This entire argument makes very little sense and I think you fall into the same traps you accuse others of.
The presidency is an institution that has evolved over 250 years. Trump doesn't get to just singlehandedly redefine all of the conventions of the presidency just because he a) doesn't understand them or b) they don't suit him. Yet that is what he has done.
When you dismiss his negative characteristics, you are dismissing the job; maturity, selflessness, leadership for the many, politeness and "presidential behaviour" are the job; they are not "nice to haves". They are the job and Trump does not get to unilaterally redefine that. If you think he does, why does he and he alone?
Democracy depends upon forbearance. In order for an elected leader to have the latitude to act in all situations, they have to have powers that, used for nefarious reasons, would potentially undermine that democracy; and they equally need to be willing to forebare using those. A leader has to be willing to refuse to use powers that would benefit them personally. Trump has not been willing to do that. He has not been constrained by any personal commitment to democracy, but only by the absolute limits of his power and the limits of what others are willing to do to enable him.
For instance, he has broken several rules of the presidency several times, and these are now dismissed as if they don't matter. He is in flagrant violation of the Emoluments laws; a president cannot personally profit from the presidency; he has abundantly. It is outrageous the bills he has charged the federal government for holding official functions at his private hotels and estates, let alone the trips to Mar-A-Lago, where the US taxpayer are charged for secret service staying in his own club.
He and his family have absolutely shattered the Hatch Act so many times it is barely regarded as a law any more. Yet it is a law, he has broken it many times. You talk about him as if he has been singled out for hard treatment, but It is only political unwillingness to actually enforce federal law on Trump that has prevented him being removed from office for those violations. No other president could have expected to just defy the law like that.
Did democrats hate him? To be fair, most republicans didn't like him either. But that is beside the point. Republicans loathed Obama on a level Trump has never experienced. McConnell on day one stated his intention to make Obama a one term president. Obama met obstructionalism on a level Trump cannot even imagine, it's nadir being the Garland affair. Republicans have no leg to stand on with this.
You say the people voted for him, but that is not true. Yes, he won the 2016 election. But "the people" did not actually vote for him as a majority in either election. His approval has always been low. He was the legitimate president, but you cannot claim any exceptional legitimacy on the basis of his approval by the majority of the people as he did not have it.
You talk about the media. Hunter Biden is a nothing story. But it has constantly been out there. Yet Ivanka's Chinese contracts, Jarad's real estate deals and the extent to which the Trump family have illegally profited from power is never discussed even though it is known to be going on. If you think Hunter Biden is a story, why have you not clamoured for a look into the Trump family, who before our eyes have gained contracts abroad they would never have had otherwise?
The reality is, Trump is a dictator. He has admired only dictators and he has abhorred democratic leaders. The more authoritarian a leader, the more he gets on with them.
And the fact remains that Trump has broken extremely serious laws three times. The Muller enquiry probably reached the right result; his campaign absolutely did try to collude with Russia to steer the 2016 election, but they were too dumb to actually do anything all that illegal. Did Trump make illegal payments to people like Stormy Daniels? Of course he did, he has more or less admitted it. Did Trump commit obstruction of justice? Mr Mueller seemed to think so.
Everybody knows as well that he broke the law on that phone call to Ukraine. Why on earth would you excuse that? He clearly exerts political pressure on a foreign government for his own electoral gain. How on earth is Hunter Biden a foreign policy issue for the presidency to pick up? What he did was extraordinary, illegal and impeachable.
Yet, he has lived his life by so flagrantly ignoring rules that even people such as yourself just assume they don't apply to him. This is a country that impeached a president over a blow job. How is that phone call not impeachable?
And then last Wednesday. He incited, deliberately, an armed coup against Congress. Did he know exactly how it would play out? No. That is why he refused to act against it; he wanted to see how it would play out and whether it had any chance of cancelling certification or actually eliminating Congress in some way. He acted only when that possibility faded. That is treason.