According to Nobel’s will:
The whole of my remaining realisable estate shall be disposed of in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually awarded as prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. One part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.
The 2025 prize is thus based entirely on accomplishments in 2024. Nothing accomplished before or after that can be considered.
That said, I don’t see how María Corina Machado met any of the requirements. She did some courageous things in 2024 in opposition to an evil dictator, and those things are worthy of praise, but they are unrelated to the fraternity of nations, peace congresses, or the reduction of armies.
Of course, she is not the first recipient who failed to meet the requirements. Many Nobels have been undeserved.
President Trump was obviously not eligible. His 2024 consisted of running for office and being convicted of crimes. Depending on how things go in Ukraine and Gaza, he may or may not have a case for next year.
Not sure someone who is sending armed troops to cities in the country to attack protesters they lead can be considered for a prize for helping foster peace, regardless of whatever they do for other countries.
Theoretically that is irrelevant to the award.
Trump has taken other actions that could hurt his efforts.
1. Promoting the fraternity of nations.
He’s told the rest of the world that their countries are going to hell, and he imposes some onerous import tax every time he gets upset for some reason or another.
2. He just renamed the department of defense to the department of war, apparently unaware that war and peace are opposites.
3. He has basically waged undeclared wars on Venezuela and Iran.
Those things notwithstanding, he would probably get the Peace Prize if he can pull off a satisfactory resolution to Ukraine and Gaza.
Also, on that domestic issue, in his mind he’s trying to restore peace to war-torn cities like Portland. (I suppose. I don’t know what he really thinks.)
Trump doesn’t think, he reacts.
In my opinion, Trump was by far the worst president in American history in his first term and has been significantly worse during his second. In his first term, he had too many Republicans in his cabinet who took their oaths to the Constitution seriously and often frustrated Trump’s worst impulses. The second time around, he made sure everyone from his VP on down saw their loyalty to Trump as their number one value, with loyalty to the Constitution as a distant #2, or maybe #3. That said, if Trump’s plan leads to lasting peace in Gaza, he probably will deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. He’d be at least as deserving as Yassir Arafat was in 1994. I seriously doubt the 5 members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee would vote for Trump, but stranger things have happened. Such as Hillary Clinton losing to Trump. So I will not say that would be impossible.
trump’s idea of “negotiation” is the same as Don Corleone’s: Luca Brasi holds a gun to the band leader’s head and tells him either his brains or his signature will be on the contract. That’s how he got the Palestinians to take the deal (so far).
As noted, trump really wasn’t eligible for the Prize this year, but he will be next year. I think it’d be hilarious if the Nobel committee awards the Peace Prize to Tony Blair. Or maybe even Jared Kushner, just for yuks. But not to fat donnie.
Obama was the least deserved winner in history.
Dude STARTED a number of wars. You don’t get the peace prize for making war.
Well, Obama didn’t start any wars in 2008, which is the year for which he was awarded the peace prize. He couldn’t, since he was a nobody who really did nothing at all.
It was a totally inappropriate choice, and he was as shocked as anyone else when he got that award, as he mentioned in his acceptance speech.
I don’t know whether he was the least deserving of all time. I guess you can argue that even though he did nothing to earn it, at least he hadn’t done anything negative up to that time, which still makes him a better choice than warmonger Kissinger or terrorist Arafat. Another way to look at it is that Obama was equally deserving as I was – we both did nothing to earn it – but we were both still more deserving than Kissinger.
I remember Tom Lehrer saying that even though he specialized in irony, his entire act had been co-opted by Kissinger getting a peace prize.
——————-
I think you’ll find if you go through the list of awardees, that very few actually met the qualifications specified by Nobel. There were some that obviously deserved it – George Marshall, for example, who facilitated the rebuilding of Europe after WW2 with the generous co-operation of the American people. The Marshall Plan essentially ended the wars in Western Europe forever and built the framework for the the EU.
Good examples like that don’t come around every year, but they award the prize anyway.
he won the noble prize then droned little kids to death.. And Trump had to be nominated by Jan 31st 2025. 11 days after he got elected but Obama won it 8 months after his election meaning they annointed him the winner 11 days into his presidency.. And at least Machado in a tweet gave credit to Trump something Osama bin obama did not do that’s what class looks like.
Again, the 2025 Nobel Prize is awarded for things accomplished in 2024.. Trump did nothing. The 2026 prize will be awarded for 2025 accomplishments, and Trump may be a contender (if things go his way).
If Trump can force solutions to Gaza and Ukraine, the committee will have to look at him
And you are right, Obama did not deserve it in 2009. He did nothing in 2008.
I don’t know what solution he used in Gaza in which Trump deserves any credit. The international world is turning against Israel’s regime because of it’s use of force surpassing multiple definition of war crimes through collective punishment and taking out innocent people under the pretense of combat with no evidence they’ve actually accomplished any combat objectives.
It was pretty clear Israel was going to do as much damage as possible until it tarnished its reputation, and whatever of the decentralized Hamas militia really doesn’t have anything to lose at this point giving up the hostages because Netanyahu paid that no mind regardless.
There was always an expiry to be paid in blood of innocent people and Israel was going to massacre up until that point. And it wouldn’t surprise me after this ceasefire they manufacture another incident of any magnitude to go right back in
I don’t think Putin has any such problem with reputation or attrition – especially since it appears Trump is being strung along without applying additional sanctions.
I would say examples of what was set barely come about every decade, much less yearly. Conflicts typically have a root cause, usually involving one group of people attempting to obtain resources from another. Or enforcing their dogma over another. These things don’t typically resolve without force, otherwise it wouldn’t have gotten to that point to begin with.
Honestly, all awards are nothing more than performative ceremony, meaningless trinkets in the grand scheme of things awarded by the biases of individuals in the committees who hand them out. The modern winners tend to go to those who resist authoritarianism more than anything else.
So got ya killing kids is force but actually attaining peace overrated
I don’t even know what you’re talking about since I made no reference to any specific conflict. Point being, peace coming out of the ether doesn’t happen, it typically comes after attrition in ebbs and flows in cycles stemming from some historical reason for occurring.
British colonialism and partitioning dating back 80 years is to blame for the Israel-Palestine conflict, as well as what goes on between India and Pakistan. Do yourself a favor and become a little less ignorant about your cult hero and go study history instead of kissing your dictator’s ass.
Once again, Obama won in 2009. He had not done anything positive (or negative) in 2008, so he did not deserve it. The 2025 award is for 2024, when Trump also did nothing positive or negative relative to the conditions of Nobel’s will.
Trump may be considered in 2026 for his 2025 accomplishments. If he brings peace to Gaza and Ukraine, the committee will have to take a look.
Obama was the representation of change. He reached out to the other nations, and everyone loved him. He was the first non-white president, which gave hope of racial unity that might reflect to the rest of the world. Everyone felt good about Obama except for the white people who claimed he was not a U.S. citizen.
This was how Trump won 2016. The people still wanted change, but Hillary Clinton would have meant going back to the old guard (the Democratic party itself did not like Obama, and they wanted to at least have a white candidate with some name-recognition. The Democratic party would repeat this mistake in 2020 when they set up Biden as the candidate). However, these were bad changes, and today the changes are horribly wrong as Trump is disassembling the United States. He has done nothing to try to unify the country, and in fact is blatantly dividing it. Based on his internal politics, there is no way Trump should win such an award.
On the other hand, he has pretty much unified the entire world against the U.S. (except for Qatar). So maybe that’s something that can be said.
Agree that Obama did not deserve the award. At the time, the closest explanation-like thing we got was that he was not GW Bush. It seemed like an aspirational award, sort of “OK, go out now and earn this.”
Of course they’re not going to do this with Trump, he has the morals of a hyena (apologies to any hyenas who might be reading). The whole pointless name change to Dept of War is probably going to be a dealbreaker, though getting Russia out of Ukraine – including Crimea – could put him in the running.
He’s not real strong in the ol’ “promoting the followship of nations” category either. Pretty much every nation in the world now hates the USA, even Canada. There are his arbitrary import taxes and his “your countries are going to hell” rhetoric, and other insults to people like London’s mayor.
And then there’s the undeclared wars against Iran and Venezuela and his threats to Canada, Denmark, and Greenland.
I think, though, that all those things and the “Department of War” will be forgiven if he can get Russia out of Ukraine. If the committee can forgive Kissinger and Arafat, they can forgive anyone and anything.
That said, I see little chance of that happening.
Jørgen Watne Frydnes, Chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, addressed the controversy surrounding President Donald Trump’s exclusion from the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. While he did not explicitly state that Trump lacked “courage and integrity,” Frydnes emphasized that the committee’s decisions are based solely on the principles outlined in Alfred Nobel’s will.
Well, he couldn’t really say, “We don’t encourage the behavior of lying bullies,” lest Trump impose a trillion percent tariff on salmon and herring.
Trump’s case for 2025 includes declaring war on American cities and running a masked police force that disappears people sometimes and shoots citizens unprovoked
Who brokered peace again between Israel and palestine? I swear people like you are so fuckin stupid
You’re not exactly the one to talk about fuckin stupid. You can’t get a prize for 2024 for something in 2025, something which seems to escape you MAGA dimwits.
HEY DUMB FUCK OBAMAS 1ST INAUGURATION JANUARY 20TH 2009. HE WON THE PRIE IN 2009 FOR WHAT. FOR WHAT FOR WHAT YOU STUPID ASSHOLE FUCKIN TWAT
I wasn’t talking Obama, who shouldn’t have gotten one. I was responding to your Trump comment. I guess multitasking is a bit much for your MAGAmind.
Ladies and gentlemen, the MAGA “mind at work”.
Once again:
1. The 2025 Nobel Prize is for things accomplished in 2024. Trump’s actions in 2025 are not relevant, although they could earn him consideration in 2026.
2. Obama should not have received one in 2009. As far as I can see, he did nothing in 2008 to deserve one, and really had no power in 2008 that could have allowed him to earn one. It was an inexplicably bad decision by the committee.
TY he didn’t deserve 1 now you can work on if Obamacare is supposed to be free why does it need Government subsidies
” if Obamacare is supposed to be free why does it need Government subsidies”
What in the hell does that mean? Have you read the affordable care act (or a summary of it)?
I’m not sure I understand that question.
The ACA uses private insurance companies. Those companies are for-profit businesses who sell insurance plans. The companies obviously can’t sell those plans at a loss, and medical care is outrageously expensive, so medical insurance is expensive. It’s so expensive that even at the very lowest rates possible, many Americans can’t afford a plan, even when they work full-time jobs.
That’s where the subsidies come in.
The first A in ACA stands for “affordable.” The subsidies and credits are designed to make insurance affordable for everyone. The amount of subsidies and credits that a person is eligible for depend on income, based on a sliding scale.
Not everyone is eligible for subsidies.
People are eligible if:
* their household income is below a certain level;
* and they are U.S. citizens or legal residents;
* and they are not eligible for other coverage like Medicare, Medicaid, or employer-sponsored insurance.
so point is, it’s not affordable yet Dems want to fix what they fixed with another fix
You’re being purposely obtuse. Government funding was/is always a component of the ACA. Republican hate it because they see it as “giving tax money to poor people” whereas they’d much rather see tax money being given to rich people.
If you have a different solution for how to get medical care to all American children (and adults) in the face of outrageous and ever-escalating medical costs, I would love to hear it, because the best minds, right and left, have been grappling with that problem for years, and no good answer seems forthcoming.
Whatever weaknesses the ACA may have, it still seems like the best we have come up with that allows a solution within a context of private enterprise (i.e., not nationalizing health care).
It’s just today’s harsh reality that everyone needs medical care, and not everyone can afford it.
The only way to “fix” medical care is to nationalize health care. Health insurance is the reason why medical costs are so high; once providers realized that insurance was paying the bill, they started increasing the prices. Same with Big Pharma. And same with FAFSA; the colleges basically gouged the U.S. government. And the result is poor people who cannot afford insurance cannot afford health care, and poor people who do not qualify for FAFSA can’t afford to go to college.
But we’re a capitalist economy, so there is no way that will happen. The insurance company lobbyists have congress under their payroll. And nationalizing healthcare is anti-competitive; the bots will start claiming it’s one step closer to socialism. The ACA was a way to try to help poor people, but it does not fix the inherent problem, which is corporate greed (which is what the U.S. is all about). When Mike Johnson says that they want to fix healthcare, they’re really not going to. They’ll say they are and then say it’s the Democrats’ fault.
There’s lots of reasons, and I think until the greed is taken care of, it’s never going to be solved. I don’t think everything has to be nationalized, but I do think if the government is going to be paying for Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA subsidies there should be restrictions on corporate profiteering.
For example, Mark Cuban has a company called Cost Plus Drugs. They’ve built their own prescription drug dispensary and so on and charge a 15% markup to invest back in the business. I think that is reasonable, and that’s the key word: REASONABLE.
I don’t mind privatization and the government giving contracts for the will of public good. However, the profit overhead is absolutely ridiculous for the C-suite in these sectors. How can it be justified that taxpayers are paying money, then consumers, and then employees getting RIFed in these major corporations while CEO’s are getting 8 figures in compensation every year.
That’s the issue: everything has to be an investment. Everything has to be maximum obtaining of resources. Government contracts could be going to non-profits, public benefit corporations, Universities, or a similar setup like Cuban’s company. But it doesn’t, because everyone in the C-suite is trying to obtain more for themselves in compensation, and then they’re taking their savings and trying to make even more through investments in a never ending cycle of obtaining more. Until society as a whole starts to defund these models and puts reasonableness on the table with ethical behavior embedded into decision making, we’re likely never going to get out of this.
Good luck with that, we’re more likely to meet our demise thanks to psychopaths like Musk, Bezos, Thiel, Ellison and others racing to a trillion.
Scoop said “everyone needs medical care, and not everyone can afford it.” Is this also the case in, say, Germany, or France, or Spain? I know the UK has problems with it.
(I am not asking you to do research. I don’t know the answer, and if you don’t either, well, it should be my task to find out.)
Most public systems all have their quirks. Not all of them good. Its better then not getting care at all or ending up with a pile of debt. Generally public systems cost less per capita.
The two most expensive systems in the world both use private systems with insurance (the US and Switzerland). The latter is more functional since they have a basic form of insurance that insurance companies are required to supply on a non-profit basis.
The funny thing is with people like MAGA Angelo here is the obsession with Obama and the Clintons from decades of FOX News propaganda is that no one left of center is idolizing them like they do Trump. There’s plenty of flat out criticism of the ‘limousine liberals’ from the left, and even at their height you didn’t see the cult like following with all the flags, bumper stickers, apparel and so on that the MAGA cult has of their cult leader. None of them can think for themselves, they’ve needed Trump, the FOX News-esque propaganda apparatus on the radio and cable news for decades, and now crazy ass streamers to tell them what to think. Even more so, to keep up their rage addicted brains to be hooked on their persecution complex.
No one gives a fuck about Obama, and no one gives a fuck about these ceremonial trinkets except your fucking in the head cult leader and those that follow. I’m sure Trump will invent his own peace prize to give himself within the next couple months anyway with his shitty trash faux gold style and grift a knockoff replica for $500 a pop on his websites anyway.
Not even kidding: Buddy Carter from Georgia is going to introduce a bill to ‘give’ the Nobel to Drumpf, assuming that doofus Johnson ever re-convenes the House.
The bill is light on the ‘how’ of this, but heavy on licking The Annoying Orange’s nuts, which seems to be the point.
I told my wife that I actually had hoped that Trump would win the prize so that maybe it would please him and make him behave a little bit less like an asshole and agent of chaos. Something for him to retrospectively live up to. She responded that nothing would likely make him less of an asshole.
Somebody else thinks so too:
(Comedy video. 9 min 13 sec long. Trigger warning: Includes bad wigs.)
Your wife wins. He got where he is by being a gaping, festering asshole. He would see it as weakness to be anything less.
You married a wise woman.
Wouldn’t that make him even more obnoxious? He’d be talking about it every time he opened his mouth.
MAGA only understands two binaries:
– Aggrieved rage where they retreat to their persecution complex at the sight of any dissent to go back to their community to keep their feedback loops of lies and propaganda being the ‘persecuted majority’ because they’re white, straight, American, and Christian and the world is against them
– Cult like affirmation, praise, and ceremony for Trump only feeling happy when they’re able to trample on someone else’s neck or Trump with his sycophants kissing his ass warping reality to praise him like a false god
That’s basically it. Whether the above two emotions happens to intersect with something positive happening is like a drunk driver accidentally killing a serial killer on the interstate. There’s no grander introspection here at play with Trump and the MAGA cult.
Yeah, she is probably right. But I thought it might have been worth a try.