You seem a little biased to me.
You disregard the experience Obama had (State-level governance since 92, and Senator since 04) as being too little, but give Trump credit for having "Excecutive experience" (was born rich), which somehow makes him qualified.
Then you go on to say that Reagan at least "governed a state", which is exactly what Obama did.
No. He was a State Senator, not a governor. That's not executive experience. It's legislative. Also, during his four years of national legislative experience to vote "present" the vast majority of the time (votes in the Legislative Branch are public information, look it up). That's not very decisive. That's not "disregarding his experience," it's fact. Any CEO or State governor, or even a mayor, is required by the very nature of their position to be decisive (the root word of "executive" is "execute" or "carry out"), meaning the least influential mayor of the tiniest town in America has more executive experience after a day in office than a four year senator has accumulated by the end of their term.
Also, the executive experience I was giving Trump credit for was management of an international corporation with a list of employees larger than the executive branch, where decisions affect entire cities. Nothing compared to the presidency, but it's an executive role, where Obama's entire political career prior to the presidency was legislative, which is nothing more than debating inside a chamber where the effects of the decisions being made are far, far removed from the eyes of any of the ones making them. Legislation is nothing (and I mean nothing but nothing) more than discussing. It's talk. That is the sum total of a legislator's job: to conjure persuasive rhetoric that will make other legislators (or their constituents, who hold the keys to their continued employment) think one is morally or logically right. Actually being right is optional.
The traits necessary for success in a national, corporate, or even municipal executive post have more in common with each other than the traits necessary for success in a national executive post and a national legislative post (and that's discounting the fact that his legislative career was lackluster, being famous mostly for being outraged at George W. Bush for doing things he himself would later insist he had executive prerogative to do).
My loathing of Barack Obama comes from seeing my family's homeland (the Philippines) thrown under the bus repeatedly by Obama so that he could score popularity points with the EU by saying "see? I stood up to eeeeevil little Duterte. How dare he actually get tough on those poor misunderstood drug cartels? He's supposed to respect their basic Human Right to make life a living hell for a nation of 100 million." My loathing of Barack Obama comes from how his moronic decision in that regard nearly cost me the ability to ever see the aforementioned family again by, pushing the Philippines to the brink of aligning with China instead. My loathing of Barack Obama comes from watching four of my fellow officers die under the guns of rioters he himself encouraged on national TV. It doesn't stem from "bias" any more than the average Westerner's loathing of Hitler does. It stems from the undeniable and absolute fact that he was an abject failure in his role, and the suffering he brought about is beyond my ability to even put into a post.
Trump... well, he's restored the alliance with the Philippines to a significantly warmer level. On everything else, there's time left to see.
In short, the "anyone who fails to prostrate themselves before St. Barack or fails to emit streams of invective at the mention of Darth Donald must be biased" angle, which you just manifested by being shocked and upset that I didn't laud and praise that psychopath (who was so narcissistic that not only was his entire presidency about nothing more than making a monument to himself, but he even had the gall to say that outright and expect his followers to agree with it, with his little "I will take it as a personal insult if you don't vote for Clinton" speech) doesn't make a point for you. It merely reveals your own bias, manifested by a belief that anything giving your opposition any validity must be inherently flawed.