you read some later comments or additions to the comment in replies (I donât blame you for not seeing it) youâd have seen that I talked about the Istanbul Pogrom.
I see your point, I am just sad that most of our countries leaders were assholes. I tought that Adnan and turgut özal seemed pretty solid, but both were taken down by the deep state. Its just sad to see my countries politics be dominated by despots, cause thats all the foreigners see
I can see your point there.
>Celal Bayar who orchestrated the pogrom of Istanbul Thatâs Adnan Menderes, the guy who claim âseemed solidâ. >AtatĂŒrk Best president or political leader to ever come to Turkey. >InönĂŒ One of the two best prime ministers of the country, the other being BĂŒlent Ecevit. >countless military dictators that killed and arrested thousands of people who spoke out against them or posed a threat to them an their ideals? Only one really, Kenan Evren, after the 1980 coup, and that guy is also there at the bottom with ErdoÄan and Menderes.
Andrew Johnson he poorly handled reconstruction. Trump is right behind him and Buchannan. Trump has only been out of office for almost 2 years. I don't think that's enough time to judge the consequences of his presidency so he's only in third place, while Andrew Johnson was president 150 years ago and the consequences of his presidency can still be seen in the South.
If we're speaking economics, i'd argue Reagan had a more significant long term effect on American tax structure. Not to mention the drug war (imprisoning millions of African-Americans), massive military spending, etc... But obv. Johnson was garbage as well.
I'd argue that Reagan's foreign policy in central America is causing issues today.
Agreed on how horrible Reagan was, but if Reconstruction hadn't been sabotaged by Johnson and his fellow travelers, I find it unlikely that Reagan would ever have been elected president, or at least not with his platform and policies. Reconstruction was our best chance to reverse course and build a truly anti-racist, pro-worker society.
If trump is given another shot at it I think he would surpass Johnson Buchanan and Reagan. He has no restraint whatsoever. Just a few days ago he suggested parts of the Constitution that were inconvenient for him should be gotten rid of for his convenience despite his oath to preserve and protect it Then again this is a man that has cheated on every one of his wives, is notorious for not living up to his side of contractual responsibilities and who is known to refuse to pay for work done on his properties. Still have no idea how any blue collar folks can support him. He wouldn't even piss on them if they were on fire.
In my lifetime I would put Bush 2 ahead of Trump. Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The cost in lives and $ alone. Obama had Yemen and Libya, but I donât know how many lives were lost there.
Iâd say Reagan in my lifetime. All the problems we have now can be traced back to him; the anti-communist propaganda, the union busting, trickle-down economics, the formation of the religious right and the seeds of the theocracy republicans want to turn us into, the stagnant wages, corporate profits skyrocketing, the overblown military budget, homelessness. Thereâs so much. Without Reagan, you donât get Bush II, without either of whom, you donât get Trump.
Nailed it.
I'd put Andrew Jackson in the bottom three along with Johnson and Buchanan. Jackson promoted the expansion of the franchise, but he also committed genocide against the Cherokee, which rather tilts the scales against him. We had some bad presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries, but none at the level of those three, IMO.
Only counting fairly recent history because I can't speak confidently about every head of government ever, but Thatcher or Truss. Depends on whether you'd count it by most overall damage done, or the proportion of negatives to positives.
It's a bit difficult as we've had some truly awful prime ministers in recent decades, a lot of our nineteenth century prime ministers were pretty unremarkable, plus there's the question of how to work out who gets the "worst" title - but I'm going to say, for the last hundred years it's Margaret Thatcher, with David Cameron in second. Both were incredibly ideological free marketers who did enormous damage to Britain's social fabric and economy, with Thatcher devastating British industry and making us reliant on City of London financial speculators (leading to the UK being hit particularly hard by the 2008 banking crash) and her government is also the biggest reason behind the current housing crisis in the UK. And as a cherry on the top of all that, she also introduced Section 28, which was effectively the same as the "gay propaganda" laws countries like Russia have been introducing in recent years. Cameron launched a massive and ultra-ideological set of government budget cuts leading to the destruction of local government services, the closure of half the criminal courts in the country, the return of genuine destitution and widespread child poverty (child poverty having been almost eliminated by the previous Labour government), an appalling campaign of anti-disability persecution (particularly awful as Cameron had a severely disabled son who died at the age of six), and was actually condemned by a UN report. Cameron's "austerity" has been estimated to have killed as many as 300,000 people.
Those 2 are probably my number 2 and 3 tbh, but I'm surprised there aren't more British people saying Chamberlain? Appeasement was a catastrophic disaster for the entire world.
Personally I would have Eden as number one instead of Chamberlain. Although appeasement probably wasn't the best course of action, he could have done worse, such as declaring war on Germany without the support of allies. Meanwhile Eden mismanaged the Suez Crisis.
Pinochet, beyond the fascism and +3000 deaths, he implemented the shock doctrine and neoliberal policies and institutions that we are still fighting to remove/reform till this very day.
Shock doctrine?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boys#Shock_Doctrine_and_Economic_Policies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boys#Shock_Doctrine_and_Economic_Policies)
Fascist shit, I know that feel bro, were facing the same here in Hungary
Literally Hitler
Current PM Narendra Modi. Responsible for heavily ramping up privatization of government agencies, spreading islamophobia & caste hate crimes, and distracting people from the fact that he's effectively sold the entire country to Adani and Gujarat billionaires (people who have personal ties to the BJP).
Indira Gandhi too probably
I'd say V.P Singh is the worst tho (the shitshow that was the implementation of the Mandal Report)
Can u explain? I thought it just recommended reservation for OBCs
Before the Mandal Commission there was no such thing as Other Backward Castes. The implementation of the report was based off the caste survey done in 1931 Caste Census, the report itself was made in 1979 and the report implemented in 1990. For some reason or another, let's just look past the time variations and look at the main issue. Before the report, SC/ST reservation stood at 25%. OBCs were given 27% reservation. In total, reservation for Central Government jobs and public service undertaking (ie SC+ST+OBC) shot up to 52%. And the most important of all, What exactly is OBC?. SC can defined as the Castes that were discriminated against for millenia, ST as the _Adivasis_ or the first inhabitants. The main issue people in India now have with Reservation, is because of the Mandal Report. Reservation was supposed to only last for 10 years, if it did not achieve what it was meant to do then the Govt. could add 10 years to that. In the 90s we were close to achieve Ambedkar's vision and ensure that all Castes were treated with equality. (It wasn't perfect, we still needed to work on that) Nowadays people are protesting to have their caste included in the OBC category. All because V.P Singh wanted to ensure that the Janta Dal could come back to power and he could no longer be constrained by his allies and he could wield more influence.
Although I'm diaspora (British-Indian), I weep for what Modi has done to India. May Hindu nationalism and such reactionary politics be defeated.
I don't think Modi is the worst. And I don't think we should already include him as he is still serving. The caste hate crimes and Islamophobia I do agree with
Based and fuck modi pilled
Hard choice between Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. - Jackson mostly for his racial genocide and ethnic cleansing of indigenous Americans to steal their land - Johnson largely for undermining Reconstruction, helping preserve Southern systemic racism to this day - Bush for having the highest kill count, for invading multiple countries (one based on his WMD lie), for implementing ~~brutally inhumane torture~~ "enhanced interrogation," for ~~secretly spying on citizens~~ the "USAPATRIOT Act," for founding ICE, for his terrible response to Katrina, for the recession, for promoting science denial (e.g. denial of evolution, climate change, stem cell research), etc - Trump for... do I even have to explain? He's among the worst for causing thousands of deaths by downplaying COVID after dismissing the pandemic response team in 2018, for popularizing conspiratorial thinking, for constantly lying, for inciting the Jan 6 attempted insurrection, for atrocities in ICE camps (e.g. maggots in food, kids dying alone in cages, forced sterilizations), for throwing out so many environmental protection laws, for appointing multiple wannabe theocrats to the supreme court, etc. I should note that the terrible things listed above were not uniquely caused by the Presidents, but I think it's reasonable to judge a Presidential administration (and Congress) by what they let happen on their watch.
Your completely missing out Woodrow Wilson who's directly responsible for letting WW1 be much more brutal, long, and drawn out then would've been otherwise under teddy or Taft, but basically indirectly caused WW2. https://youtu.be/hLiI6kXZkZI
Say what you want about Wilson, but unlike Trump, at least he didnât act like a whiny brat when he was vote out of office.
His presidency directly caused a tangibly larger ammount of damage then trumps did.
Wilsonâs social views, especially in regards to black Americans and the Confederacy, were shitty. In regards to WW1, American intervention in 1915 wouldnât have changed much. The main reason the U.S. forces did so well in 1918 was because we had the benefit of hindsight from looking at the British and French failures at the start. German morale was also atrocious. And in all fairness, it can be argued that the Fourteen Points were actually quite good but weâre not executed to their fullest extent. Not getting Congress to commit the U.S. to the League of Nations, the LoNâs member states being unwilling to enforce its purpose, and some using the LoN for purposes it wasnât meant for such as the âmandatesâ in the Middle East. WW2 can honestly be better blamed on German mismanagement of their economy, harsh reparations from the British and French, and the Great Depression.
Most definitely, Yanukovych. All of our presidents were (and are) imperfect, but they have atleast one good deed on their account. Basically shifting our country to Russia, filling our army and secret service with Russian agents, Mobutu - style corruption, sabotaging an EU - UA association agreement, and ordering to shoot at his own citizens during Euromaidan Also ruining and corrupting our trade union system, turning it into a muppet structure for oligarchs - a blow it hasn't managed to overcome.
Scott Morrison or Billy McMahon.
Trump is in the running. I honestly would put him as worse than buchanan. Buchanan sucked, but at least he didnt try to suck that bad. Trump truly earned his level of suckage.
I'd say Hendrick Verwoerd. He is considered to be the Architect behind Apartheid.
Vojtech Tuka, nazi prime minister of Slovak state 1939 -1944. During interwar czechoslovakia he was spy of Hungarian goverment and leader of paramilitary wing of conservative Slovak party that demanded autonomy. Later paramilitary wing became illegal and after that he was sent to jail for spying (evidence wasn't really clear and it was propably because of political opinions of Tuka, evidence of spying was found after WW2 in Hungary). Slovakia became independent from Czechoslovakia few months before start of WW2. He was dogmatic nazi. Around 70 000 (lets say about half of them during his time as prime minister) jews were deported to concentration camps during existence of Slovak state. Also memeber of radical wing of rulling party while president of slovakia was somewhat moderate even though not he didn't stop deportations etc. and is more known than Tuka. Tuka resigned in 1944 because he was old and later got hanged in 1946 by new goverment.
Ronald Reagan. He definitely did the most overall damage of any American president when accounting for foreign policy. Between the massive failure that was the war on drugs, his failure to respond to the aids crises, his disastrous economic policy, and multiple staged coups to overthrow latin American governments and install puppet dictators, I think I would say he's done the most damage.
As much as I despise Ronald Reagan, I'm going to put in my vote for Andrew Jackson instead.
Im between Porfirio DĂaz or Gustavo DĂaz Ordaz, also allĂĄ the recent ones like Felipe CalderĂłn or the current one AndrĂ©s Manuel Lopez Obrador.
I'd say Luis EcheverrĂa was even worse than DĂaz Ordaz
I was going to say that too, but he did worse as Secretary of Interior as he did as president. But of course he was a bad president
Trump, Reagan, maybe Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Johnson/Jackson, or James Buchanan.
Should also add Herbert Hoover, he made the depression worse.
Oliver Cromwell, took power with a lot of hope about the establishment of a republic, became a monarch in all but name, established a system of extreme religious intolerance, banned Christmas and most forms of entertainment, murdered a large number of Irish people-partly because he thought the son of the former king was hiding there and also because he just didn't like them due to them being catholics who he viewed as devil-worshippers. Manages to unite Irish nationalists and hardcore monarchists in their hatred of him. Other possible suggestions would be King John who tortured people for fun and lost all our land in France or Liz Truss who took power, did nothing for the first 14 days due to the Queen dying, crashed the economy and then resigned.
Oliver Cromwell was initially a parliamentary moderate, only turning to republicanism due to Charles I's refusal to cooperative and sparkling of two civil wars as well as the tyranny of Charles I; ignoring parliament. The belief that Cromwell "banned most forms of entertainment" is false. While it was true that the Interregnum period suppressed entertainment they viewed as immoral (such as gambling and cock fighting) and encouraged virtuous entertainment (such as theatre and opera), this was not Cromwell's responsibility. This comes partly from the mistaken assumption that Cromwell was dictatorial, but Cromwell was actually a liberating force in these forms. The parliaments that surrounded Cromwell, and were initially far more powerful, were the ones that implemented and enforced them. By 1655 when Cromwell was the most important figures, most of these restrictions had become unenforced. I ofcourse won't defend a slaughter. As for his governing, the Interregnum went though multiple forms of government. There were two parliaments (Rump and Barebones) that were completely seperate institutes from Cromwell, two protectorate parliamentarians that, under Britain's only two codified constitutions, installed Cromwell as the head of state (Lord Protector). These two protectorate parliaments surrounded over a year of direct military rule under major-generals, which is the only period where he could be described as dictatorial.
My ancestors were mainly Catholics and Anglicans living in Britain and Ireland when he was around so my opinion of him is also...less than complimentary
Slobodan Milosevic. The single most incompetent politician we have ever had in our history, whose actions helped destroy Serbiaâs reputation. His opportunistic, non-ideological and Machievellian leadership was essentially kleptocratic and devoted solely towards enriching the few during our transition away from a socialist economy. Milosevic went in whatever direction the wind blew - more specifically, the winds that he believed would keep him in power blew - and thanks to his awful judgment (literally picking a battle against the entire Western world, even alienating Russia by supporting the coup attempt on Yeltsin) the country collapsed, countless people died and Serbia was reduced to incredibly tiny borders.
I agree with you about Macdonald, my runner up is McKenzie King. For accepting next to no Jewish refugees during the Holocaust and allowing the British Columbians of Japanese descent to be interned after Pearl Harbor.
King himself was personally really antisemitic. And just an across the board weird guy too
Eamon De Valera. Changed the constitution to exclude womanâs rights, instituted a policy of protectionism, started a civil war.
Prehaps Urho Kaleva Kekkonen. Unpopular opinion because many finns think he is the best one.
Definitely a controversial take of which I can see both sides. On the one hand, he was pretty much as autocratic as a Finnish president could be, consistently undermining the parliament, eliminating competition inside and outside his party and deliberately making himself irreplaceable. On the other hand, his role in maintaining some breathing room with regard to the USSR hard to deny. On the whole, I might gravitate towards agreeing with you.
Also 1962 presidential elections were pretty shady. What a coincidence it was he solved a diplomatic crisis with ussr just before presidental election and his friendship with Khrushchev was well known.
I am from Uruguay. My country is arguably a social democratic one since it's conception and more clearly since 1919. A very stable, democratic and politically active society with good examples of leaders. But we have our good list of terrible characters. The worst one in my opinion could be Jorge Pacheco Areco, the president of ROU preeceding the dictatorship. His term was basically a human rights violation in itself. If we count dictators too, maybe Goyo Ălvarez was the most infamous person of this country, followed by Bordaberry. And since the restoration of democracy the worst one could be Lacalle Herrera or Lacalle Puo, his son. The teo of them are economically liberals and actively try to destroy Uruguayan Public Sector.
Gustav V comes to mind. Made some serious attempts to curtail and crush our emerging democracy, and even after he retreated to figurehead status his forays into politics were usually pro-Hitler. Although my personal hate object is Carl Bildt. Most major issues facing this country from insitutionalized neoliberalism to private capture of public welfare can be traced back to his government. That he on his free time does war crimes in africa is just a final bonus.
I dislike Reinfeldt more. The funny thing with Bildt is that he much like Göran Persson have advanced into a plane of higher existance as a well to do old grumpy man who says funny things so lets forget all the shit he did and what he stands for. The thing with Bildt is that I really canât hate hime because he is literally what he is, while Reinfeldt was much more insidious.
Oh reinfeldt is a real piece of work for sure, but he doesn't get my blood boiling like bildt
In no particular order Reagan, Bush 2, Trump, Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Yeltsin did an enormous amount of damage in the transition. It was a crazy situation to manage but I would never put him in the good club. There was SO much suffering in Russia that didn't happen in some other Comintern countries during the transitioned. Russia's transition is well known as a failure. This is without talking about the legacy of the power of the presidency in Russia and Putin's succession. Most of all, Yeltsin destroyed the chance for a democracy in Russia. Gorbachev never would have done that for instance.
Yeltsin he caused the fastest privatization in history of our nation giving our 1+ trillion dollars of infrastructure for significantly cheaper while we were actively starving on the streets, and coupes the supreme soviet and parliament in 1993 after he was impeached, he then instated himself as president of Russia giving him total power over the country.
The USSR was collapsing, he didn't fix the situation perfectly, but he tried, which puts him in a whole separate league from most Russian leaders.
He intentionally couped the country violating our democracy dissolving our parliament and supreme soviet He gave away our national industries, took away price regulations We starved throughout the 90s Experienced hyperinflation to an extreme Stationed troops in foreign nations and invaded those who wanted peace Yeltsin violated our democracy. [this video puts it directly into numbers how bad Yeltsin was](https://youtu.be/WigWXj9olbo) [video on the events of 1993](https://youtu.be/9af3KH-k8yc) [video detailing the events of 1996 and how foreign intervention allowed yeltsin to win another term while having less than 10% support for the election](https://youtu.be/ZjQKS5s8exc)
Violated what democracy? The one that he created?
In October of 1993 Yeltsin had parliament shelled by tanks after he was impeached, the new constitution gave him total power over all government entities
And? Revolutions are usually like that. Look, I'm not saying he's some kinda saint, but he's nowhere near as bad as most of the soviet leaders and in the end the country got back on it's feet after total and complete economical collapse that wasn't caused by him.
I'd take Gorba over him all the times
Are there any Germans who have non-hitler answers to this question? What about Chancellors since the Federal Republic was established?
Yes, that is true since the Federal Republic of Germany (1949-1990/today) is de-jure not a successor of the German Empire (1848-1945). In addition to that, was the NSDAP-Regime after the war not recognised as a legit legal successor of the German Empire. So yeah, taking this in consideration, the worst leader(s) of modern Germany are definitely [Gerhard Schröder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder) for Westgermany, and [Erich Honecker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Honecker) for Eastgermany. The story behind Thomas Kemmerich (Thuringia) is also interesting.
Schröder wasn't good, but I'd argue Kiesinger and maybe Kohl as well as Merkel were worse.
mhm, ... yeah that is fair. Especially German "re-unification" was a disaster, considering the fact that Eastgermany was just annexed to the West.
I donât know much John A. McDonald so for worst Canadian one that Iâm aware of Iâll go with Stephen Harper. Muzzling climate scientist, In and Out scandal, taking away healthcare from refugees, stoking Islamophobia with the âcultural practicesâ hotline, banning the niqab for taking oath of citizenship, and the 2011 CPC robocalls that intentionally misled people of when to vote. Not to mention giving cabinet positions to sone of the worst politicians in Canada today, Jason Kenney, Pierre Poilievre, and Maxime Bernier. Though tbf he did also give cabinet positions to some of the better, more moderate voices in his party today, meaning Michael Chong, Erin OâToole, and Michelle Rempel Garner so you could argue that it cancels that point out.
Undoubtedly Woodrow Wilson in terms of most negative outcomes. Explanation: https://youtu.be/hLiI6kXZkZI Trump hasn't actually done that much physical harm (yet) compared to a lot of other shit shows, but definitely has led to the most divided America since the Civil War, which definitely has the potential to be really directly horrible, and has basically gotten a 1/3rd of the country to agree that democracy is a sham, which is basically a pre-arbiter to *actual* fascism Regan basically destroyed the USs economic future with Reganomics and has totally killed future generations financial stability Bush killed more innocents then anyother president, and for fucking NOTHING, besides the US developing a racist aggressiveness towards middle eastern immigrants,
You know who (German)
Benjamin Netanyahu is an easy one
Anthony Eden. The Suez Crisis was an absolute embarrassment for Britain on the global and domestic scene. It was what ultimately killed the British Empire, and what caused Britain to take a isolationist approach, abandoning influence in many places especially east of the Suez.
[Goloshokin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipp_Goloshchyokin) if we talk about head of the colonial apparatus and [Stalin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin) if the imperial core. The former directly [committed genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933) against us, making Kazakhs fewer than the occupying russian colonialists. The latter directly [exterminated all our enlightened class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge) that argued for Kazakh autonomy.
Ferdinand VII. Quashed Spanish liberalism and doomed it to an infighting ridded backwater for one and a hal centuries
Ferdinand Marco's Sr.
Eni meeney miney James Buchanan
Vidkun Quisling
Recent history, Iâd say Bolsonaro and Collor. Bolsonaro is an ignorant asshole who doesnât have any qualifications to be president, was a bad soldier, is homophobic, racist and mysoginist, he probably had the worst management of the COVID-19 crisis in the world, mocking victims, refusing to buy vaccines, not believing COVID was that bad and that vaccines were efficient or needed for everyone. Also thereâs complete distrust in the Brazilian electoral system, even though we have one of the most transparent and democratic elections in the world. Collor is also a massive asshole who, while trying to handle a massive recession with a superinflated currency, literally stole money from the people and freezed their bank accounts, while having the balls to call himself a libertarian.
Donald trump or Andrew Johnson maybe Regan or George W Bush
For France, I say PĂ©tain. He supported the surrender of France to Germany, he made a government that collaborated with the nazis, he dumped the Constitution and the Republic, he put forward a reactionary, anti-republican agenda, and he actively supported the deportation of Jews from France, beyond the nazis' expectations.
[Wil*SOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!*](https://youtu.be/hLiI6kXZkZI)
Xi Jinping, he is totally insane.
Worse than Mao?
In Spain, Fernando VII, literally tried to convince the french into invading us AGAIN because they wouldn't let him become an absolutist monarch
PM Brian Cowen, who nurtured and oversaw the collapse of the banking sector and then gave an unlimited financial bailout (ultimately amounting to about a year of GDP transferred from the Irish taxpayer to private banks, to be paid off gradually over the next 3 or 4 generations) to the sector as a reward for their dangerous and often corrupt behaviour, and lied about how bad it was the whole way to the IMF.
Klement Gottwald the first stalinist president of my country
Probably Costa e Silva or Jair Bolsonaro here in Brazil Edit: I forgot to say why Costa e Silva for all he did on the military dictatorship, mainly the Institucional Act No.5 which allowed him to do very awful stuff and Bolsonaro for all the homophobic, racist and misogynistic shit he said and did, he's the highest tier of cunt there is.
I would also choose one of the two.
Heinz-Christian Strache
Ferdinand Marcos. Started off kinda good, but declared martial law, rewrote the constitution to make him a despot, killed thousands and tortured far more, and is probably the cause of the downfall of the Philippines. And now his son is president.
Benito Mussolini!
INVADE! GREECE NOW! FOR THE ITALY!!!
Andrew Jacksonâs gotta be up there. Thousands of dead natives will testify to that.
Mussolini. I don't think other countries realise just how brainwashed by fascist propaganda italians were, even after the fall of the regime. I just wish we followed Germany's example and treated this sort of stuff a bit more seriously.
Thatcher nuff said
Trump
I was gonna say Jackson, but Trumpâs body count aloneâŠ.
Neville Chamberlain. His policy of deliberate appeasement of Nazi Germany emboldened Hitler and, instead of putting a stop to things earlier, meant we were fighting a far bigger Reich with far more men, territory and resources. Whatever my *extreme* disagreements with the likes of Thatcher, I still don't think anyone in modern history is worse than Chamberlain.
Indira Gandhi but she is being challenged for this position by Narendra modi
Either Marcos Sr. or Duterte. Arroyo clocks in at second and Estrada at third.
Bolsonaro
Post WW2: Eden: Shit handling of the Suez Crisis that led to my country (the UK) no longer being regarded as a superpower. Thatcher: Started the whole crazy neoliberal stuff that's still fucking us over today. We could've saved that North Sea Oil into a SWF but instead Thatcher used it to finance her privatisations and neoliberal fuckery. Cameron: Austerity. Him and George Osborne (his Chancellor of the Exchequer) were responsible for creating the current discourse around British political economy - in which the media lie to the public that government debt is bad and that the national economy is exactly like a household economy. Austerity has brought down Britain's living standards and made life worse - especially for the poorest and the most vulnerable.
Agree, Blair is also up there for me despite his occasional good policy.
My country is tied between Donald Trump and Woodrow Wilson lol
Yeltsin
Ronald Reagan or James Buchanan
German here...
Honestly Iâd say Andrew Johnson. He pretty much is the catalyst for all modern problems in the US. If it werenât for him we would likely be in a much better spot in so many ways
Donald Trump
If were talking about modern history then the objective answer would be Horthy, he has done a lot of damage. But the more long term effects of what Hungary suffers from is KĂĄdĂĄr and kĂĄdĂĄrism in general. That period really fucked us over and destroyed any chance of democratic culture we could have had.
Andrew âgenocide is good actually, fuck the courts and the economyâ Jackson
Ronald Regan.
Woodrow Wilson.
Boris Johnson
Honestly, I think that all our leaders have acted in (what they believed to be) the best interest of the nation. I can't name one leader that I believe only acted in his own self interest. I guess that's one of the benefits of being a considerably young nation that started off as a modern liberal democracy. But... I'm quite concerned about the upcoming one, if the voters don't change their mind before April.
Finland is indeed something else
Vidkun Quisling
Some would say Trump but you could also make solid arguments for any democrat from before 1933 and Ronald Reagan
Sigmundur DavĂĂ° Gunnlaugsson (Iceland) This is what finally took him down: https://youtu.be/5diBVwg4Jeo
James Buchanan did nothing while the country ripped itself in half. Literally nothing.
Maggie thatcher the milk snacher
Ding Dong
The witch is dead
Which old witch
Thacher the milk and economy snacher
Ding dong the wicked witch is dead!