It was a MAGA talking point from the start, meant for MAGA ppl... The chance he got it was 0%, because:
1- The Nobel Peace Prize is chosen by a committee of 5 Norwegians. Having Russia or Israel expressing support doesn't help, it's probably even counterproductive. Random endorsements on Twitter don't matter either..
2- The committee values international cooperation, not trade wars, isolationism, or cozying up to dictators.
3- They prize the defense of democracy, not attacks on it.
4- The cherry on the cake: Machado got the prize while he's been threatening war with Venezuela itself. It almost feels like a big f*ck off
Your last comment isn't very consistent. For one thing the US recognizes Edmundo Gonzalez as the rightful president[1]. Machado helped him during the campaign last year. For another, Machado opposes Maduro's regime and she actually dedicated her prize to Trump.[2]
" She has expressed support for the use of force to depose the Maduro regime; one of her advisors told the New York Times that she has coordinated with the Trump administration and that she has a plan for the first hundred hours after his deposition"
Not sure what democratic mandate she has to be in charge post a foreign led military coup - though she is a graduate of the Yale World Fellows programme.
So rather than a big FU it would appear to be more likely to be an attempt to raise her profile to legitimise a US led coup.
Norwegians don't care about legitimizing US coups, and the current US administration is incapable of working with /anyone/ let anyone influencing Norway.
That's certainly ironic and I think the implications are concerning but don't you think Maduro is the one leading a coup? There is solid statistical evidence Gonzalez won the election.
Quite possibly - not fan of Maduro - just responding to the idea that the prize was two fingers up to Trump - when in fact Machado would appear to be very much in the US camp.
Machado is manufacturing consent for Trump's planned invasion, so point 4 is a bit weaker than you might like. Imagine looKing at Iraq and saying "yeah, that's what I want for my country".
David Frum talked at length about self-abasement in MAGA public culture in his recent podcast for the Atlantic[1].
> I think it also becomes a real test of in-group loyalty to see who can outcompete in slavishness the other members of the circle, who are also competing to be slavish. That’s why you get these strange [phenomena] like Donald Trump’s physicians claiming that he’s the most physically vigorous president ever.
> Now, even when Donald Trump was younger, he was a big man, but he was never a great athlete. And now, as he approaches his 80th birthday, he’s obviously not physically fit.
> The fact is, you’re not just willing to tell a lie, but tell a lie that abases you, that makes you look foolish, that makes you look like you don’t care about yourself at all, that you only defer to the leader. That’s the real sign of loyalty. It’s flattery that is not meant to be believed but functions as a kind of system of in-group recognition.
To me, this is a perfect mirror to Chairman Mao (supposedly) swimming across the Yangtze River in his 70s at a pace faster than an Olympic champion of today.
There’s no meaning to any of it. It’s just propaganda and self-abasement for the purpose of loyalty competition to the leader. In fact, the more ludicrous, the better, because it means you’re willing to fully destroy any personal credibility you may have as a sacrifice to show loyalty.
And we might just take Greenland from them in retribution!
(oh wait, that's Denmark, but never mind, a certain president probably wouldn't know the difference; if some Fox News commentator said that Greenland belongs to Norway, he'd believe it).
See I truly respect President Boric from Chile, it’s one of the few progressive leaders from the region that has been outspoken about the Maduro regime and calling it what it is: a dictatorship. Unlike other leaders of the region who could be doing way more.
It’s pretty understandable for Mrs. Corina to take whatever support she gets internationally.
Providing her with this award while Trump's naval battle groups stand ready to attack Venezuela isnt helping arrest the collapse of the west's moral authority.
That’s like saying Volodymyr Zelenskyy supports Trump. Foreign politicians operate outside of U.S. domestic politics - they don’t get to choose other countries’ leaders. Their job is to use diplomacy to navigate international politics in whatever shape those politics happen to be in.
It's because he is the current president of the US and US support it's key for the liberation of Venezuela, she also supported Biden and Kamala Harris, have Kamala Harris won she would have "supported" her. And it's not like she supports Trump, she is not on favor of his policies but she knows his support it's necessary.
I'm Venezuelan and I don't see those acts as against my country, we hate our current government, at this point after 20 years of the same guys ruining our country we are desperate, and military intervention might be the only solution, because they hold all the power and weapons, and don't care that 80%+ of the population are against them. Although most of us hold the opinion that solving the problem by our own hands would be the best option, it seems like it might not be possible like what happened in 2014, and last year and many others. Military intervention might be the only option left that we have.
Yeah, I'm wondering if the Nobel Peace prize has anything to do with peace for people, or for her neoliberalism stance of protection of the free market that would usher peace for the business interests of oil companies [0].
I must confess I am no Venezuelan political expert, and it always gives me pause whether the economic siege that has been laid against Venezuela with the sanctions is about democracy, or about access to unrestricted markets (a la United Fruit Company — now Chiquita — and Standard Fruit Company — now Dole plc).
The problem in South America is that both versions are true. The outside exploitation pressures are extremely strong, so any vaguely socialist government succumbs to the temptation to squash the outside agitators .. and any local opposition who actually have a valid point or real anti-corruption objections. Running a moderate social democrat centrist country in that situation is not stable, instead you get pendulum swings from left to right and back again, with significant human cost along the way.
(exception maybe Costa Rica?)
To be clear, Venezuela is long past the "popular socialism" phase and decayed into the "strongman holding on" phase.
This is a tangent, but this type of You-Know-Who speech is so irritating. If you want to say Trump just say it, don't dance around it like he's some kind of god who'll punish you if you say his name in vain.
Because "just say it" doesn't work on many sites. I don't know about this site but anecdotally, I've seen that when I use certain words / phrases / names on YouTube or Reddit subreddits, those comments are either not shown at all (not shown even to me) or shadow-banned (not shown to others).
Another reason I don't just say it sometimes is to avoid trolling by fans of whatever or whoever I criticized.
people are getting in very real world trouble for saying negative things about certain people or their friends.
i’m not sure if you’ve seen how many people have lost their jobs for saying truths about kurk or how many people are losing jobs, scholarships, visas, education etc for saying things about a certain regime, but it’s happening, for real. they’re actively pushing to force people to turn over their social media accounts for review.
we can’t blame this poster for vagueposting here. i often pushback against vagueposting but in today’s climate we cant blame people for taking their personal safety seriously when it comes to vocalizing their criticisms.
I don't know about Russia but there seem to be loads of cases of people being arrested (or detained or harrassed by police) for holding up a blank piece of paper, including one case in Cornwall: https://netpol.org/2023/02/10/cornish-protester-assaulted-an...
People lost their jobs for cheering about someone being killed AND for justifying political violence. Full stop...
That you think anything else is copium of Russian quality. That you think that criticizing Trump would get you fired is absurd. You seriously need to work on yourself. You aren't getting push back for "telling the truth" (which is just repeating questionable things from journalists). You are getting push back for being a terrible human being. So terrible in fact that people are leaving the Dems just because they don't want to be associated with them, not for any policy or something the Reps did.
PS None of this would have hurt the Democratic Party if it wasn't for how you reacted to his death. It was truly the worst thing I have seen in US politics in my lifetime.
You assume that we're dealing with a rational person who has all their senses intact.
The deal would likely take months for the world to see if it's successful. He can get nominated next year if he keeps his own house peaceful too, else he should forget about a rational nomination + award of the Prize.
You're not dealing with anyone. There's a chap in the white house you don't like, and you want to have a pre-emptive go at him. Either he doesn't say anything, in which case you forget you said this. Or he is upset, in which case you feel justified in this. Or he's happy for the winner, in which case you feel like if he mentions it at all he must be upset.
If there's no way for you to change your stance based on any outcome, then it's pointless to say.
> I am actually dealing with a person though, and have set out a falsifiable case.
As have they? We have many tests for determining whether or not a given person's senses are or not intact.
> Same, but it's also true for anyone else.
Note I said show. If you happen to live in a world where you feel you've been devoid of such empathy then I feel for you, but such an environment of narcissism is hardly representative.
Trump might win it anyway. If he stares at Norway long enough and his minions find a way to harass the country (which is the MO these days), I have a feeling Norway will find a way to give him one (or two if he fancies), just like they found ways to not give it to many deserving people throughout its history, just because nations with convincing physical likeness would not have appreciated that.
What war did Trump create that you claim he's ending?
Because as far as I know, Israel's war on Gaza started before his term, and if the peace deal holds, Trump will be almost singlehandedly responsible for ending it.
If that's not worthy of a Nobel Peace prize, I truly don't know what else is.
> What war did Trump create that you claim he's ending?
He allowed Israel to break the last ceasefire immediately after the first phase of prisoner exchange was over, and to subsequently act with more brutality than even before. He started that chapter himself, whether through psychopatic indifference, narcisstic business fantasy of a future riviera with his name, or being a completely weak man who couldn't say no. Whatever the reason, he started the next 7 months of slaughter.
Hamas broke the ceasefire on Oct 7 and killed 1000+ Israelis. Israel is justified in breaking every ceasefire with Hamas until the end of time. You should not negotiate in good faith with terrorists. There should be peace with the Palestinians, but not with Hamas.
Your anger is understandable, but the only way to peace is indeed to negotiate, and the peace must be made between Israel and Hamas.
Before Israel's invasion, a minority supported Hamas' actions. Now, it will be very hard to find peace during the generational legacy of Israel's violence.
This is why overwhelming violence cannot lead to peace. Israel was justified in defending itself, but proportionality was necessary. As an alternative, I think Mossad have show themselves capable of disabling Hamas without heavy civlian casualties.
Hasbara bullet points with no effort. Logically falls apart upon the most basic of inspections. For example, if a one day attack justifies a disproportionate slaughter for 2 years, then what is a merely PROPORTIONATE response to 2 years of slaughter? What is a merely proportionate response to 85% of all buildings destroyed and all infrastruction being turned to rubble?
For bystanders, be aware that there is a lot of money to be made by defending Israel. Some people will take that money. Just a few citations below:
- Certain social media influencers being paid up to $7000 per post [1]
- Israel boosts propaganda funding by $150m to sway global opinion against genocide [2] [3]
- "[...] a firm called Bridges Partners LLC has been hired to manage an influencer network under a project code-named the “Esther Project.” " [4]
Even if the Gaza deal stick, I don't see how one could receive a nobel prize while deploying army and starting a war in their own country in cities/states/counties led by their political opponents.
The Obama one was pretty much for not being George W Bush (or, more to the point, not being controlled by Dick Cheney et al; Bush himself wasn't the _real_ problem there). They'd probably have given it to McCain if he'd won, too. People were _really_ worried about Bush and pals; by the end Cheney was pushing Bush to _start a war with Iran_.
I dunno. Do you? Does the Nobel prize have a history of shaping the future? Did winning the Nobel prize make Obama a different president? Was it supposed to?
To me, it seemed oddly aspirational, but maybe that's more often the case with the peace prize, too.
Also worth noting that the language in the press release [1] and facts page [2] makes it all sound like it was for things already achieved (although maybe that's at odds with "Inspires Hope for a Better Future"), and I'm skeptical of looking at year 1 achievements the job with arguably the most destructive power in the world.
It's not a hill I'd fight, let alone die, on, though. :)
If you wanted to avoid "misnominations", you'd be forced to wait until the career of the nominee is over (meaning in many cases: award it posthumously).
But the Nobel price explicitly tries to avoid that; hindsight is always gonna be better.
That’s not how it works. The prizes are not motivational but for achievement . Otherwise we should give the physics prize to some school kid in the hope of them discovering quantum gravity
Even Obama said basically those words when he got a call from his staff at 6AM announcing that he had won, and he said in the press conference that he didn't feel he deserved it (I looked this up in his 2020 book Promised Land).
Meanwhile for Trump... I'm pretty certain he wants it because a clever, charismatic, eloquent and beloved Black man got it...
Kissinger's decision is debatable but legit. That time it was not only about him. It was just pathetic from him to took it when his co-winner declined.
Price for Obama was probably miss-step but at least he was not desperately begging for it like Trump does.
I hope they’ve managed to convey this to the whitehouse.
It really didn’t help when they gave Obama the prize. Even he was embarrassed by it.
I think trump genuinely deserves the prize if peace in the Middle East achieved. However, I think it’s far more likely he’s being played for a fool by Israel as per Russia.
Trump does genuinely seem to want to avoid foreign wars, to his credit.
Norway is no doubt now bracing itself for tariffs or other retaliation. Hopefully they can dangle next year’s prize as worth waiting for.
> Thanks for sharing a video blaming Trump for the Ukraine war.
I had to do a double-take here - where exactly in the video is Ukraine featured?
> I don't recall Trump ordering American troops to invade Ukraine. Don't see how you're negating my point?
The entire premise of the video I linked is that Trump has no qualms having the US involved in military action, it befuddles me that you somehow seemed to missed this entirely.
> (fwiw, I am not a Trump supporter at all, I just try to see both sides and not hate trump because "he's the other team" - politics is not football)
Hate has nothing to do with it, you made a statement regarding his stance on foreign wars, I provided a source which I believe contextualizes that statement. You're welcome to disagree with the source or its contents or whatever, but throwing out pretty blatant red herrings and silly strawmen just looks silly.
Hmm, ok let's put the video aside as I watched the beginning of it and that's what I interpeted as saying. Maybe a lesson here is to make your case rather than dropping a link? And maybe the lesson for me is not to reply to low-quality replies. Perhaps we're even.
What exactly is your point? Trump clearly has qualmsin involving the US. Example: he was responsible for the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
> Biden was indeed president when America withdrew. Obviously. Unsure if you’re trolling. I guess so.
So they were both responsible - my (non-trolling) point.
> So, yes, it was trump who was responsible for the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan.
Also of interest is how he (trump) decided it should be done, and what ramifications this would have for how badly it would go. This is also covered in the video ;)
Really curious as to the downvotes here. I'll take it step by step:
- Obama was embassed by the peace prize. You can read this in his memoir, in his own words.
- If peace is achieved in the Middle East, it will be the greatest peace negotiation since the end of WW2. I'm unsure how anyone can dispute that.
- Netanyahu has a vested interested in prolonging war and crisis, as his own political survival is at stake. Context if anyone is not aware of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform_p... - this makes it very unlikely the 20 point plan will be completed.
- Russia has indeed played Trump for a fool. Putin has bought plenty of time, they now have the upper hand in drone and missile attacks and Ukraine has lost the financial support of America. In return, Putin has conceded absolutely nothing.
- Trump does genuinely seem to want to avoid foreign wars. Good examples are his chastisement of Israel for breaking the earlier ceasefire, and its bombing of Qatar. He also did instigate negotiations with Russia, although he failed. His interventions in other conflicts are also genuine.
> I think trump genuinely deserves the prize if peace in the Middle East achieved
The current ceasefire proposal doesn't address the wider struggle for liberation of the indigenous people of Palestine, and as such it cannot be anything more than a temporary stop to a 2-year genocide against them. Settlements are still being built and fences around Palestinian houses are still being erected in the West Bank. Ethnic Cleansing continues. There is no peace until Israel undergoes the same transformation that Apartheid South Africa did when it turned into just South Africa (which requires efforts from the entire world to boycott it).
Ironically, this reply was the only one downvoted against my downvoted post, but I do agree that sketicism is the right attitude here.
Settlements are continuing in the West Bank, which are widely regarded as illegal by the international community.
There is little doubt amongst international experts that what Israel has done is genocide, and the parallels with South Africa are justified.
I'm hopeful that the genocide won't continue. However, I also think it's unlikely that peace will be achieved. Some form of violence or occupation is more likely, driven by Netanyahu's political interests.
