See the difference between Obama and Trump's reception in China

[yota691]

Wednesday, November 8, 2017 - 04:09 Abu Dhabi time

See the difference between Obama and Trump's reception in China

2017-11-08T09: 09: 42Z

The difference between the reception of Obama and Trump in China

•  

(Reuters) -Observers have compared China's "special" reception to US President Donald Trump on Wednesday and the "humiliating" reception of his predecessor, Barack Obama, in 2016.

A video showed the moment Trump and his wife Melania received a band with the red carpet on the floor, as well as children with Chinese and American flags.

The Chinese city of Hangzhou received Obama "insultingly" when participating in the G20 summit in 2016, when he left Air Force One.

Instead of using the official exit gate, Obama was forced to use the emergency ladder at the back of the plane - rather than the front - because the Chinese authorities did not provide special safety to get out of the plane in a normal and formal manner.

Not only did the issue of peace end, Barack Obama did not receive a formal reception and a red carpet, and the protocol required the leaders to meet.

Video footage at the time showed US and Chinese officials criticizing the airport for the conduct that accompanied Obama's reception.

"This is our country, this is the airport for us," a Chinese official shouted at a US official.

"We are not leaving our principles and values behind us when we do these trips," Obama said at the time.

He also tried to downplay the incident and give some fun to what had happened, saying that the large delegation accompanying him on his travels abroad could frighten any country.

 Obama's visit to China for the G20 summit came after a "state visit" in 2014, in which the former US president received an official reception.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ø

 

 

[yota691]

Saturday, September 3, 2016 - 23:57 Abu Dhabi time

Obama's "insulting" reception in China

2016-09-04T03: 57: 42Z

Obama uses the emergency ladder

 

Abu Dhabi - Sky News Arabiain a gesture violated diplomatic norms, Beijing received US President Barack Obama has described Palmean, so when landed "Air Force One" on board the US president in the Chinese city of Hangzhou to attend the top twenty.

Instead of using the official gate to get out of the plane, the US president was forced to use the emergency ladder at the rear of the plane - not because of its introduction - because the Chinese authorities did not provide special safety to get out of the plane in a normal and formal manner.

Not only did the issue of peace come to an end, but the president also did not receive a formal reception and a red carpet on the ground for the president's passage.

Beijing has received a number of leaders according to the official welcoming ceremony. The red carpet has been provided to a number of leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, South Korean Park Jaeon Hai, new Brazilian President Michel Tamer, and even Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and British Prime Minister Theresa May.

As Obama was making his way through the airport, verbal exchanges between Chinese and American diplomats erupted when a Chinese official shouted: "This is our country, this is an airport for us."

Jorge Guajardo, the former Mexican ambassador to Beijing, described the Chinese reception to Obama as a manager, according to The Guardian.

"These things do not happen by mistake, especially with the Chinese, they are not." Noting that this reception comes within the framework of the new Chinese arrogance, and part of the stirring up of Chinese nationalism.

National Security Adviser Susan Rice said she was surprised by how the president's arrival was handled. "They did what was not expected," she said.

After the four-hour bilateral talks between the US and China, official statements hinted at some differences between the two largest economies in the world.

There were no comments from Chinese officials on the reception conditions for the US president.

[yota691]

How one action come full circle... 

 

[yota691]

 

[Shabibilicious]

Communists dig like minded folk perhaps?  

 

GO RV, then BV

[rw.sutton]

Perhaps, they respect Leadership!

[Shabibilicious]

3 minutes ago, rw.sutton said:

Perhaps, they respect Leadership!

 

Of course they do, they're Communists....they don't get a choice.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[Linda]

Thank you Yota...it is appreciated...

[bohica]

Trump is seen as a man of respect.  Obama was seen as a joke.  

[Muleslayer]

On 11/11/2017 at 2:37 PM, bohica said:

Obama was seen as a joke

Was?

is there a tense for perpetuity?

[bohica]

Aorist in Greek gives the idea of past, present and future tense all three at the same time.....does that come close?

[Shabibilicious]

On 11/11/2017 at 3:37 PM, bohica said:

Trump is seen as a man of respect.  Obama was seen as a joke.  

 

3 of 10 Americans agree with this assessment. 

 

GO RV, then BV 

[DinarDavo]

95% of all statistics are made up on the spot....      

[Shabibilicious]

5 minutes ago, DinarDavo said:

95% of all statistics are made up on the spot....      

 

Much like opinions  

 

GO RV, then BV

[rw.sutton]

 

[bohica]

I just love it when people want to say how Trump is not popular when you look at a map of the US and it is basically ALL in favor of Trump.

[Shabibilicious]

14 hours ago, bohica said:

I just love it when people want to say how Trump is not popular when you look at a map of the US and it is basically ALL in favor of Trump.

 

If you use your zoom in button on those little blue areas.....those are known as cities. 

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

20 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

If you use your zoom in button on those little blue areas.....those are known as cities. 

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Thought provoking as always.....not really a Red/Blue state issue.........more like metro vs country......

 

Sure hope those metros appreciate the country folks.......they might get kind of hungry with out them....

 

Interesting link, I think you will enjoy it....

 

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/12/mapping-how-americas-metro-areas-voted/508313/

 

 

Taylor Blake/Martin Prosperity Institute

Mapping How America's Metro Areas Voted

1. RICHARD FLORIDA

 DEC 1, 2016

The geography of the 2016 election is spiky.

• SHARE
• TWEET
•  

In a recent piece for CityLab, I charted the broad patterns of the 2016 presidential election results across America’s metro areas. Hillarious Clinton won the largest metros, but Donald Trump carried more of them, as well as rural and micropolitan places. Overall, the 2016 election served to harden and solidify America’s enduring fault lines of class and geography, knowledge, and density.

I wanted to take a closer look at the metros that went for Trump versus Clinton. As I noted previously, election returns are not typically collated by metro area, but county-level results are available. My Martin Prosperity Institute (MPI) colleagues arrayed the county-level data to the country’s 350-plus metros using data from two sources. Our main source was Dave Leip’s county-level election results. Where data was missing, we used data from Simon Rogers, data editor at Google News Lab. (Again, I note that while there are still some vote tallies yet to be certified, the overall shares of the vote at the metro level are unlikely to change much at this point).

 

The map below by MPI’s Taylor Blake charts the metro area vote. Clinton votes are in blue, Trump votes are in red, and the height of the bars indicates the percent of the national vote cast in metros.

(Taylor Blake)

Look at the large blue columns for Clinton across the Boston-New York-Washington Corridor; in Miami, in Northern and Southern California, and in Chicago. While there is more red on the map, there is nothing nearly so tall for Trump.

Large Metros with the Biggest Vote Share for Clinton

Rank	Metro	Clinton Vote Share
1	San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA	76.7%
2	San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	72.9%
3	Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV	68.2%
4	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA	66.6%
5	Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI	63.7%
6	Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL	62.3%
7	Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH	62.0%
8	Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA	62.0%
9	Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD	61.6%
10	New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA	61.6%

The table above shows the top 10 large metros that went for Clinton. Clinton took whopping shares of the vote in the Bay Area high-tech hubs of San Francisco (76.7 percent) and San Jose (72.9 percent). And she carried more than two-thirds of the vote in Los Angeles. She also did very well in the densely populated metros of the Bos-Wash Corridor, taking more than two-thirds of the vote in Washington, D.C., and more than 60 percent in Boston, New York and Philadelphia. She carried more than 60 percent of the vote in Chicago, Miami, and Seattle as well.

 

Clinton won by more than 55 percent of the vote in Portland, Oregon (57.5 percent), Hartford (56.6 percent), San Diego (56.6 percent), Austin (56.5 percent), Baltimore (55.8 percent), and Cleveland (55.6 percent); roughly 54 percent in Memphis; 53.5 percent in Denver and Orlando; 53 percent in Providence, Sacramento, and Detroit; 52.5 percent in Las Vegas; 52 percent in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Richmond, and Atlanta; and 51 percent in Virginia Beach and Riverside.

Clinton also carried large shares of the vote in smaller college towns such as Santa Cruz, California (73.4 percent); Durham-Chapel Hill, North Carolina (70.5 percent); Boulder, Colorado (70.3 percent); Ann Arbor, Michigan (67.4 percent); Ithaca, New York (66.7 percent); Madison, Wisconsin (66.7 percent); Lawrence, Kansas (62.4 percent); Burlington, Vermont (60.8 percent); Corvallis, Oregon (59.9 percent); Tallahassee, Florida (57.7 percent); Charlottesville, Virginia (56.6 percent); Gainesville, Florida (55.8 percent); New Haven, Connecticut (54.3 percent); Bloomington, Indiana (54.0 percent); Raleigh, North Carolina (53.4 percent); and Eugene, Oregon (53.4 percent).

Clinton also did well in border metros with large shares of Hispanic residents such as Laredo (74.4 percent), El Paso (69.0 percent), McAllen (68.6 percent), and Brownsville (64.6 percent) in Texas; Las Cruces (53.7 percent) in New Mexico; Tucson (54.3 percent) in Arizona; and El Centro (67.5 percent) in California.

 

Large Metros with the Biggest Vote Share for Trump

Rank	Metro	Trump Vote Share
1	Birmingham-Hoover, AL	58.6%
2	Oklahoma City, OK	58.5%
3	Jacksonville, FL	56.6%
4	Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN	56.1%
5	Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN	55.8%
6	Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI	53.7%
7	Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN	51.7%
8	Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX	51.3%
9	Pittsburgh, PA	50.2%
10	Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC	50.1%

The above table shows the top 10 large metros that went for Trump. The largest cities that Trump won in were Sunbelt metro areas and Rustbelt metro areas. In the Sunbelt, he won majorities in Birmingham, Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, Nashville, Dallas, and Charlotte. In the Rustbelt, he won majorities in Cincinnati, Grand Rapids, Indianapolis, and Pittsburgh.

Trump also took a plurality of the vote in Louisville (49.8 vs. Clinton’s 45.1 percent), Tampa (49.3 vs. 46.3 percent), Phoenix (48.6 vs. 44.5 percent), Houston (48.5 vs. 47.5 percent), San Antonio (48.4 vs. 47.2 percent), St. Louis (48.0 vs. 46.9 percent), and Kansas City (48.0 vs. 45.9 percent.)

Trump took huge shares of the vote in smaller Sunbelt metros—especially in the South—such as Morristown (77.3 percent), Tennessee; Amarillo (76.9 percent) and Midland, Texas (75.4 percent); Houma, Louisiana (74.7 percent); Dalton, Georgia (74.4 percent); Joplin, Missouri (74.4 percent); and Decatur, Alabama (73.8 percent).

He also won by substantial margins in smaller Rustbelt metros such as Altoona (71.5 percent), Chambersburg (70.6 percent), and Williamsport, Pennsylvania (69.7 percent); Parkersburg (71.1 percent), Huntington (67.6 percent), Weirton-Steubenville (66.7 percent), and Wheeling (66.6 percent), West Virginia; and Kokomo (64.3 percent), Elkhart (63.8 percent), and Terre Haute, Indiana (61.7 percent).

***

We know that America’s economic geography is spiky, and its political geography clearly is too. While we may think in terms of red and blue states, our real geographic divides are along metro as well as urban-suburban and rural lines. In a future post, I’ll take a closer look at which metros swung the most from one party to the other—where the Clinton and Trump campaigns gained or lost the largest shares of the voted compared to Obama and Romney in 2012.

[bohica]

Metro areas also have a largest areas of people who are the kind to protest everything from standing too close to brushing their teeth.  No real brains for a lot of people, just love to take the government dole and follow instructions with no thought.  

[bohica]

Now if you simply remove the votes from those who never registered to vote, were felon, illegals who cannot vote as per the Constitution, cartoon characters who voted Democrat and all the dead people who rose from the grave to vote Democrat you might not have all the Clinton votes you once thought were present.