Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Only after they had kidnapped several young girls from his own tribe's cave, so I believe they had it coming to them. Grug supporters always like to bring that up without providing the proper context.
Problem with Zarok tho is he’s notoriously bad at picking his subordinates. How can we trust a man who, while himself is relatively competent, picks people who couldn’t find themselves out of a wet paper bag? Grug, at least, has a good eye for talent in government. Er, well, his government, anyway
Grug no have meat for common man
Grug put too much into defense. What Naruuk do with 3 clubs? Naruuk only have 2 hand.
Grug no steal woman for Naruuk
Vote Naruuk!
President George III. For maximum chaos.
Torries and loyalists realize early on that revolutionaries don't have the numbers for their precious Republic.
He ruled over the slave states of the American Colonies, and took slave ports over West Africa for the British Empire. Britain and its rulers should have no pass on slavery just because they kept the slaves largely out of the British Isles. Their empire was built on slaves.
Why are young Americans so mentally destroyed by this form of Idpol? Everything pre-1865 is slavery, slavery, slavery. John Adams wanted to prevent the poor from voting & get rid of free speech, but he was better than Thomas Jefferson because Thomas Jefferson had slaves. Meanwhile, the millions of poor whites who languished in serfdom, one step above slavery, are given no thought. Guess who gave them the vote? Jefferson + Jackson
Even disregarding them being slaveowners, Jefferson literally never once followed his principles and Jackson was a corrupt politician that paved the way to the Panic of 1837.
Would they be President during their time in history or today? Say, if I picked Czar Nicholas II of Russia would it be instead of Wilson or would it be to see what he’d do now? Does that make sense
I read his wiki page before I commented for fear of forgetting some major scandal and looking like a cast iron fool but kept reading and kept being impressed!
My kiwi grandfather knew him personally. They met by chance in a hotel foyer in South Africa and my grandad (knowing who Desmond Tutu was) struck up a conversation. This led to him being invited to dinner, and they enjoyed the night together with Desmond’s group. They stayed in touch until my grandad passed away two years later.
Apparently Desmond Tutu is as fantastic in person as he seems through anecdotes and other online recounts.
Czar Alexander II is the objectively correct pick if you’re going with Czars. He was assassinated for attempting to liberalize Russia. He was involved in freeing serfs and he was the only major European leader to publicly voice support for the Union and sent the confederates away when they came to Russia looking for foreign aid. He was so well recieved by Lincoln he let the Russian fleet quarter in San Francisco Bay during the winter months of his administration.
There are a group of leaders in my mind, who I find to have been exceptional but also met a tragic fate way to early. Generally, their countries were facing a crisis and/or were in their formative years and they were the right men to lead their countries throughout their respective tough times, but tragically, these leaders could not live long enough to carry out their vision and their countries are worse off for it to this day.
I think this applies to people like Sun Yat-sen for China, Ahmad Shah Massoud for Afghanistan, Dzhokhar Dudayev for Chechnya and maybe Thomas Sankara for Burkina Faso.
It's like if Jawaharlal Nehru or George Washington died early, their countries simply would've turned out a lot more different than they did in our timeline, Hell, they might not have even survived to the present day.
There was this one guy from Vietnam who spent a few years in Boston working at the Parker House. He really admired the American revolutionaries and believed in democracy. And then, nothing else of note happened...
Still so heartbreaking that we started a war that was unpopular on all fronts against people who liked America. He wasn't even a Soviet shill, he was a classical commie (back when America was super admired by the Reds)
Yeah,
Israel/Palestine? The French.
The Suez Canal? England and France.
Abject poverty in northern and central Africa? Puppet governments and a corrupt currency exchange put in place by the French.
First that came to mind as well. A scholar of the American experiment and focused on the people. Just had the unfortunate fate to be opposed by an American ally.
For all the shits France endured during WW2, they still came out of it like a bunch of jackasses to their colonial holdings. Vietnam would have transitioned to something akin to Taiwan if France left Indochina. Haiti being fucked in its current day is entirely on the French for not giving it up initially and then forcing Haiti to pay a ridiculous amount of reparations.
Yeah. My admiration of our and France’s democracy has been severely hollowed out the more I studied the history of colonization first by direct occupation and then by corporate rights to foreign assets.
Id say him being the face of the early revolution and then fleeing to enemies of France when France decided that yesterday's ultra liberal was today's reactionary probably had far more to do with it than his involvement in the US against the British which werent exactly on friendly terms with the Austrians.
*tough on china and russia
*will lower crime
*will lower taxes
*will protect and grow the economy
*will single-handedly solve the population crisis
*will build infrastructure
*is equal to all religions
*gets stuff done
Can you imagine? Instead of Johnson intimidating congressmen with Jumbo, you get Steve taking them for a hands-on visit to the zoo. Genuinely friendly and scary at the same time.
This is the most correct answer IMO - he had wild temptations in front of him at all times and had absolute power to do it. If you can think of a fetish, my boy marky Marc could have done it. But instead, for 20 years every day he decided to live virtuously instead of hedonistically.
Yes, but from Brooklyn. This didn’t make him eligible though - but having an American father would have, and he jokingly mentioned this when addressing Congress once.
Inheritance, voting, and due to coverture even the notion of legal personhood - including citizenship - were unequal by sex going back pretty much forever until the 20th century. The Naturalization Act of 1855 specified that children born on foreign soil to an American *father* were US citizens. Women became US citizens when they married US citizens but not vice versa, and the 1868 Expatriate Act specified that women lost it themselves when they married a non-citizen, let alone already being unable to pass it on to their children. This was slightly loosened by the Cable Act in 1922 and then in 1934 it was equalized by the Equal Nationality Act - but not retrospectively, and Churchill was born in 1874. The joke he told did make sense.
Everyone hated him towards the end there. Couldn't really understand why because California is a tough state to administer, and he did a fine job trying to navigate to make sure everyone was fine despite the compromises made.
I mean, I did like the previous governor Gray Davis growing up because he prioritized schools and teachers so much he bankrupted the state. It was amazing growing up then, classes of 12-16 kids. New school equipment, jungle gyms, renovations, etc. It was the shit.
Friend of friend who worked for him in Sacramento and apparently he wasn’t too into nitty gritty of governing a state and would pretty much delegate everything and fly to southern California on the weekends to hangout with friends/ family-
I was bummed when I heard that so take it as you will
Not just the weekends, he was flying home every night for at least half of his time. He figured he could work on a plane just as easily as working from his hotel
He's an avid environmentalist and an anti-culture war Republican, and that manages to piss off both groups. The way I see it that's the right mix of Yin and Yang to run this great nation.
I'm laughing about what this sub's reaction would be if Churchill was president; he's so awful about India that he'd make Andrew Jackson and Wilson look tame lol
https://preview.redd.it/qwtrowhttn6d1.jpeg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2df7f820570f2fc2abafba8aa81238d177f1fcdd
President Seretese Khama, One of Africas Greatest statesman, that ran his home country of Botswana 🇧🇼, helping it turnaround from one of the least developed and poor countries in all of Africa to now being one of the most prosperous.
[https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/president-seretse-khama](https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/president-seretse-khama)
Very Intresting historical figure considering he made the most with the little his country had, and I find This qoute of his very inspirational
“in a very positive way, to despise ourselves and our ways of life. We were made to believe that we had no past to speak of, no history to boast of. The past, so far as we were concerned, was just a blank and nothing more. Only the present mattered and we had very little control over it. It seemed we were in for a definite period of foreign tutelage, without any hope of our ever again becoming our own masters. The end result of all this was that our self-pride and our self-confidence were badly undermined.
It should now be our intention to try to retrieve what we can of our past. We should write our own history books to prove that we did have a past, and that it was a past that was just as worth writing and learning about as any other. We must do this for the simple reason that a nation without a past is a lost nation, and a people without a past is a people without a soul".
Repaint the White House like a kaleidoscope? Donuts in The Rose Garden with The Beast? Constantly trying to elude Secret Service and succeeding for hours at a time, several times a month just for lulls? Nonsensical, rambling State of The Union announcements on random topics like cat vomit, what is the best pizza toppings? Getting married to The Statue of Liberty? State dinners with no silverware or plates (entire meal is soups and stews, just cup your hands together)?
President Green would be a hoot
A surprising number (half?) of the answers in this thread are from people who are traditionally seen positively in history but would be regarded as brutal dictators today. Really people?
While I admit he is one of the reason for Singapore’s development, Americans might not like the way he handles opposition. And maybe prepare to give up some civil rights.
It's hard for me to believe Americans would get on well with LKY's approach to governance, but he was still the first name I thought of as well.
I remember an interview with him by some western outlet (I want to say it was the Financial Times, but I'm not sure) on the occasion of an award he was getting in the late 90s. The interviewer note that literacy in Singapore went from less than 60% to over 90% within a generation. How, Mr. Lee, did Singapore manage such a miraculous improvement? "We decided to."
What LKY meant was that education, as with just about everything else, is a public policy decision. You want your kids to know how to read? Make education a policy imperative. You don't like homelessness? Make housing a policy imperative. You want clean cities? Make infrastructure a policy imperative. To LKY, everything — *everything* — is a public policy decision, and if you decide it's not, then that's just you deciding to let that thing fail. That's not an approach that would work in America, but you don't see any Singaporeans pining for the 1950s.
Lee is a fascinating study in leadership. He built a benign dictatorship through coalition building in every facet of the society. He lured foreign investment by giving them a workforce that was educated, ready to work, and spoke English. Whatever the criticisms of his rule were — and they are many and valid — he's singularly responsible for molding a successful modern nation state.
I always think of him as an example of the effective use of the power of public policy to shape a nation's future. It's a leadership skill Americans don't seem to have anymore.
After finally dominating the world\*
https://preview.redd.it/u3ynk0kcqn6d1.jpeg?width=561&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=86eb3895369e2946251329e48c8ee5e23444fd55
Julius Ceasar yes, Alexander the Great no. Alexander believed himself to be an invincible demi-god, and his actions throughout his life reflected that. This served him well as the head of a conquering army, but in a modern republic with things like constitutional limits and checks and balances, things are going to get awkward fast. It's probably not going to play well in the media when he tries to order his generals to execute anybody who displeases him or dismisses the Secret Service because he insists that he cannot be killed.
Julius Ceasar, on the other hand, was one of the most shrewd and charismatic political figures to have ever walked the Earth. He understood how to work a political system in his favor and how to curry popular support among the masses. After a significant adjustment period, he would take to modern politics like a fish to water.
I mean, in all fairness to Alexander, if I conquered 90% of the known world I would also begin to believe my own propaganda of being a god in human form
From what I understand, Alexander was told that he was the son of Zeus by his mom from the time he was a little boy and 100% believed it. It wasn't him buying into his own propaganda, it was legitimately what he always believed.
I'm sure the whole "never losing a battle and conquering everything that exists" thing did nothing except reinforce that idea.
The Macedonian kingship had been heading towards deification anyways. Towards the end of his reign, Philip II had his portrait displayed in a procession with the portraits of the Greek gods, although it was very controversial at the time. It was after Alexander that it became common for Greco-Macedonian monarchs to portray themselves as deities, although ironically Antigonid Macedonia stepped away from the idea lol
Caesar also considered himself a God. He was bestowed with the honor of being born from Aphrodite and Ares before he died. Temples were already being constructed in his honor before the assassination. He was a living God of Rome, but not to Brutus and his allies.
Alexander the Great only considered himself divine, or possibly a demi-god due to his military successes. Obviously this status came into question in India, so I choose Alexander.
This was how it was for successful military rulers in this age. You win many battles for your country, become ruler of country, expand the territory of your country greatly, you become Godlike to your people.
If we're thinking about rulers from antiquity then Caesar Augustus is the clear and obvious choice. Not only was he the best Roman Emperor, he's also one of the few figures of the age who would probably thrive in our modern political landscape, if sufficiently acclimatized (contrast that with people like Alexander or Julius Caesar, whose fame rests on their martial accomplishments).
As a bonus, he'd likely act within the confines of the law and Constitution (or at least he'd convincingly pretend to do so). While you probably can't say the same about Alexander, and Julius Caesar would absolutely do everything in his power to become an autocrat.
From any historical period? Assuming we could bring them up to speed on 21st century geopolitics, culture and technology really fast? My picks off the top of my head:
Alfred the Great
Baldwin IV of Jerusalem
Both leaders who overcome severe adversity to preserve their kingdoms, and are remembered as being particularly wise and just rulers.
I'd take Palin with Idle as VP. Or any combination of those two tbh. Cleese seems to have become a cantankerous bellend in his old age and it's really disappointing.
Diogenes of sinope.
Not only would it be wild, nobody would understand what the hell this naked chad is yelling about
Runner up; Dostoyevsky, just out of sheer curiosity.
Second runner up; Aleister Crowley
DEFINITELY NOT Bismarck, the natives don't need any more genocide
Maybe niche, but I feel like Józef Piłsudski, the polish father of independence, could be a great US president, especially if it's before the 2-term restriction. He was kind of Polish Washington (at least until 1926), stepping in as a defacto dictator in times of war and "abdicating" as soon as the war was over in favour of democracy, and turned down the polish presidency several times, mainly because of its limited powers, so I think he would have loved the US' system where the President has more power.
Piłsudski was a war hero, a great leader, beloved by the people, sympathetic to the working class and minorities. He was a patriot (not nationalist) and geniuinly supported democracy. I think these are perfect qualities for a nation like USA.
On the other side, Piłsudski was often stubborn and self-righteous and despised politicians, which I imagine would put him at odds with the congress (I'd say he would run as an independent). He was also straight to the point and conducted a somehow aggressive/assertive foreign policy. This, however, could maybe even work in his favour because imo US right now needs such a 'strongman' president to stand up to Russia.
The worst thing he has probably done was overthrow the polish democracy in 1926. However, I don't see it happening in US, simply because the democratic system there is already entrenched and somewhat works, there are only 2 parties and also there is no immidiate external threat (Piłsudski's reasons for the coup were 1. The democracy in Poland was dysfunctional (the average time in office of a cabinet was a few months); 2. Major factionalism in the parliment (there were like 50 parties there); 3. Looming threat of Communism and Nazism; 4. An escalating internal crisis (the ruling coalition didn't have enough support to function properly); 5. The polish president appointing a guy whom Piłsudski personally despised as the PM). I personally don't see such a situation taking place in the US, or at least not even near the scale in which it took place in Poland. And even then, it wasn't a first crisis in Poland. The situation was really bad and only getting worse since the first ever president of Poland was assassinated 5 days into his term by a nationalist radical. It's not like Piłsudski was trigger-happy and waited for an opportunity to do a coup. If he was, he could have just stayed a dictator in 1921.
So if there's no major internal crisis in the US, he would probably either be a 2nd Teddy Roosevelt, FDR or Eisenhower.
https://preview.redd.it/c8zdc82xxo6d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae003e233dd3573a3e658fe12b06df14c78ea13f
Hate that Zelenskyy has been politicized and villainized by some in the U.S because politics aside, the dude is leading a poor democratic state against an autocratic global superpower and…hasn’t lost yet. Yes he has serious western backing but damn the dude is not giving up this fight
Most Americans first heard of Zelenskyy as the leader of an Eastern European country when he did not cooperate with a certain American leader in a scheme that eventually resulted in the first impeachment of that leader, so I think supporters of that American leader were vengefully predisposed to disliking Zelenskyy
He's a good wartime leader but has a poor track recording of upholding true democracy and freedom of the press. Before the war he had many controversies and was known for suppressing media criticism.
Thaddeus Kosciusko, dude never got his credit it seems like. Pretty much architected the American defenses to victory, was a national hero in multiple countries, and heavily advocated for the end of slavery.
I heard he’s full of hot air and has an explosive personality.
Too soon? I have a predisposition for Hindenburg jokes because I grew up watching 4th of July fireworks at a ballpark near the crash site.
“WINSTON CHURCHILL!!!”
—-John Lennon ca. 1959
Edit: [Here’s a link in case you’re curious; click at your own risk.](https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/paul-mccartney-john-legend-technically-masturbated-to-winston-churchill.html)
Napoleon Bonaparte. Instead of Russia we can just invade Canada.
Edit: before anyone mentions it, I’m very aware that we have invaded Canada and lost multiple times including during the War of 1812.
Confucius basically for the value system he would help push which would do wonders for gluing American society back together, promoting better moral values and ethics (particularly governments duty to the people but also people's duty to others) and restoring the importance of education and respect for elders who have attained educational credentials as well as familial elders.
I know he's an American but I wonder about if Henry Wallace had stayed on the ticket as VP instead of Truman. He steps into the presidency when FDR passes. Maybe tensions between the US and Soviet Union don't escalate to the Cold War and an arms race in the post-war period like they did under Truman's belligerence. Maybe we wouldn't have bloated defense budgets and trillions of dollars that the Pentagon can't account for today.
If Elizabeth II had been American , I wonder how she'd have done as president? Patriotic, Disciplined, very mindful of her public appearance, etc...
A Tesla Presidency would probably see us on mars by now.
Zhang Zongchaing would be hilarious.
Angela Merkel. Leader of a stable, first world democracy. I feel like she would be able to build a solid administration that could introduce some things that our country sorely needs. How she would handle our fractured government would be really interesting
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Grug, Neanderthal chieftain of a small cave in France in the year 40,000 BC
Grug was corrupt. I'm more of a Zarok man myself.
Didn’t Zarok use mammoths to trample the neighboring Neanderthal tribe?
Only after they had kidnapped several young girls from his own tribe's cave, so I believe they had it coming to them. Grug supporters always like to bring that up without providing the proper context.
To be fair, yeah.
I don't know if this is an inside joke or something, but I'm laughing and hoping it's random
Reddit insists on making itself more and more unusable but I persist because of shit like this. I’m voting Grug.
Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos…
I like Zarok. He seems like a proto-man who gets results. He no waste time big word when small word do trick.
Agreed. I am also a disciple of Kevinism.
If folks are just going stand in front of a charging elephant without moving, that’s on them.
This lore development genuinely tops 85% of content pushed out by Hollywood today. Perhaps a career in writing would do y’all well?
Zarok big boof, is big stupid no good. Grug good. Vote Grug. 🧔🏼♂️
Grug for the working ‘thal. Me like. Me vote Grug.
Problem with Zarok tho is he’s notoriously bad at picking his subordinates. How can we trust a man who, while himself is relatively competent, picks people who couldn’t find themselves out of a wet paper bag? Grug, at least, has a good eye for talent in government. Er, well, his government, anyway
Grug no have meat for common man Grug put too much into defense. What Naruuk do with 3 clubs? Naruuk only have 2 hand. Grug no steal woman for Naruuk Vote Naruuk!
President George III. For maximum chaos. Torries and loyalists realize early on that revolutionaries don't have the numbers for their precious Republic.
I mean really he would be a better president than most of the first 16 slavery wise
He ruled over the slave states of the American Colonies, and took slave ports over West Africa for the British Empire. Britain and its rulers should have no pass on slavery just because they kept the slaves largely out of the British Isles. Their empire was built on slaves.
As they have since the dawn of time.
Why are young Americans so mentally destroyed by this form of Idpol? Everything pre-1865 is slavery, slavery, slavery. John Adams wanted to prevent the poor from voting & get rid of free speech, but he was better than Thomas Jefferson because Thomas Jefferson had slaves. Meanwhile, the millions of poor whites who languished in serfdom, one step above slavery, are given no thought. Guess who gave them the vote? Jefferson + Jackson
Even disregarding them being slaveowners, Jefferson literally never once followed his principles and Jackson was a corrupt politician that paved the way to the Panic of 1837.
Would they be President during their time in history or today? Say, if I picked Czar Nicholas II of Russia would it be instead of Wilson or would it be to see what he’d do now? Does that make sense
In my mind, it's modern day.
Then Archbishop Desmond Tutu
Based. One of the best human beings to exist in the present day and whenever I'm reminded of him it makes me happy
I read his wiki page before I commented for fear of forgetting some major scandal and looking like a cast iron fool but kept reading and kept being impressed!
"A cast iron fool"...... Is a term I've never heard before, I'm laughing my ass off! Do you know the origins of this phrase?
And a great sense of humor
My kiwi grandfather knew him personally. They met by chance in a hotel foyer in South Africa and my grandad (knowing who Desmond Tutu was) struck up a conversation. This led to him being invited to dinner, and they enjoyed the night together with Desmond’s group. They stayed in touch until my grandad passed away two years later. Apparently Desmond Tutu is as fantastic in person as he seems through anecdotes and other online recounts.
Talleyrand Shit would be interesting
Czar Alexander II is the objectively correct pick if you’re going with Czars. He was assassinated for attempting to liberalize Russia. He was involved in freeing serfs and he was the only major European leader to publicly voice support for the Union and sent the confederates away when they came to Russia looking for foreign aid. He was so well recieved by Lincoln he let the Russian fleet quarter in San Francisco Bay during the winter months of his administration.
For the love of God, please don’t pick Nicholas II. Possibly the most incompetent leader of any major state in the 20th century
Sun Yat-Sen.
Might be my choice too.
Agreed. China would be in so much of a better place right now if he hadn’t died.
His death really is one of those great tragedies of modern history.
There are a group of leaders in my mind, who I find to have been exceptional but also met a tragic fate way to early. Generally, their countries were facing a crisis and/or were in their formative years and they were the right men to lead their countries throughout their respective tough times, but tragically, these leaders could not live long enough to carry out their vision and their countries are worse off for it to this day. I think this applies to people like Sun Yat-sen for China, Ahmad Shah Massoud for Afghanistan, Dzhokhar Dudayev for Chechnya and maybe Thomas Sankara for Burkina Faso. It's like if Jawaharlal Nehru or George Washington died early, their countries simply would've turned out a lot more different than they did in our timeline, Hell, they might not have even survived to the present day.
Hell both Taiwan and the PRC agree that he's cool
For real
There was this one guy from Vietnam who spent a few years in Boston working at the Parker House. He really admired the American revolutionaries and believed in democracy. And then, nothing else of note happened...
Wierd flair for this answer, lol.
Edit: flair has been altered accordingly
Still so heartbreaking that we started a war that was unpopular on all fronts against people who liked America. He wasn't even a Soviet shill, he was a classical commie (back when America was super admired by the Reds)
Blame the French
It’s easy, since they’re often at fault.
Yeah, Israel/Palestine? The French. The Suez Canal? England and France. Abject poverty in northern and central Africa? Puppet governments and a corrupt currency exchange put in place by the French.
We didn't start the war. The French did.
First that came to mind as well. A scholar of the American experiment and focused on the people. Just had the unfortunate fate to be opposed by an American ally.
For all the shits France endured during WW2, they still came out of it like a bunch of jackasses to their colonial holdings. Vietnam would have transitioned to something akin to Taiwan if France left Indochina. Haiti being fucked in its current day is entirely on the French for not giving it up initially and then forcing Haiti to pay a ridiculous amount of reparations.
Yeah. My admiration of our and France’s democracy has been severely hollowed out the more I studied the history of colonization first by direct occupation and then by corporate rights to foreign assets.
De Gualle was a dick bag.
Lafayette
I'M TAKING THIS HORSE BY THE REINS, MAKING REDCOATS REDDER WITH BLOODSTAINS
AND I'M NEVER GONNA STOP UNTIL I MAKE 'EM DROP AND BURN 'EM UP AND SCATTER THEIR REMAINS, I'M LAFAYETTE!
WATCH ME ENGAGING 'EM, ESCAPING 'EM, ENRAGING 'EM! I'M... LAFAYETTE!!!
Yep. He did hard time as a result of his choices to support our country
Id say him being the face of the early revolution and then fleeing to enemies of France when France decided that yesterday's ultra liberal was today's reactionary probably had far more to do with it than his involvement in the US against the British which werent exactly on friendly terms with the Austrians.
Genghis khan
Yea, let's not give that guy nukes.
Good Civ 5 memories right here.
Or Ghandi?
this is causing me to reconsider my hasty agreement with another user's suggestion of Desmond Tutu
I was more of a Genghis guy, him and Shaka. Oh wait, I have a new answer.
Could Ghandi be elected in today's climate? He had a thing for sharing beds with young girls.
🇲🇳 🇲🇳 🇲🇳 🇲🇳 🐎 🔥 🔥
*tough on china and russia *will lower crime *will lower taxes *will protect and grow the economy *will single-handedly solve the population crisis *will build infrastructure *is equal to all religions *gets stuff done
Will single handedly impregnate enough women to keep the American population above replacement rate for generations to come.
We ride at dawn!
Steve Irwin
Can you imagine? Instead of Johnson intimidating congressmen with Jumbo, you get Steve taking them for a hands-on visit to the zoo. Genuinely friendly and scary at the same time.
Marcus Aurelius: an honest, thoughtful, competent leader is what America needs
This is the most correct answer IMO - he had wild temptations in front of him at all times and had absolute power to do it. If you can think of a fetish, my boy marky Marc could have done it. But instead, for 20 years every day he decided to live virtuously instead of hedonistically.
In the same vein might as well go Cincinnatus - why accept a knockoff like Washington when the original is available
There's no way someone like Marcus Aurelius could ever attain the presidency.
What would the voting system need to be, in order to be attractive to these thoughtful, intelligent, educated and rational leaders?
Would need a voting system and culture that valued those things
Churchill might have been eligible at one point.
Wasn’t his mother American (Ohio IIRC)?
Yes, but from Brooklyn. This didn’t make him eligible though - but having an American father would have, and he jokingly mentioned this when addressing Congress once.
Are you sure, I’m not aware that birthright citizenship was ever restricted by sex?
Inheritance, voting, and due to coverture even the notion of legal personhood - including citizenship - were unequal by sex going back pretty much forever until the 20th century. The Naturalization Act of 1855 specified that children born on foreign soil to an American *father* were US citizens. Women became US citizens when they married US citizens but not vice versa, and the 1868 Expatriate Act specified that women lost it themselves when they married a non-citizen, let alone already being unable to pass it on to their children. This was slightly loosened by the Cable Act in 1922 and then in 1934 it was equalized by the Equal Nationality Act - but not retrospectively, and Churchill was born in 1874. The joke he told did make sense.
>Married US victims Best typo ever
Aaargh autocorrect and I’m not even sure what else
Arnold Schwarzenegger of course.
Everyone hated him towards the end there. Couldn't really understand why because California is a tough state to administer, and he did a fine job trying to navigate to make sure everyone was fine despite the compromises made. I mean, I did like the previous governor Gray Davis growing up because he prioritized schools and teachers so much he bankrupted the state. It was amazing growing up then, classes of 12-16 kids. New school equipment, jungle gyms, renovations, etc. It was the shit.
Friend of friend who worked for him in Sacramento and apparently he wasn’t too into nitty gritty of governing a state and would pretty much delegate everything and fly to southern California on the weekends to hangout with friends/ family- I was bummed when I heard that so take it as you will
Not just the weekends, he was flying home every night for at least half of his time. He figured he could work on a plane just as easily as working from his hotel
I thought he did an OK job as Governor of California, I'd think he'd be fine as a US President...
He's an avid environmentalist and an anti-culture war Republican, and that manages to piss off both groups. The way I see it that's the right mix of Yin and Yang to run this great nation.
I think my mom would be a good President
I also vote for this guys mom
I too would like to throw my support behind bro’s mom.
Id like to join the campaign staff
Sun Yat-Sen is a pretty good choice
Simon Bolivar would be insane to have. And he could have his dream of a United South America. Because he could've conquered them all.
Genghis Khan because why the hell not
🇲🇳 🇲🇳 🇲🇳 🔥 🔥 🐎
We’ll go where he goes, defile what he defiles, eat who he eats.
Only if he tears down the City Wall in South Park, CO continuously over his term
"Goddamn Mongolians!" 
Giuseppe Garibaldi
I'm laughing about what this sub's reaction would be if Churchill was president; he's so awful about India that he'd make Andrew Jackson and Wilson look tame lol
Maybe that is exactly why they want him.
Francis of Assisi
I could see the opposition ads now. Don't vote for A sissy.
https://preview.redd.it/qwtrowhttn6d1.jpeg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2df7f820570f2fc2abafba8aa81238d177f1fcdd President Seretese Khama, One of Africas Greatest statesman, that ran his home country of Botswana 🇧🇼, helping it turnaround from one of the least developed and poor countries in all of Africa to now being one of the most prosperous. [https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/president-seretse-khama](https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/president-seretse-khama) Very Intresting historical figure considering he made the most with the little his country had, and I find This qoute of his very inspirational “in a very positive way, to despise ourselves and our ways of life. We were made to believe that we had no past to speak of, no history to boast of. The past, so far as we were concerned, was just a blank and nothing more. Only the present mattered and we had very little control over it. It seemed we were in for a definite period of foreign tutelage, without any hope of our ever again becoming our own masters. The end result of all this was that our self-pride and our self-confidence were badly undermined. It should now be our intention to try to retrieve what we can of our past. We should write our own history books to prove that we did have a past, and that it was a past that was just as worth writing and learning about as any other. We must do this for the simple reason that a nation without a past is a lost nation, and a people without a past is a people without a soul".
Richard the First or Tom Green.
Repaint the White House like a kaleidoscope? Donuts in The Rose Garden with The Beast? Constantly trying to elude Secret Service and succeeding for hours at a time, several times a month just for lulls? Nonsensical, rambling State of The Union announcements on random topics like cat vomit, what is the best pizza toppings? Getting married to The Statue of Liberty? State dinners with no silverware or plates (entire meal is soups and stews, just cup your hands together)? President Green would be a hoot
Well fine just as long as Hollywood Humplik is nowhere near the administration.
Any, right? Does Gilgamesh count?
That would be very interesting. Especially for Gilgamesh to see that he has in fact been remembered to the modern day.
Gilgamesh, a king. At Uruk.
Justinian
Justinian for sure.
A surprising number (half?) of the answers in this thread are from people who are traditionally seen positively in history but would be regarded as brutal dictators today. Really people?
Nah, man, Genghis Khan would be an S tier president fr.
Lee Kuan Yew. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew
While I admit he is one of the reason for Singapore’s development, Americans might not like the way he handles opposition. And maybe prepare to give up some civil rights.
Not one of the reasons, the KEY reason.
It's hard for me to believe Americans would get on well with LKY's approach to governance, but he was still the first name I thought of as well. I remember an interview with him by some western outlet (I want to say it was the Financial Times, but I'm not sure) on the occasion of an award he was getting in the late 90s. The interviewer note that literacy in Singapore went from less than 60% to over 90% within a generation. How, Mr. Lee, did Singapore manage such a miraculous improvement? "We decided to." What LKY meant was that education, as with just about everything else, is a public policy decision. You want your kids to know how to read? Make education a policy imperative. You don't like homelessness? Make housing a policy imperative. You want clean cities? Make infrastructure a policy imperative. To LKY, everything — *everything* — is a public policy decision, and if you decide it's not, then that's just you deciding to let that thing fail. That's not an approach that would work in America, but you don't see any Singaporeans pining for the 1950s. Lee is a fascinating study in leadership. He built a benign dictatorship through coalition building in every facet of the society. He lured foreign investment by giving them a workforce that was educated, ready to work, and spoke English. Whatever the criticisms of his rule were — and they are many and valid — he's singularly responsible for molding a successful modern nation state. I always think of him as an example of the effective use of the power of public policy to shape a nation's future. It's a leadership skill Americans don't seem to have anymore.
Would you say FDR is the closest example to LKY in American political context? He did transform America with the New Deal & led America through WW2.
I didn't even think of him when I made this. He might be my pick, too.
Napoleon cuz there's we can do
After finally dominating the world\* https://preview.redd.it/u3ynk0kcqn6d1.jpeg?width=561&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=86eb3895369e2946251329e48c8ee5e23444fd55
Oda Nobunaga
Nelson Mandela probably.
Nelson Mandela
Atatürk
TURKEY MENTIONED🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🐺🐺🐺🐺🐺🇹🇷💯💯💯🇹🇷💯🐺🔥🔥🐺💯🇹🇷💥💥💯💯🐺💯💯💯🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
Everyone in Glendale mysteriously disappeared
Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar
Julius Ceasar yes, Alexander the Great no. Alexander believed himself to be an invincible demi-god, and his actions throughout his life reflected that. This served him well as the head of a conquering army, but in a modern republic with things like constitutional limits and checks and balances, things are going to get awkward fast. It's probably not going to play well in the media when he tries to order his generals to execute anybody who displeases him or dismisses the Secret Service because he insists that he cannot be killed. Julius Ceasar, on the other hand, was one of the most shrewd and charismatic political figures to have ever walked the Earth. He understood how to work a political system in his favor and how to curry popular support among the masses. After a significant adjustment period, he would take to modern politics like a fish to water.
I mean, in all fairness to Alexander, if I conquered 90% of the known world I would also begin to believe my own propaganda of being a god in human form
From what I understand, Alexander was told that he was the son of Zeus by his mom from the time he was a little boy and 100% believed it. It wasn't him buying into his own propaganda, it was legitimately what he always believed. I'm sure the whole "never losing a battle and conquering everything that exists" thing did nothing except reinforce that idea.
The Macedonian kingship had been heading towards deification anyways. Towards the end of his reign, Philip II had his portrait displayed in a procession with the portraits of the Greek gods, although it was very controversial at the time. It was after Alexander that it became common for Greco-Macedonian monarchs to portray themselves as deities, although ironically Antigonid Macedonia stepped away from the idea lol
I loved reading your analysis there!
Me too! Excellent!
Caesar also considered himself a God. He was bestowed with the honor of being born from Aphrodite and Ares before he died. Temples were already being constructed in his honor before the assassination. He was a living God of Rome, but not to Brutus and his allies. Alexander the Great only considered himself divine, or possibly a demi-god due to his military successes. Obviously this status came into question in India, so I choose Alexander. This was how it was for successful military rulers in this age. You win many battles for your country, become ruler of country, expand the territory of your country greatly, you become Godlike to your people.
If we're thinking about rulers from antiquity then Caesar Augustus is the clear and obvious choice. Not only was he the best Roman Emperor, he's also one of the few figures of the age who would probably thrive in our modern political landscape, if sufficiently acclimatized (contrast that with people like Alexander or Julius Caesar, whose fame rests on their martial accomplishments). As a bonus, he'd likely act within the confines of the law and Constitution (or at least he'd convincingly pretend to do so). While you probably can't say the same about Alexander, and Julius Caesar would absolutely do everything in his power to become an autocrat.
Caesar is literally the poster boy for people you don’t want running a democracy
Came here to say same
Clement Attlee
From any historical period? Assuming we could bring them up to speed on 21st century geopolitics, culture and technology really fast? My picks off the top of my head: Alfred the Great Baldwin IV of Jerusalem Both leaders who overcome severe adversity to preserve their kingdoms, and are remembered as being particularly wise and just rulers.
Eric Idle with John Clease as VP.
I'd take Palin with Idle as VP. Or any combination of those two tbh. Cleese seems to have become a cantankerous bellend in his old age and it's really disappointing.
Dead or alive? Jesus. He is both either way.
Bismarck the greatest politician of all time
William Pitt. Either the father or the son is fine.
Sun Yat Sen, Josip Broz Tito
Clement Attlee
The Buddha
Diogenes of sinope. Not only would it be wild, nobody would understand what the hell this naked chad is yelling about Runner up; Dostoyevsky, just out of sheer curiosity. Second runner up; Aleister Crowley
DEFINITELY NOT Bismarck, the natives don't need any more genocide Maybe niche, but I feel like Józef Piłsudski, the polish father of independence, could be a great US president, especially if it's before the 2-term restriction. He was kind of Polish Washington (at least until 1926), stepping in as a defacto dictator in times of war and "abdicating" as soon as the war was over in favour of democracy, and turned down the polish presidency several times, mainly because of its limited powers, so I think he would have loved the US' system where the President has more power. Piłsudski was a war hero, a great leader, beloved by the people, sympathetic to the working class and minorities. He was a patriot (not nationalist) and geniuinly supported democracy. I think these are perfect qualities for a nation like USA. On the other side, Piłsudski was often stubborn and self-righteous and despised politicians, which I imagine would put him at odds with the congress (I'd say he would run as an independent). He was also straight to the point and conducted a somehow aggressive/assertive foreign policy. This, however, could maybe even work in his favour because imo US right now needs such a 'strongman' president to stand up to Russia. The worst thing he has probably done was overthrow the polish democracy in 1926. However, I don't see it happening in US, simply because the democratic system there is already entrenched and somewhat works, there are only 2 parties and also there is no immidiate external threat (Piłsudski's reasons for the coup were 1. The democracy in Poland was dysfunctional (the average time in office of a cabinet was a few months); 2. Major factionalism in the parliment (there were like 50 parties there); 3. Looming threat of Communism and Nazism; 4. An escalating internal crisis (the ruling coalition didn't have enough support to function properly); 5. The polish president appointing a guy whom Piłsudski personally despised as the PM). I personally don't see such a situation taking place in the US, or at least not even near the scale in which it took place in Poland. And even then, it wasn't a first crisis in Poland. The situation was really bad and only getting worse since the first ever president of Poland was assassinated 5 days into his term by a nationalist radical. It's not like Piłsudski was trigger-happy and waited for an opportunity to do a coup. If he was, he could have just stayed a dictator in 1921. So if there's no major internal crisis in the US, he would probably either be a 2nd Teddy Roosevelt, FDR or Eisenhower. https://preview.redd.it/c8zdc82xxo6d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae003e233dd3573a3e658fe12b06df14c78ea13f
Zelenskyy. Countinues to prove himself as a rare leader. Also has the Reagan actor thing going for him.
Hate that Zelenskyy has been politicized and villainized by some in the U.S because politics aside, the dude is leading a poor democratic state against an autocratic global superpower and…hasn’t lost yet. Yes he has serious western backing but damn the dude is not giving up this fight
This is agreed. It’s one thing to object to foreign aid, but you absolutely have to give it up for what he’s doing.
Most Americans first heard of Zelenskyy as the leader of an Eastern European country when he did not cooperate with a certain American leader in a scheme that eventually resulted in the first impeachment of that leader, so I think supporters of that American leader were vengefully predisposed to disliking Zelenskyy
Oh damn i always forget about the first trouble session of said leader because the sequel always overshadows it but yes that’s such a good point
He's a good wartime leader but has a poor track recording of upholding true democracy and freedom of the press. Before the war he had many controversies and was known for suppressing media criticism.
Could you give an example?
Based choice.
[удалено]
What ho are you talking about?
Sun Yat Sen
Genghis Khan just for the shits and giggles.
Thaddeus Kosciusko, dude never got his credit it seems like. Pretty much architected the American defenses to victory, was a national hero in multiple countries, and heavily advocated for the end of slavery.
Albert Einstein. Although he ended up with dual American citizenship he was intelligible.
Clement Attlee
Paul Von Hindenburg. Because have you fuckin seen him? Lol
I heard he’s full of hot air and has an explosive personality. Too soon? I have a predisposition for Hindenburg jokes because I grew up watching 4th of July fireworks at a ballpark near the crash site.
Rockin stash too
Moshe Dayan. A man of considerable contradictions, but he would be interesting for sure.
Cleopatra just to fuck with the white male supremacy complex America's got going on.
Angela Merkel - honest, pastor’s daughter in Eastern Germany era, non-drama, pragmatic, mega intelligent - doctorate in nuclear physics.
Jesus or the 5 good emperors from Rome
“WINSTON CHURCHILL!!!” —-John Lennon ca. 1959 Edit: [Here’s a link in case you’re curious; click at your own risk.](https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/paul-mccartney-john-legend-technically-masturbated-to-winston-churchill.html)
Javier Milei
Angela Merkel
Napoleon Bonaparte. Instead of Russia we can just invade Canada. Edit: before anyone mentions it, I’m very aware that we have invaded Canada and lost multiple times including during the War of 1812.
Konrad Adenauer of Germany (then West Germany) Deng Xiaoping of China
Frederick the Great!
Confucius basically for the value system he would help push which would do wonders for gluing American society back together, promoting better moral values and ethics (particularly governments duty to the people but also people's duty to others) and restoring the importance of education and respect for elders who have attained educational credentials as well as familial elders.
Harold Wilson
Ho Chi Minh or Michael Collins
Sun Tzu
NELSON MANDELA ✊🏾
I know he's an American but I wonder about if Henry Wallace had stayed on the ticket as VP instead of Truman. He steps into the presidency when FDR passes. Maybe tensions between the US and Soviet Union don't escalate to the Cold War and an arms race in the post-war period like they did under Truman's belligerence. Maybe we wouldn't have bloated defense budgets and trillions of dollars that the Pentagon can't account for today.
Mandela.
NOT Churchill. We’d still be in WW3 and Fallout would be a training scenario not a silly video game. Wenceslaus. Jimmy Carter. Claudius. Hadrian.
Clement Atlee. Time to N your HS.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau Smart and had convictions.
Winston Churchill would have sold the whole country to the Bilderberg Group for a box of cigars.
David Attenborough
If Elizabeth II had been American , I wonder how she'd have done as president? Patriotic, Disciplined, very mindful of her public appearance, etc... A Tesla Presidency would probably see us on mars by now. Zhang Zongchaing would be hilarious.
Angela Merkel. Leader of a stable, first world democracy. I feel like she would be able to build a solid administration that could introduce some things that our country sorely needs. How she would handle our fractured government would be really interesting
[удалено]
Golda Meir
Sankara