The Trump Presidency

[LunarOrbit]

Okay, I am much better, health-wise, except for a few infrequent times when I cough like a bad engine.  So, to elaborate somewhat on my point, which to be clear is:
Posters in this discussion topic sometimes use untrue, illogical and/or exaggerated claims, as well as other tactics often used by CTs, and should be mindful of such actions.

A couple of recent examples:

But I don't need to personally witness these discussions to know that the Republicans would not have made such a controversial move if they thought the President wouldn't support it. But sure... since that is all I had to go on, it only proves that everyone in the Republican party is corrupt except Trump.

Claiming to "know" something that differs from actual evidence is a prime illustration of my point.  This is even clearer when your "insight" into what really went on differs 180 degrees from this article by what can be considered a political ally of yours, one of the left-leaning news outlets -
https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/index.html

Which, again, he only did after there was a public outcry. So his actions after getting caught don't necessarily reflect his true beliefs.

The President has to sign any bill put forward by Congress before it can become law. So like I said, the Republicans wouldn't have made a move like that if they thought Donald Trump wouldn't support it. Is that speculation? Sure... but to say it is illogical is a stretch. Why would Congress put forward any laws that they didn't expect the President to support, especially when both the majority of Congress and the President are from the same party? It seems to me that it is your argument that is illogical.

[LunarOrbit]

I found some statements by Gillianren that are rather complimentary of Hillary Clinton.  If we assume that she voted for Clinton, then she is "willing to side with them", "them" being the other 65,841,141 Clinton voters.  But Gillianren is not responsible for the beliefs and actions of those 65,841,141 people; she is responsible for her own.  Similarly, a Trump voter is not responsible for what the 62,976,216 other Trump voters believe or do; s/he is responsible for his/her own beliefs and actions.

I don't want to speak for Gillianren, but I think you're misunderstanding her. She isn't saying "Joe the Trump Voter" is responsible for the behaviour of other Trump voters. He might have voted for Trump for a variety of perfectly normal reasons, such as the economy or loyalty to the Republican party. But if a large group of racists endorse Donald Trump and he refuses to disavow them it makes it appear that he agrees with their racist beliefs, which if true, would make him a racist. At that point "Joe the Trump Voter" is now supporting a racist President, even if that's not why he supports him.

If you are willing to ignore that the President is racist when you vote for him... well, I guess it means you don't consider Trump being a racist to be a deal breaker.

There are other Republicans who can do the job without bringing racism to the table. You don't need to vote for Donald Trump just to give the Republican party the win.

If supporting Trump (or Clinton, or anyone else for that matter) is objectively a bad thing, then one should be able to show that without examining the moral qualities of other people who support Trump (or Clinton or whomever).

If Trump had explicitly disavowed the endorsement of the KKK, and had not called the Nazis marching the streets of Charlottesville "fine people", then I would agree that it would be unfair to associate him with those racists. And I would agree that it would be unfair to associate the non-racist Republicans with the racist ones. But as I explained above, if Trump supports racists and you support Trump, it means you're supporting a racist.

For what it's worth, I'm going to make myself really popular by quoting one of your earlier statements, that seems to have kicked off this whole flurry:

However, during the course of his presidency I have noted a constant concerted effort to find flaws in everything he does, manufacture them where they don't exist, shout it all out to the world, and, if not outright defiant in the face of facts, remain utterly silent when such claims come up empty or are proven false.

This "whole flurry" was kicked off by MBDK taking what I said out of context. I stated in my original post that I wanted this thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions of Trump and the Republican controlled Congress. I gave as an example a vote held by Republicans just hours earlier that aimed to dismantle an independent ethics office. I posted about it before the vote was eventually reversed, but regardless, I still think it says a lot about Republicans that that was their first action upon being sworn in. But MBDK wants you to believe I was unfairly pinning this on Donald Trump, that it was all unfair speculation that was not based on fact... like a conspiracy theorist.

The FACT that the Republicans voted to gut the OCE is undeniable. It is perfectly logical to believe the Republicans would have only done it if they though the President would support it since the President must sign bills before they can become law. It would be illogical to believe that they would try something like that if they had known Trump would reject it.

Since MBDK has failed to explain why I need to retract my original post, maybe you would like to take a crack at it.

However, during the course of his presidency I have noted a constant concerted effort to find flaws in everything he does, manufacture them where they don't exist, shout it all out to the world, and, if not outright defiant in the face of facts, remain utterly silent when such claims come up empty or are proven false.

I happen to agree with that, although I find it quite unremarkable; it is true of every US president (and major party presidential candidate) for as long as I can remember.  I've seen criticisms of Trump (and Obama, and Bush Jr, and W Clinton, etc.) that are just plain goofy.  I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing.  Etc.

I think you're trying very hard to equate what Republicans are doing now to what Democrats have done in the past. As an outsider looking in, I can only say that I see no equivalence between the two parties.

Republicans have been trying for decades to smear the reputation of the Clintons, Obamas, and other Democrats. There have been countless investigations into the Clintons, and the latest one just quietly wrapped up without finding anything. The best the Republicans ever came up with was Bill's adultery. Republicans have even sunk so low as to spread fake rumours about Hillary running a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza restaurant that doesn't have a basement. Republicans flock to people like Alex Jones who spread garbage like the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory. They perpetuate birtherism and other racist conspiracy theories about the Obamas. They even made a big deal out of President Obama wearing a tan suit for some reason.

Meanwhile, all the Democrats have done is investigate the mere possibility that Trump is (either wittingly or unwittingly) working to benefit the Russians. It is not unreasonable to want to protect your country from foreign influence, and whether you believe it or not, Trump has given plenty of reasons why he can't be trusted. It is clear that he is, at the very least, vulnerable to being coerced by foreign agents due to his financial debts and personal lifestyle. He has already had a lot of secrets come out (ie. Stormy Daniels, the Access Hollywood tape, etc.) so it's not difficult to believe he has more secrets that the Russians could use against him. He has also had business dealings in Russia that make him susceptible to their influence. These are perfectly reasonable things to be concerned about, and he even feeds those concerns by being more friendly to dictators than he is to the democratically elected leaders of your closest allies. He will gladly insult Justin Trudeau or Angela Merkel, but has nothing but praise for Vladimir Putin.

So I honestly don't get the whole "both the parties are equally as bad" argument.

[MBDK]

I'm not sure what the contradictory message is here, but the "logic" used is discussed here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

under "Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy".

Her contradictory message is the thinly veiled:
I'm not saying you're a _____, but you're a ______.

Although, by her latest post, she still doesn't seem to get it (the association fallacy).  Perhaps she hasn't had time to review your link?

Regardless, I thank you for showing understanding of what I was getting at, and want to re-emphasize that I have been and can be as guilty as anyone of doing the very things I mentioned.  I just think being aware of, and on guard for, such unintentional (I assume) logical lapses can make us all better thinkers, writers and doers.

[MBDK]

Which, again, he only did after there was a public outcry. So his actions after getting caught don't necessarily reflect his true beliefs.

Except when you want them to.  Still, conjecture by you.  Even liberal CNN had a different opinion, as stated in the link I previously provided. At least be honest enough to admit it.

[MBDK]

If Trump had explicitly disavowed the endorsement of the KKK, and had not called the Nazis marching the streets of Charlottesville "fine people"

Which he has, but since you are now so invested in your position, why would YOU bother to honestly check the facts?  Took me less than 5 seconds for video of KKK position.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?
The Nazi thing is also entirely out-of-context and untrue.  But, it is so ingrained in the media, I had to spend 10 whole seconds to find his actual words. 
From - (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html)
(quote)
Here are the unambiguous actual words of President Trump:

“Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group.  But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.  You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did.  You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

After another question at that press conference, Trump became even more explicit:

“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”
(unquote)

then I would agree that it would be unfair to associate him with those racists

Well?

it was all unfair speculation that was not based on fact... like a conspiracy theorist.

I only used the term "speculation".  Unless you are talking pure fantasy, ALL speculation involves some facts...JUST like a CT's argument.

Since MBDK has failed to explain why I need to retract my original post, maybe you would like to take a crack at it.

Did you forget, or not even read Reply#636?  My response to your question regarding retraction(s) from your OP?  In case you missed it, here is the relevant portion of my concession:
Somehow I missed your reply #10, where you admitted the independent ethics body had NOT been eviscerated and acknowledged that Trump had intervened.  So, upon my re-read of that post, I retract my questions (listed: do you still stand by that post?  And if not, have you retracted it anywhere?), as that was the crux of my original (mis)observation.

*straightens up, thumbing suspenders to exaggerate a puffed out chest*
However, I do stand by my other criticisms to the responses I have received

So I honestly don't get the whole "both the parties are equally as bad" argument.

That is your prerogative, but I think evidence (as previously listed) does indicate some significant prejudice on your part.

[rocketman]

I found some statements by Gillianren that are rather complimentary of Hillary Clinton.  If we assume that she voted for Clinton, then she is "willing to side with them", "them" being the other 65,841,141 Clinton voters.  But Gillianren is not responsible for the beliefs and actions of those 65,841,141 people; she is responsible for her own.  Similarly, a Trump voter is not responsible for what the 62,976,216 other Trump voters believe or do; s/he is responsible for his/her own beliefs and actions.

I don't want to speak for Gillianren, but I think you're misunderstanding her. She isn't saying "Joe the Trump Voter" is responsible for the behaviour of other Trump voters. He might have voted for Trump for a variety of perfectly normal reasons, such as the economy or loyalty to the Republican party. But if a large group of racists endorse Donald Trump and he refuses to disavow them it makes it appear that he agrees with their racist beliefs, which if true, would make him a racist. At that point "Joe the Trump Voter" is now supporting a racist President, even if that's not why he supports him.

These things are quite simple.

Either Trump is a racist, or he isn't.  How do we know whether he is a racist or not?  We can examine his public statements, his policies, his private actions, etc., for evidence of racism, however we choose to define it.

If one concludes that he is not racist, or that he is racist but it is OK to vote for him for other reasons, or that he is racist but being racist is perfectly OK for presidential candidates, or whatever other reason, then what difference does it make who the KKK or the Nazis do or do not support?  If David Duke runs for the presidency and the KKK and the Nazis support him instead, is it suddenly more palatable to vote for Trump, because look at me, there aren't as many racists standing next to me!  If there are non-racist Trump supporters, should the KKK and the Nazis take pride in the way they are standing with non-racists?

If Trump had explicitly disavowed the endorsement of the KKK, and had not called the Nazis marching the streets of Charlottesville "fine people", then I would agree that it would be unfair to associate him with those racists.

Trump calling Nazis marching in the streets "fine people" is not an example of Nazis supporting Trump; it is an example of Trump supporting Nazis.  Here is what Gillianren said:

No.  No, that's wrong.  If you support him, you are supporting someone also supported by the KKK and Nazis.  That's not saying you yourself are either, it's just saying that you are willing to side with them.  And if you are . . . .

If you change "also supported by . . . Nazis" to "who supports Nazis", the logical fallacy disappears.  If you want to argue that Trump is a racist, that seems a much more palatable solution to me than attempting to defend the logical fallacy.

Regarding the first one, I can speculate that the reason Trump doesn't condemn KKK supporters is because he supports them.  I could also speculate that he doesn't condemn them is because he wants to win an election, and has concluded condemning them harms his chances.  (Also note that the two explanations are not exclusive.)  Perhaps there are other explanations as well.

Oddly enough, it seems Trump has common cause with Muslims here, who are routinely accused of supporting terrorism whenever there is a terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslims, and they fail to condemn it with sufficient vigour.  (And sometimes even when they do condemn the attack.)

Personally, I feel there is so much direct, unambiguous evidence on this point, I'm astounded that anyone would feel they have to resort to a logical fallacy to try to make the case.

This "whole flurry" was kicked off by MBDK taking what I said out of context. I stated in my original post that I wanted this thread to chronicle the corruption and bad decisions of Trump and the Republican controlled Congress. I gave as an example a vote held by Republicans just hours earlier that aimed to dismantle an independent ethics office. I posted about it before the vote was eventually reversed, but regardless, I still think it says a lot about Republicans that that was their first action upon being sworn in. But MBDK wants you to believe I was unfairly pinning this on Donald Trump, that it was all unfair speculation that was not based on fact... like a conspiracy theorist.

Fair enough, if the statement was made in a specific context, then perhaps it is incorrect.

If it's a general statement, then I happen to agree with it.

I think you're trying very hard to equate what Republicans are doing now to what Democrats have done in the past.

Perhaps it would be better to focus on what I said, rather than what you suspect my motives might be.

Here's what I actually said.

I happen to agree with that, although I find it quite unremarkable; it is true of every US president (and major party presidential candidate) for as long as I can remember.  I've seen criticisms of Trump (and Obama, and Bush Jr, and W Clinton, etc.) that are just plain goofy.  I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing.  Etc.

I've read it again, and I stand by every part of that statement.  Do you have any objection to what I actually said?

So I honestly don't get the whole "both the parties are equally as bad" argument.

Have a read about another type of logical fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[LunarOrbit]

Which, again, he only did after there was a public outcry. So his actions after getting caught don't necessarily reflect his true beliefs.

Except when you want them to.  Still, conjecture by you.  Even liberal CNN had a different opinion, as stated in the link I previously provided. At least be honest enough to admit it.

I have said multiple times already that my belief that Trump supported the vote to gut the OCE was based on conjecture. But I also said in my original post (the one that triggered you) that the purpose of this topic is to chronicle corruption and bad decisions by the President AND the Republicans in Congress. Gutting an independent ethics body is the act of someone who wants to commit corrupt acts without oversight. So I really don't see the problem with what I said.

If you believe that people should always be trusted despite their past corrupt behaviour, then good for you. Most people would not forgive repeat offenders as easily as you do.

Not trusting politicians (especially the ones that have given us multiple reasons to not be trusted) is hardly a trait unique to conspiracy theorists. If I had said "Trump has a secret room full of Illuminati and Free Mason artifacts" I could understand your accusations that I was acting like a conspiracy theorist. But my distrust of Trump is grounded in reality, and based on verifiable and observed behaviour on his part. I'm not making anything up, I'm responding to his public actions (or inaction) and words (or silence when words should flow easily), and the fact that he has been taken to court on multiple occasions for his corrupt behaviour.

Do you know what IS a trait of a conspiracy theorist? Ignoring overwhelming evidence that conflicts with a preconceived belief. There is a mountain of evidence that Donald Trump is corrupt and can't be trusted, but you are ignoring it because of some kind of loyalty.

If Trump had explicitly disavowed the endorsement of the KKK, and had not called the Nazis marching the streets of Charlottesville "fine people"

Which he has, but since you are now so invested in your position, why would YOU bother to honestly check the facts?  Took me less than 5 seconds for video of KKK position.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?

Your link doesn't work. I'll assuming it's a video of Trump disavowing racists groups, or a racist group expressing disapproval of something Trump did.

I already linked to a CNN interview with Trump in which he refused to disavow David Duke's endorsement prior to the 2016 election. I'm sure he has learned since then that that is a bad look for him, so he probably won't make the same mistake twice. But I think anyone ought to know who the KKK is at this point, so his pretending to not be aware of them was pretty ridiculous. And how hard is it to just say "I don't support what they stand for, and I disavow their endorsement."?

The Nazi thing is also entirely out-of-context and untrue.  But, it is so ingrained in the media, I had to spend 10 whole seconds to find his actual words. 
From - (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html)

Here are the unambiguous actual words of President Trump:

“Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group.  But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.  You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did.  You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

After another question at that press conference, Trump became even more explicit:

“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

Oh, so he suddenly knows who Nazis and white supremacists are now? Why did he pretend to not know anything about them when Jake Tapper asked him to disavow their endorsement?
 
I would be more willing to believe Trump misspoke or was misunderstood if it was the only example of him being racist. But since his immigration policies have been extremely harsh for anyone that isn't white, I'll lean towards believing he is. He could also make it easier to believe he isn't a racist if he fired Stephen Miller, who unquestionably IS a racist.

So I honestly don't get the whole "both the parties are equally as bad" argument.

That is your prerogative, but I think evidence (as previously listed) does indicate some significant prejudice on your part.

All of my reasons for distrusting Trump come from his known behaviour, and the fact that he has been taken to court multiple times for it. What I don't get is how anyone can see how he has behaved in the past and still trust him enough to manage a paper route, nevermind the country.

[LunarOrbit]

I think you're trying very hard to equate what Republicans are doing now to what Democrats have done in the past.

Perhaps it would be better to focus on what I said, rather than what you suspect my motives might be.

Here's what I actually said.

I happen to agree with that, although I find it quite unremarkable; it is true of every US president (and major party presidential candidate) for as long as I can remember.  I've seen criticisms of Trump (and Obama, and Bush Jr, and W Clinton, etc.) that are just plain goofy.  I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing.  Etc.

I've read it again, and I stand by every part of that statement.  Do you have any objection to what I actually said?

I'm objecting to the idea that anything the Democrats have ever done (at least in my lifetime) has even come close to the levels of blatant corruption exhibited by Republicans, especially the current Trump Republicans. This is specifically what I'm replying to:

I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing.

When did the Democrats block a Supreme Court nomination the way McConnell blocked Merrick Garland? When did a Democrat President make almost weekly visits to a golf club that they owned in order to enrich themselves at the taxpayers expense? When did a Democrat President ever permanently tarnish the reputations of the Department of Justice, FBI, and national intelligence agencies in order to cast doubt on their investigations into them? When did a Democrat President ever call into question the House's constitutional oversight duties or power to impeach? When has a Democrat President ever acted more friendly to a hostile dictator than they did to an ally?

[gillianren]

Yeah, the thing about "oh, they weren't calling themselves Nazis" is that they were explicitly calling themselves Nazis, before Trump said they didn't.  It was explicitly a Nazi protest.  Everyone knew that except, I guess, Trump.  And the people who want me to put his statement in context who are themselves missing the broader context of the known facts of the time.

Also, you want documentation of Trump's racism?  Have an entire Wikipedia page with information going back to the '70s.  I didn't start calling Trump racist because he was President or Republican or anything like that.  I started calling him racist because, pretty much as soon as I knew anything about him, it became clear he was racist.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

[gillianren]

And I would like to hope that we can all agree, regardless of our political stance, that his pardon of war criminals is unacceptable.  It's not "supporting our troops" to pardon people whose fellow troops turned them in for things like beheading teenagers and posing for pictures with the head.

[jfb]

I think you're trying very hard to equate what Republicans are doing now to what Democrats have done in the past.

Perhaps it would be better to focus on what I said, rather than what you suspect my motives might be.

Here's what I actually said.

I happen to agree with that, although I find it quite unremarkable; it is true of every US president (and major party presidential candidate) for as long as I can remember.  I've seen criticisms of Trump (and Obama, and Bush Jr, and W Clinton, etc.) that are just plain goofy.  I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing.  Etc.

I've read it again, and I stand by every part of that statement.  Do you have any objection to what I actually said?

I'm objecting to the idea that anything the Democrats have ever done (at least in my lifetime) has even come close to the levels of blatant corruption exhibited by Republicans, especially the current Trump Republicans. This is specifically what I'm replying to:

I've seen supporters (and opponents) of each of these presidents act in a highly hypocritical fashion, shrieking with outrage when X does something, but becoming strangely quiet when Y does the same thing.

When did the Democrats block a Supreme Court nomination the way McConnell blocked Merrick Garland? When did a Democrat President make almost weekly visits to a golf club that they owned in order to enrich themselves at the taxpayers expense? When did a Democrat President ever permanently tarnish the reputations of the Department of Justice, FBI, and national intelligence agencies in order to cast doubt on their investigations into them? When did a Democrat President ever call into question the House's constitutional oversight duties or power to impeach? When has a Democrat President ever acted more friendly to a hostile dictator than they did to an ally?

Democratic.  Democratic Party.  Democratic President. 

Sorry, pet peeve.  That's all.  Back to your regularly scheduled freakout. 

[LunarOrbit]

Yeah, the thing about "oh, they weren't calling themselves Nazis" is that they were explicitly calling themselves Nazis, before Trump said they didn't.  It was explicitly a Nazi protest.  Everyone knew that except, I guess, Trump.  And the people who want me to put his statement in context who are themselves missing the broader context of the known facts of the time.

I'm willing to give Trump a little bit of wiggle room in this case because the protests might have started peacefully, with a small number of people merely objecting to the removal of the statues, and I wouldn't necessarily put them in the same group as Nazis or the KKK. They might have believed the statues had historic value and shouldn't have been removed despite the negative racial connection. And Trump might have been trying to be diplomatic by trying not to put all of the blame on one side. But still, it's clear that on the day of the riots the people who wanted to keep the statues and weren't outright Nazis would have been very small, and the only reason the counter protesters showed up was because Nazis were marching in the streets.

But it's irrelevant, because like you said, it's hardly the only example of Trump being racist.

[LunarOrbit]

Democratic.  Democratic Party.  Democratic President.

Thanks. I thought the Democrat/Democratic were interchangeable, but according to Wikipedia "Democrat" is really just an epithet used by Republicans. Good to know.

Back to your regularly scheduled freakout.

I'm amazed that there are so many people who aren't freaking out (even a little bit) over how quickly Trump exposed the ineffectiveness of the "checks and balances" in the US Constitution. But they are free to bury their heads in the sand if they wish.

[jfb]

Democratic.  Democratic Party.  Democratic President.

Thanks. I thought the Democrat/Democratic were interchangeable, but according to Wikipedia "Democrat" is really just an epithet used by Republicans. Good to know.

Back to your regularly scheduled freakout.

I'm amazed that there are so many people who aren't freaking out (even a little bit) over how quickly Trump exposed the ineffectiveness of the "checks and balances" in the US Constitution. But they are free to bury their heads in the sand if they wish.

Trump didn't do that.  McConnell and Ryan did that.  Trump's only caused as much damage as he has because he had willing partners in Congress and on the courts.  McConnell will not let Trump be removed from office. 

I used to think it was because the Russians had dirt on McConnell and other senior Republicans, but I don't believe that anymore - I think it's simply the notion of absolute power corrupting absolutely.  Trump's a nitwit, but as long as he's President, McConnell can basically get anything he wants. 

As I keep saying, Trump isn't the disease, he's merely a symptom of it.  The dismantling of the US as a functioning democracy began decades ago. Blame television, blame cable news, blame social media, blame Newt Gingrich, truth is the GOP drove the car off the cliff in the '80s, we just haven't hit the bottom of the ravine yet. 

[LunarOrbit]

I'm amazed that there are so many people who aren't freaking out (even a little bit) over how quickly Trump exposed the ineffectiveness of the "checks and balances" in the US Constitution. But they are free to bury their heads in the sand if they wish.

Trump didn't do that.  McConnell and Ryan did that.  Trump's only caused as much damage as he has because he had willing partners in Congress and on the courts.  McConnell will not let Trump be removed from office. 

I used to think it was because the Russians had dirt on McConnell and other senior Republicans, but I don't believe that anymore - I think it's simply the notion of absolute power corrupting absolutely.  Trump's a nitwit, but as long as he's President, McConnell can basically get anything he wants. 

As I keep saying, Trump isn't the disease, he's merely a symptom of it.  The dismantling of the US as a functioning democracy began decades ago. Blame television, blame cable news, blame social media, blame Newt Gingrich, truth is the GOP drove the car off the cliff in the '80s, we just haven't hit the bottom of the ravine yet. 

Oh, believe me, I agree that McConnell and all of the other Republicans who are protecting Trump (especially Lindsey Graham, Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, Matt Gaetz, Bill Barr, and Doug Collins) are a big part of the problem. They might even be a bigger problem than Trump. But Trump isn't innocent. He's the one who Tweets 100 times a day about how you can't trust the DoJ, FBI, intelligence agencies, Congress, the free press, whistle blowers, career diplomats, decorated war veterans, or pretty much anyone else that tries to expose his corruption. He pushes the ridiculous "deep state" conspiracy theory. Those are the kinds of attacks on the "checks and balances" that I'm talking about.

And when I said Trump exposed the "ineffectiveness of the checks and balances" it means a lot of different things. The authors of the Constitution didn't seem to anticipate that the majority of Congressmen would circle around a corrupt President to protect him. That would require the entire majority party to be corrupt.