My. That's a big leap. I say, "I need more info before I start to grill the guy on what he's doing," and you translate that to "You don't understand democracy"?
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here. If I was saying, "No one shall ask questions of the president!" THEN you could tell me that I don't understand democracy. Did I say that? I think not. If I said that only the president shall have any say in making decisions for the nation, THEN you could tell me that I don't understand democracy. Did I say that? I think not. I said that I believe that we, the people, who democratically elected (hired) a man to do a certain job should give that man a chance to show us why he's making certain decisions and demonstrate how he's going to do the job before we question him...and question our own choice of him for the job.
Now the only way I see that as going against democracy is if you believe that we should have a government where every decision about everything we do is voted on by everyone. In which case, electing a president to make decisions for us is moot.
So why don't you explain to me how it is that I don't understand democracy. Do feel free to quote me and explain how any suggestion, any at all, that we let the president elect have some time to do his job is undemocratic. This is a new definition from what I learned in college as the meaning of democracy (which I, foolishly, imagined had to do with everyone having certain liberties and being allowed to vote and such) and I'm eager to learn all about it.
Democracy: Where one person may not advise others to give a president elect time to do his job. Has that been put into Wiki yet?
Oh, and do you really think it's a wise move to insult someone who "sounds" reasonable and might be persuaded to your side if you didn't insult them and instead, maybe, explained your position?

Just something to think about for the future.