USA’s presidents have all been awful humans

Obama bombed a wedding of civilians not to mention hid Afghanistan casualty reports, was a part of the death of half a million Iraqi casualties, was part of the Syrian hell that targeted mainly children with fatalities at 191,000 by 2014, then there was Yemen and saber rattling on Iran and full support of Israel. Carter sadly oversaw the East Timor genocide at 25% of the population or 170,000 killed.

You might want to rephrase that as the East Timor genocide started while Carter was in office. Carter played no role in that genocide. The Indonesian government was responsible for it. It is odd that you are blaming Carter at all.
- I'm not rephrasing shit because you're incapable of reading.
  Hey internet... the shitty bot account doesn't know how to look info up on Carter and East Timor. Can you please do it for it?
  Jimmy Carter's administration faced significant criticism for its handling of the East Timor situation during Indonesia's occupation. Despite Carter's reputation as a champion of human rights, his presidency saw a continuation and even expansion of military support to Indonesia while it committed atrocities in East Timor[1][2].
  In 1977-1978, as Indonesia engaged in wholesale destruction of East Timor through massive bombardment and forced relocation of populations, the Carter Administration increased the flow of military equipment to Indonesia[1]. This included supplying OV-10 Broncos, planes designed for counterinsurgency operations, which were used in ferocious attacks that devastated East Timor[1][2].
  The administration's response to the crisis was particularly troubling:
  U.S. officials, including Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, misled Congress about the situation in East Timor, downplaying the severity of the conflict[2].
  When the CIA reported that Indonesia was running out of weapons due to the intensity of its bombardment, the Carter administration responded by increasing military sales to Indonesia in 1978[2].
  The administration provided ground attack fighters like OV-10 Broncos, A-4s, and F-5s, knowing they would be used against East Timor's civilian population[2].
  Carter later expressed regret for his lack of intervention, admitting in a 2007 interview that he was not as thoroughly briefed about the situation in East Timor as he should have been[2]. However, this does not negate the fact that his administration's policies contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of East Timorese during his years in office[1][3].
  Citations: [1] https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/12/30/jimmy-carter-the-false-savoir/ [2] https://www.democracynow.org/2025/1/10/jimmy_carter_indonesia_east_timor_genocide [3] https://inthesetimes.com/article/jimmy-carter-foreign-policy-palestine-legacy [4] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2025/1/10/historians-say-jimmy-carters-human-rights-legacy-includes-grim-failures [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Jimmy_Carter_administration [6] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/indonesia/2019-08-28/us-sought-preserve-close-ties-indonesian-military-it-terrorized-east-timor-runup-1999-independence [7] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1999/08/12/carter-assails-indonesia-over-east-timor-security/b128a1a8-b856-404c-a84a-2202332e6fb5/ [8] https://sporastudios.org/mark/epluribusunum/carter.htm
  
  Im not incapable of reading. Your writing clearly states that Carter was responsible. You claim he oversaw it which is just flatly incorrect.
  You think Im a bot because my username contains the word "bot"?
  "In 1977-1978, as Indonesia engaged in wholesale destruction of East Timor through massive bombardment and forced relocation of populations"
  That REALLY sounds like Indonesia was responsible for the genocide they were committing. Why are you blaming an American president for a war waged by Indonesians due to choices made by the Indonesian government? Do you think Indonesia had no agency in the genocide they perpetrated?
  Again it is really weird you are blaming Carter for this.

We only learn about the ones with defects, because they are the most interesting. Most people in history were fine.

One historic figure who had no known defects: Alan Turing

Its telling that your example is someone explicitly kept out of the public eye during his life. Basically any account of Turing is from personal friends or his professional work. He was a generally good person and great scientist that helped defeat the nazis, but he's only celebrated by progressives for his persecution as a gay man.
I struggle to find any major social cause he publicly championed or records of his views on controversial topics. I'd like to be wrong, but it's easy to not have a mixed record as a private citizen. Nobody was grilling him to free slaves or asking his opinion on systemic injustice.
Einstein is a contemporary comparable. He was a great scientist, opposed the nazis, and by most accounts a decent guy. He was even had to flee his homeland to escape persecution as a jew. Clearly lots of parallels. The main difference being he was an idol in his own day so we have way more first hand accounts.
Turns out he was a socialist with varying views on communism, had shifting support for zionism and wrote rascist shit in his travel diaries. You could probably find a quote like Roosevelt's and slap it on a picture of him, that doesn't sum up his life.
- I'm not certain many people even know he was gay. I've never heard of this. Interesting info tho- thanks.
- I can tell you that Turing is not only celebrated because he was gay. That man is one of the fathers of computer science as we know it today. His Turin machines are the basis for a lot of theoretical computer science
  
  Again, that is an incredible technical achievement but it's not inherently good or bad. A ton of problems today come from the proliferation of tech, maybe we'd be better off if he studied something else. Coming from someone who studied and can professionally appreciate his work: it's not exactly discovering lifesaving vaccines.
  He's a relatable role model, especially for people who can are unfairly persecuted today. But that's not the same as being a notable figure playing a role on the historical stage.
  Edit: I'm not mad about down votes, but disappointed nobody has provided any argument all.
  Is there any evidence that he tried to use his discovery to advance the wellbeing of the human race? Does his estate do any public outreach against the atrocities of the information age? I genuinely cannot find that. Even Alfred Nobel is still doing penance for inventing a new way to blow up rocks, and he's been dead for nearly 130 years.
  Taken alone, creating the theoretical model for modern computer science is as laudable as inventing the internal combustion engine. Both are the innocuous roots that directly sprout to massive problems in our modern world. Not sure why that in particular needs celebration?

These are a little more than character defects... theres lots of historical figures who didn't rape and murder.

Yeah every political leader have little oopsies like being called "town destroyer" by the people which land they invaded and towns they destroyed. They also were proud of it, used it to invade even more land, and their grandpas were also called that because it's their family and nation thing to do for generations.

Who here hasn't made dentures from unwillingly donated teeth?

I dunno Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter, seem to have been personally good people. That's two recent US presidents. Then I guess I would add some super low hanging fruit like Nelson Mandela, Frederick the Great, John II Komnenos, any of the Five Good Emperors, Cyrus the Great, Ashoka, and one could keep going.

EDIT: To all those pestering me about how US presidents presided over criminal imperialist policies, here is my answer from down below:

OP talked about “glaring character defects”.
These are policy failures and state crimes, arguably attributed to the American state as a whole, and the long term US imperialist policies, rather to the singular person of the president.
You might have noticed that I added Frederick the Great in the list, which tells you exactly what my understanding of the challenge was.

I'm not here to defend US imperialism, don't @ me.

Obama was incredibly evil.
- Without the US, the world would be much more peaceful today, most of the current wars and terrorisms are caused by US interventions, directly and indirectly.
  
  That’s a claim I would LOVE for you to attempt to back up.
  Just off the top of my head I would suspect UK, French, and Soviet imperialism to have been as big if not a bigger factor than the USA.
  
  Just count military bases burgerbrain
- That is an incredible list. Did a find for a few things I personally knew about and have always been disappointed in Obama for... and sure enough found them. First one I searched, was extending the Bush tax cuts on the rich. I remember Bill O'Reilly saying "Oh, if I have to pay taxes, I'm going to have to fire people, and that's on Obama, so tax cuts means less jobs!" (so glad Bill got canned) and Obama just fucking caved like a spineless coward.
Obama?? Obama??? The Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya Obama? You must be joking, right?
- OP talked about "glaring character defects".
  These are policy failures and state crimes, arguably attributed to the American state as a whole, and the long term US imperialist policies, rather to the singular person of the president.
  You might have noticed that I added Frederick the Great in the list, which tells you exactly what my understanding of the challenge was.
Carter supported Pol Pot and Obama was a monster to people in the Middle East, neither can be considered to be "good people."
Obama lied to the left to gain power, that's enough to disqualify him right there.
Also Washington was the greatest president in our history because he willingly let go of his power. He could have been a king but he chose to step down instead to set future precedent.
- Yes! Buying dentures made from slave teeth is overshadowed by the fact this man did what very few would have done by setting power aside.
  Would we get labeled by history as evil because we might have bought a product from China made in a work camp?
  
  Washington was the richest man in the US at the time, and had the most to gain from indigenous eviction. The Iroquios named him "the town destroyer", for burning down dozens of their cities. He also owned slaves and supported the institution just like most presidents after him (I think 10 presidents in a row were southern slave-holders like himself).
  And also, its the US, not China, that has slave labor camps. Just because an anti-semitic evangelical christian (adrian zenz) who works for the US government claims that China has forced labor, doesn't make it so. These claims have been debunked over and over.
  
  No, China has forced labor camps.
  The US has prison work camps, but most prisoners don't have to work if they dont want to, it isn't forced.
  
  Anything to back that up other than white-supremacist vibes?
  Because the majority of Muslim countries disagree with you. The only ones who believe that China has forced labor, are the US and UK, countries that have been bombing Muslim countries for decades.
  
  And also, its the US, not China, that has slave labor camps. Just because an anti-semitic evangelical christian (adrian zenz) who works for the US government claims that China has forced labor, doesn’t make it so. These claims have been debunked over and over.
  China has forced labour, according the the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences: https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/51/26
  
  I looked that doc, and they source debunked Zenz reports, and WUC. So nothing new.
  
  If the UN fucking rapporteur deems it reliable enough, and if the UN HRC hasn't found reason to retract this report, then I have zero reason to believe some internet rando that it has been debunked. For all I know, your one liner responses are no different from pro-Zionist hasbara casting doubt on UN reports on Palestine.
  
  Someone should tell that UN reporter to stop using anti-semitic US state department sources then.
  Some sources debunking this are
  https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20220810-diplomats-from-30-muslim-countries-visited-chinas-xinjiang-region/
  https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/18/us-media-reports-chinese-genocide-relied-on-fraudulent-far-right-researcher/
  here.
  For all I know, your one liner responses are no different from pro-Zionist hasbara casting doubt on UN reports on Palestine.
  Also notably, it's the WUC (a far right org that again your reporter cited) that supports Israel.
  
  Are you joking? You must be joking, right?
  Diplomats from 30 Muslim countries visited China’s Xinjiang region
  A delegation of envoys and senior diplomats is not a fact finding mission. It is wining and dining and saying nice things. Give me a break.
  US State Department accusation of China ‘genocide’ relied on data abuse and baseless claims by far-right ideologue
  I'm supposed to discount the UN Special Rapporteur because I'm supposed to believe the ramblings of the website of a RT contributor? Do you have any Breitbart sources too?
  The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified
  Opinion pieces are what we call "debunking" now?
  Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act Builds on Work of NED Grantees
  The US funding something via a quasi-independent organization (that Trump is defunding) is proof of the US funding something. It is not proof that the allegations are wrong, that's just a version of the ad-hominem fallacy. During the Cold War, in Greece any remotely credible link to the USSR was used to crack down on trade unions, political organizations etc. Same thing happened during the Grande Noirceur in Quebec with the "padlock law". Sumud in Canada has recently been banned as a terrorist front for having "links" with Palestinian resistance. The pattern here is common: instead of addressing what is being said, there is an attack on "the links" of the one saying the thing. It's a cowardly, lazy and fallacious arguing tactic that I reject on its face.
  [Xinjiang Vocational Education and Training Centers] prolewiki Xinjiang_Vocational_Education_and_Training_Centers
  "Prolewiki"? Give me a break. What's next, the conservapedia or the uncyclopedia?
  Some Youtube video
  Awesome bro.
  [US-Funded Uyghur Activists Train as Soldiers of Empire] Consortium News
  Some people of ethnic group X did something (according to random internet sources). Ergo... nothing bad can possibly be happening to ethnic group X?
  A Reddit AMA Claiming To Be A Uyghur Quickly Exposes A CIA Asset Slandering China
  Reddit drama disproves Uighur genocide. We're being super serious here.
  Also notably, it’s the WUC (a far right org that again your reporter cited) that supports Israel.
  "My reporter" makes it sound like some journalist. We are talking about the UN Special Rapporteur of the UN HRC. What the WUC is is besides the point. It might be Elon Musk's cat for all I care. What they say is what is important. And I am willing to assume that the UN Special Rapporteur did his fucking job and did more than just say "hey some randos are saying XYZ". Same level of trust as I accord to Francesca Albanese.
  Some links removed because the instance wouldn't let me post them. Must be a CIA plot or some shit.
  
  Also kind of boggling that you're calling mintpressnews and other anti-imperialist sources, as breitbart. Do you skip the parts about Zenz, the source of these claims, being a far-right evangelical anti-semite?
  
  Okay, good job ignoring all those while not engaging with any of the arguments. I'll try pictures, since that might be at your level.
  Why do all the Muslim countries support China's Xinjiang policy, and don't believe there's a genocide going on, while only the imperialist euro-american countries think there is:
  
  Fr, like look into the companies that get you your fruits and vegetables. You can't escape unethical consumption.
  
  There were many other types of dentures not made from human teeth
I mean we absolutely could call out their flaws too, someone with that much power/responsibility is going to do abhorrent things (drone strikes with Obama being an easy one to bring up). Just like the four on Mount Rushmore these things aren't what we typically call out because they either were "of the times" or not on the same scale as their accomplishments.
- They called Obama the Deporter in Chief. Trump wishes he could get a nickname like that. Carter himself was a nice guy but his below average presidency led to Reagan.
- The drone strikes thing is a bad example. If he didn't touch it, individual combat units could use drones with impunity. He required drone strikes to be approved by his office.
  Tell me if you had the choice between sending in boots to kill a guy, or drone strike, would you really ever risk your guys getting shot?
  He added red tape, the minimum thing he could do. I'll agree with criticism that he did the bare minimum, but all these comments about this frame it like he was horny for drones. That's reductive and misleading.
  
  Your comment is exactly the point I was trying to make. The world is complex and imperfect, so anyone with the power/responsibility of a president is going to do controversial things.
  
  Oh I get it.
  Yeah running countries is a series of shitty compromises, unless you are small enough to gain consensus.