President, but not presidential

In my first post here I said I believed that the outcome of the 2016 presidential election was wrong.

I don't mean the election itself was hacked, rigged or otherwise corrupted. Regardless of how one feels about the Electoral College, the system worked as it was meant to, and the office went to the candidate with the greatest number of electoral votes.

Not, however, to the winner of the popular vote. That was Hillary Clinton, 65,844,610 to
62,979,636, according to the Cook Political Report, a plurality of 2,864,974.

Of course that doesn't alter the results. Donald Trump is president, and yes, he is the president of all Americans, although lacking a popular mandate. That does not, however, mean that everyone owes him allegiance or respect, and certainly not obedience unless martial law is declared.

His supporters cheer Trump as a political outsider, which is a gross understatement. He is in fact, the least experienced, least qualified and least prepared person ever to be president. Only two other presidents had no political experience: Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight Eisenhower, and both had been high-ranking military officers with extensive leadership experience.

Trump's experience has been exclusively in business, where he could make deals and accomplish goals by bullying, outshouting or buying rivals. He is unaccustomed to seeking advice or counsel; the notion of compromise seems beyond his understanding; and he is intolerant and xenophobic.

In the announcement of his candidacy he insulted all Mexicans; he has vilified adherents of Islam, the world's second-largest religion; the Parliament of our close ally Great Britain has come near to disallowing Trump the honor of meeting the queen, and the Speaker of the House of Commons has said he will not be invited to address Parliament.

And yet this is our president. Your thoughts?

--Richard Brown