The Bush vs Trump discussion is interesting.
At face value I'd argue you'd absolutely take Bush now; he was something resembling a politician, even if he was a very, very shit one at that, he at least attempted to be diplomatic, and some of his speeches in response to 9/11 were actually quite good and helped to unite Americans, something that contrasts with Trump's nasty penchant for attacking anyone who has the gall to question him.
But at the same time, how statesmanlike or diplomatic a President is often has little bearing on how they impact the lives of the people they govern. Trump's election itself provides interesting examples. Someone like Rubio or Bush, for example, would've been a lot more diplomatic and lot more Presidential than Trump, but it'd have meant jack-shit for the average person once they started enacting policies that were identical to Trump's. Naturally the current President's more extreme than the pair of them, but still - a lot of a Rubio/Bush Presidency would've entailed conservative, Republican legislator that wouldn't differ as much from Trump as he'd like you to believe. And if you're someone affected by that, semantics over how Presidential someone is can start to seem a bit irrelevant, I suspect.
Although it should be noted that any responses to Bush's foreign policy come after he served two full terms of Presidency. Trump himself is as hawkish as any other President we've witnessed and would likely reveal in the opportunity to go to war, narcissistic, nasty fecker that he is.