Author Topic: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)  (Read 21941 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #595 on: June 04, 2018, 11:40:12 PM »
Could have said the same about the Austrian who was giving speeches in beer halls in the 70's. #yesijustwentfullarnold

And yet now he's one of America's treasures.



Also, if wanting to be a fascist dictator made you a fascist dictator, then every leader in the world and every CEO on the planet, and probably Stadler, is a fascist dictator.


Good Cage man, you're making me defend Trump! Do you know how dirty this feels? WHAT DID I EVER DO TO YOU?!?!


Wait, what? 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #596 on: June 04, 2018, 11:41:57 PM »
And at the risk of repeating myself, the comment trail on a tweet?   You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26471
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #597 on: June 05, 2018, 12:20:21 AM »
Could have said the same about the Austrian who was giving speeches in beer halls in the 70's. #yesijustwentfullarnold

And yet now he's one of America's treasures.



Also, if wanting to be a fascist dictator made you a fascist dictator, then every leader in the world and every CEO on the planet, and probably Stadler, is a fascist dictator.


Good Cage man, you're making me defend Trump! Do you know how dirty this feels? WHAT DID I EVER DO TO YOU?!?!


Wait, what?


You'll have to be more specific than that.

Was it my changing the Hitler reference to an Arnold one? Was it my use of Cage? Was it my implication that you'd be a fascist dictator?

fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #598 on: June 05, 2018, 08:15:01 AM »
Haha.  Yes.   

:)  ;)

Online RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1499
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #599 on: June 05, 2018, 08:46:59 AM »
The president announces in an official statement (as they declared his Twitter to be) that he has the authority to pardon himself of any crime.

The same president also recently stated he has "absolute authority" to direct the justice department however he chooses.

His legal spokesman was just recently making the point that the president could have shot and killed one of his top law enforcement officials if he wasn't happy with him and couldn't be indicted.

These things are not at the same level on the "facist-meter" as "Guy fantazises about banging celebrity". The problem comparing this to "But isn't this just the same as any example of someone thinking they can do something" is those people aren't in position where they are the head of an extremely powerful executive branch that is putting out a steady stream of intent to want to hold even more absolute power. The position of the person making these statements matters. And another note is it is statements, not just thoughts, or else we wouldn't be talking about it. A random guy Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!" gets an eye-roll. If the producer of her next film Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!", then that discussion is probably getting shipped to the Harvey Weinstein thread. The position and the level of power available to someone matters greatly when they state their belief or intention to overreach or abuse it. It shouldn't need to be explained that random man on the street says he intends to take away all guns it's probably not worth worrying about, president of the country announces he intends to use everything at his disposal to take away all guns it's maybe a cause for concern.

Let's put it this way - murder in Washington D.C is a federal crime. Donald Trump could murder every member of Congress that might vote to impeach him (or at least enough to send a message to any who might try it). Then he could pardon himself for it.

An extreme hypothetical, maybe, but no more extreme than the hypothetical being used by Trump's own legal team (shooting James Comey in the head instead of firing him) to demonstrate their position that the president can't be indicted, it requires impeachment.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 09:06:37 AM by RuRoRul »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #600 on: June 05, 2018, 09:16:53 AM »
The president announces in an official statement (as they declared his Twitter to be) that he has the authority to pardon himself of any crime.

The same president also recently stated he has "absolute authority" to direct the justice department however he chooses.

His legal spokesman was just recently making the point that the president could have shot and killed one of his top law enforcement officials if he wasn't happy with him and couldn't be indicted.

These things are not at the same level on the "facist-meter" as "Guy fantazises about banging celebrity". The problem comparing this to "But isn't this just the same as any example of someone thinking they can do something" is those people aren't in position where they are the head of an extremely powerful executive branch that is putting out a steady stream of intent to want to hold even more absolute power. The position of the person making these statements matters. And another note is it is statements, not just thoughts, or else we wouldn't be talking about it. A random guy Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!" gets an eye-roll. If the producer of her next film Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!", then that discussion is probably getting shipped to the Harvey Weinstein thread. The position and the level of power available to someone matters greatly when they state their belief or intention to overreach or abuse it. It shouldn't need to be explained that random man on the street says he intends to take away all guns it's probably not worth worrying about, president of the country announces he intends to use everything at his disposal to take away all guns it's maybe a cause for concern.

Let's put it this way - murder in Washington D.C is a federal crime. Donald Trump could murder every member of Congress that might vote to impeach him (or at least enough to send a message to any who might try it). Then he could pardon himself for it.

An extreme hypothetical, maybe, but no more extreme than the hypothetical being used by Trump's own legal team (shooting James Comey in the head instead of firing him) to demonstrate their position that the president can't be indicted, it requires impeachment.

But you have to apply your own standards to your analysis.  You didn't mention once that the notion of "Presidential immunity" - for lack of a better term - is actually a legitimately debatable topic in Constitutional law.   So rather than jump to conclusions and call him FACIST!, why not err on the side of "Constitutional pundit"?

As for control of the DOJ, well, yeah, he does.   It's a wing of his branch of government.  Again, there is a legitimate and as-yet unsettled debate as to the whether there are limits to that, but your implication that Trump is saying "I am a god, I am Supreme Leader, I am the GRAND POO-BAH!  Bow to me!" is not accurate.   

I'm only vaguely aware of the "Comey" comment - meaning I didn't hear it live - but even that is being misrepresented.  He said "...and not face charges before being impeached".   That very clearly is saying that the penal process for the President involves CONGRESS, not a Department in his own branch of government.   That's not the same as "I can do anything I want".  In fact, I might argue that if you're really "ANTI-TRUMP", you WANT it that way.   You WANT an independent branch of government evaluating his conduct, not a group that reports to him.  THAT'S far more "fascist" than the reality.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 09:26:30 AM by Stadler »

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20419
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #601 on: June 05, 2018, 09:35:24 AM »
The president announces in an official statement (as they declared his Twitter to be) that he has the authority to pardon himself of any crime.

The same president also recently stated he has "absolute authority" to direct the justice department however he chooses.

His legal spokesman was just recently making the point that the president could have shot and killed one of his top law enforcement officials if he wasn't happy with him and couldn't be indicted.

These things are not at the same level on the "facist-meter" as "Guy fantazises about banging celebrity". The problem comparing this to "But isn't this just the same as any example of someone thinking they can do something" is those people aren't in position where they are the head of an extremely powerful executive branch that is putting out a steady stream of intent to want to hold even more absolute power. The position of the person making these statements matters. And another note is it is statements, not just thoughts, or else we wouldn't be talking about it. A random guy Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!" gets an eye-roll. If the producer of her next film Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!", then that discussion is probably getting shipped to the Harvey Weinstein thread. The position and the level of power available to someone matters greatly when they state their belief or intention to overreach or abuse it. It shouldn't need to be explained that random man on the street says he intends to take away all guns it's probably not worth worrying about, president of the country announces he intends to use everything at his disposal to take away all guns it's maybe a cause for concern.

Let's put it this way - murder in Washington D.C is a federal crime. Donald Trump could murder every member of Congress that might vote to impeach him (or at least enough to send a message to any who might try it). Then he could pardon himself for it.

An extreme hypothetical, maybe, but no more extreme than the hypothetical being used by Trump's own legal team (shooting James Comey in the head instead of firing him) to demonstrate their position that the president can't be indicted, it requires impeachment.

But you have to apply your own standards to your analysis.  You didn't mention once that the notion of "Presidential immunity" - for lack of a better term - is actually a legitimately debatable topic in Constitutional law.   So rather than jump to conclusions and call him FACIST!, why not err on the side of "Constitutional pundit"?

As for control of the DOJ, well, yeah, he does.   It's a wing of his branch of government.  Again, there is a legitimate and as-yet unsettled debate as to the whether there are limits to that, but your implication that Trump is saying "I am a god, I am Supreme Leader, I am the GRAND POO-BAH!  Bow to me!" is not accurate.   


I'm only vaguely aware of the "Comey" comment - meaning I didn't hear it live - but even that is being misrepresented.  He said "...and not face charges before being impeached".   That very clearly is saying that the penal process for the President involves CONGRESS, not a Department in his own branch of government.   That's not the same as "I can do anything I want".  In fact, I might argue that if you're really "ANTI-TRUMP", you WANT it that way.   You WANT an independent branch of government evaluating his conduct, not a group that reports to him.  THAT'S far more "fascist" than the reality.
It is very definitely a point of debate that's never really been resolved. I think you're missing the point, though. The problem is that Trump thinks he is God, supreme leader, and grand poobah. Has he ever given you any real indication that he understands the difference between being president and being king? He sure hasn't given me that idea.

There's also the second problem that I don't think this congress can adequately check a rogue president. Giuliani said that if Trump pardoned himself Monday he'd be impeached Tuesday. I don't think for a second that would happen. If he cut Melania's head off and displayed in on a pike in the rose garden they'd let it slide.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #602 on: June 05, 2018, 09:59:50 AM »
Well, I'll be honest; I wrestle with this pretty regularly (to the extent I'm thinking about it).    One of the things that really soured me on Hillary - though not enough for me to not vote for her - and keeps me from even higher praise of Bill is their sense of "entitlement".  It's been scrubbed from the record by Winston Smith, apparently, but while First Lady, Hillary gave a speech/interview where she bluntly said that it was her and Bill's birthright and entitlement to lead.   She couched it as an obligation to lead, a requirement to lead and while she didn't mention "god", the implication is that they were "anointed".   It's an odious attitude, be it with Hillary or Donald or anyone else.  Where I get confused is, Trump's policies don't really reflect that mindset in the way that Clinton's did/do.   Yeah, there's a sort of isolationism that I really don't like (and that isn't manageable in our global economy) but within the borders, there's not a really significant amount of "us vs. them".*


* No, I don't think some of the social policies are "us vs. them".  There's a really strong argument - enforced by the results of the election - that the notion of "identity politics" have CREATED an "us vs. them" and Trump is merely correcting. 

Online RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1499
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #603 on: June 05, 2018, 10:31:49 AM »
The president announces in an official statement (as they declared his Twitter to be) that he has the authority to pardon himself of any crime.

The same president also recently stated he has "absolute authority" to direct the justice department however he chooses.

His legal spokesman was just recently making the point that the president could have shot and killed one of his top law enforcement officials if he wasn't happy with him and couldn't be indicted.

These things are not at the same level on the "facist-meter" as "Guy fantazises about banging celebrity". The problem comparing this to "But isn't this just the same as any example of someone thinking they can do something" is those people aren't in position where they are the head of an extremely powerful executive branch that is putting out a steady stream of intent to want to hold even more absolute power. The position of the person making these statements matters. And another note is it is statements, not just thoughts, or else we wouldn't be talking about it. A random guy Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!" gets an eye-roll. If the producer of her next film Tweets "I believe I can bang Margot Robbie!", then that discussion is probably getting shipped to the Harvey Weinstein thread. The position and the level of power available to someone matters greatly when they state their belief or intention to overreach or abuse it. It shouldn't need to be explained that random man on the street says he intends to take away all guns it's probably not worth worrying about, president of the country announces he intends to use everything at his disposal to take away all guns it's maybe a cause for concern.

Let's put it this way - murder in Washington D.C is a federal crime. Donald Trump could murder every member of Congress that might vote to impeach him (or at least enough to send a message to any who might try it). Then he could pardon himself for it.

An extreme hypothetical, maybe, but no more extreme than the hypothetical being used by Trump's own legal team (shooting James Comey in the head instead of firing him) to demonstrate their position that the president can't be indicted, it requires impeachment.

But you have to apply your own standards to your analysis.  You didn't mention once that the notion of "Presidential immunity" - for lack of a better term - is actually a legitimately debatable topic in Constitutional law.   So rather than jump to conclusions and call him FACIST!, why not err on the side of "Constitutional pundit"?

As for control of the DOJ, well, yeah, he does.   It's a wing of his branch of government.  Again, there is a legitimate and as-yet unsettled debate as to the whether there are limits to that, but your implication that Trump is saying "I am a god, I am Supreme Leader, I am the GRAND POO-BAH!  Bow to me!" is not accurate.   

I'm only vaguely aware of the "Comey" comment - meaning I didn't hear it live - but even that is being misrepresented.  He said "...and not face charges before being impeached".   That very clearly is saying that the penal process for the President involves CONGRESS, not a Department in his own branch of government.   That's not the same as "I can do anything I want".  In fact, I might argue that if you're really "ANTI-TRUMP", you WANT it that way.   You WANT an independent branch of government evaluating his conduct, not a group that reports to him.  THAT'S far more "fascist" than the reality.
I think that using the word fascist leads people to look around and think "Does this look exactly like Nazi Germany in the late 1930s? No. So it's bullshit." For that reason I don't think it is usually that helpful for people to make the jump to that term, even if they are arguably correct in terms of discussing the concepts of fascism in theory - it has a connotation with real life history that makes people have an emotional reaction to drive them one way or another (either "Yeah, this is the worst!" or "No, this just shows people are being ridiculous!") rather than considering the topic on its merit. I'd rather look at whether people see something as problematic or not and if so why, and if not, why not.

As for complete control of the Department of Justice, honestly I am not sure exactly where the line is but I didn't think it worked that way - or it least, it wasn't supposed to. The president can appoint certain positions and can remove people from certain positions but while they are there they are supposed to act somewhat independently. If it were true that the president had complete authority over the DOJ, then the Trump team's accusations of "politicising the DOJ" or "spying" that they throw at Obama (even if in that case they aren't true) wouldn't even matter, as it would mean it would be completely fine for Obama to order people to investigate or put surveillance on whoever he wanted just for his own personal reasons. The DOJ must have some degree of independence in its processes, even if it's part of the executive branch, if it's to be able to do its job - especially when it comes to investigations of corruption involving figures close to the president.

I didn't misrepresent the comment from Giuliani, the last sentence of my post says that it was to demonstrate their position that it requires the president to be impeached before being indicted (which, if we're being Constitutional Pundits, is also up for debate as well). But I think it is a good comment to include because it shows that it's not just in discussion on a forum that extreme hypotheticals are being used to make arguments or to draw the lines clearly - Giuliani's comment was actually pretty effective at demonstrating his position. It's also the case that when it comes to codifying the rules or the checks and balances that are supposed to keep things from breaking in extreme pressure, it's necessary to consider hypotheticals that subject them to extreme pressure.

It is very definitely a point of debate that's never really been resolved. I think you're missing the point, though. The problem is that Trump thinks he is God, supreme leader, and grand poobah. Has he ever given you any real indication that he understands the difference between being president and being king? He sure hasn't given me that idea.

There's also the second problem that I don't think this congress can adequately check a rogue president. Giuliani said that if Trump pardoned himself Monday he'd be impeached Tuesday. I don't think for a second that would happen. If he cut Melania's head off and displayed in on a pike in the rose garden they'd let it slide.
This post follows up some of the other points I'd want to say more effectively than I probably could here.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 01:00:35 PM by RuRoRul »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #604 on: June 05, 2018, 01:43:33 PM »
I think that using the word fascist leads people to look around and think "Does this look exactly like Nazi Germany in the late 1930s? No. So it's bullshit." For that reason I don't think it is usually that helpful for people to make the jump to that term, even if they are arguably correct in terms of discussing the concepts of fascism in theory - it has a connotation with real life history that makes people have an emotional reaction to drive them one way or another (either "Yeah, this is the worst!" or "No, this just shows people are being ridiculous!") rather than considering the topic on its merit. I'd rather look at whether people see something as problematic or not and if so why, and if not, why not.

I don't disagree, but I'm not even using "Germany circa 1938" as the standard.  For me, I tend to look at it in terms of a personal liberty issue.  I'm pretty hard core when it comes to that.   I don't at all believe it's government's job to protect us, either from ourselves or from others.   I don't need Hitler to remind me to be skeptical when government is trying to tell me what I can and can't do/think/say. 

Quote
As for complete control of the Department of Justice, honestly I am not sure exactly where the line is but I didn't think it worked that way - or it least, it wasn't supposed to. The president can appoint certain positions and can remove people from certain positions but while they are there they are supposed to act somewhat independently. If it were true that the president had complete authority over the DOJ, then the Trump team's accusations of "politicising the DOJ" or "spying" that they throw at Obama (even if in that case they aren't true) wouldn't even matter, as it would mean it would be completely fine for Obama to order people to investigate or put surveillance on whoever he wanted just for his own personal reasons. The DOJ must have some degree of independence in its processes, even if it's part of the executive branch, if it's to be able to do its job - especially when it comes to investigations of corruption involving figures close to the president.

Welcome to "Advanced Concepts in Constitutional Law, 104" with your professor, Achilles Stadler.   First, it should  be accepted at this point that just because Trump asserts a claim, it is in no way usable as evidence as to the veracity of that claim.  I believe if it was convenient to do so, Trump would accuse Obama of "politicizing" the annual Easter Egg Roll on the South Lawn.  The  DOJ reports to the President.   Whatever that means to "if it's to be able to do it's job" is subject to discussion.   There are other avenues to provide integrity to investigations; Independent Counsel (which report to the Attorney General or Congress as need be, though I believe the legislation has been changed so that it's only the AG), the Office of Independent Counsel (the AG), Office of Special Counsel (which  has oversight from Congress, providing a check and a balance) and independent counsel, small I, small C, which is what Mueller is, which is simply a dedicated investigator used by Attorney's General to investigate specific matters.    All of this is subject to debate, as none of it is set out in clear black and white, and in fact, may be established by conflicting laws (I think there are three piece of legislation that govern the Office of Special Counsel, for example). 

Quote
I didn't misrepresent the comment from Giuliani, the last sentence of my post says that it was to demonstrate their position that it requires the president to be impeached before being indicted (which, if we're being Constitutional Pundits, is also up for debate as well). But I think it is a good comment to include because it shows that it's not just in discussion on a forum that extreme hypotheticals are being used to make arguments or to draw the lines clearly - Giuliani's comment was actually pretty effective at demonstrating his position. It's also the case that when it comes to codifying the rules or the checks and balances that are supposed to keep things from breaking in extreme pressure, it's necessary to consider hypotheticals that subject them to extreme pressure.

Well, I go both ways on Giuliani.   He's done some remarkable things, and I know for me, personally (living as I do near NYC) I've seen him rise to greatness.   But there are other times when he's downright baffling, to the point that I think he's either SOOOOO much smarter than me that I can't follow, or he's lost his marbles.  I think at least in this specific role, you have to take Giuliani with a grain of (public relations) salt when using his words to parse out legal and strategic positions.    I would not at all be surprised if his role is simply to obfuscate. 

Quote
It is very definitely a point of debate that's never really been resolved. I think you're missing the point, though. The problem is that Trump thinks he is God, supreme leader, and grand poobah. Has he ever given you any real indication that he understands the difference between being president and being king? He sure hasn't given me that idea.

There's also the second problem that I don't think this congress can adequately check a rogue president. Giuliani said that if Trump pardoned himself Monday he'd be impeached Tuesday. I don't think for a second that would happen. If he cut Melania's head off and displayed in on a pike in the rose garden they'd let it slide.
This post follows up some of the other points I'd want to say more effectively than I probably could here.

And  I don't know whether you're right or wrong.  I do know that partisanship has become a quagmire for any real discussion or real illumination of truth.    Not just Trump - and I dont' think he's either the first or the worst when it comes to this, though he's top tier on the latter - but all of politics has become a game of "say it enough times and it will eventually, magically, come true".   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20419
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #605 on: June 05, 2018, 02:08:10 PM »
Re: Constitutional law 104, I think it says a great deal that all presidents have gone far out of their way to keep themselves removed from Justice. You do that to avoid the appearance of corruption. Trump not only doesn't know or care about crossing this line, but out of sheer hubris he obliterated it by smearing his own bullshit all over it. He wants everybody to know that he doesn't give a damn about the appearance of impropriety, which is a fine attitude if impropriety is your game.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12588
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #606 on: June 06, 2018, 10:14:58 AM »
Re: Constitutional law 104, I think it says a great deal that all presidents have gone far out of their way to keep themselves removed from Justice. You do that to avoid the appearance of corruption. Trump not only doesn't know or care about crossing this line, but out of sheer hubris he obliterated it by smearing his own bullshit all over it. He wants everybody to know that he doesn't give a damn about the appearance of impropriety, which is a fine attitude if impropriety is your game.

I won't argue that one bit.  There was always a degree of temperance, a measure of restraint, that is missing from Trump - and all politics frankly; I'm going to repeat that Trump is neither the first nor the worst here either - that I for one sorely miss. 

I'm honestly torn; I don't expect my leaders to be exactly what I want them to be - that's not democracy - but personally?  In my heart?   I wish for a greater level of "transcendence" from my Presidents; some measure that they recognize the weight and importance of the office in the grand scheme of things, not just as a means to get their pet objectives in play.    Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy...  I think maybe perhaps Reagan was the last to really show that.   Glimpses here and there from Bush and Obama, but too many missteps from both that undermine it to say they really meant it.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20419
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #607 on: June 06, 2018, 01:09:40 PM »
Re: Constitutional law 104, I think it says a great deal that all presidents have gone far out of their way to keep themselves removed from Justice. You do that to avoid the appearance of corruption. Trump not only doesn't know or care about crossing this line, but out of sheer hubris he obliterated it by smearing his own bullshit all over it. He wants everybody to know that he doesn't give a damn about the appearance of impropriety, which is a fine attitude if impropriety is your game.

I won't argue that one bit.  There was always a degree of temperance, a measure of restraint, that is missing from Trump - and all politics frankly; I'm going to repeat that Trump is neither the first nor the worst here either - that I for one sorely miss. 

I'm honestly torn; I don't expect my leaders to be exactly what I want them to be - that's not democracy - but personally?  In my heart?   I wish for a greater level of "transcendence" from my Presidents; some measure that they recognize the weight and importance of the office in the grand scheme of things, not just as a means to get their pet objectives in play.    Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy...  I think maybe perhaps Reagan was the last to really show that.   Glimpses here and there from Bush and Obama, but too many missteps from both that undermine it to say they really meant it.
I never got the impression Reagan had that quality. At least no more than Carter/GHWB bookending him. I think Obama, a constitutional scholar, did get that. You attribute his actions more to ego than I. I think Dumbass figured it out, but certainly didn't start that way. In his final years he really did try to be more than the lackey he was intended to be, and deserves some credit for that.

However, not only does Trump lack that quality, it's a repugnant attitude to him. That's not what the presidency is to him, and he's quite proud to flaunt that belief.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson