By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Donald Trump’s pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize is reportedly met with skepticism in Europe, particularly within the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Multiple sources suggest that the committee, comprised of human rights advocates and foreign policy experts, is unlikely to favor Trump, especially considering his actions such as ordering American troops to patrol U.S. cities. Trump’s efforts to lobby for the award, including his public declarations of deserving the prize and attempts to influence the committee, are perceived as counterproductive and detrimental to his chances. Furthermore, the prize is based on actions taken in 2024 and any success in the Middle East may be for naught.
Read the original article here
Nobel Insiders Laugh at Trump’s Peace Prize Hopes: ‘Hard to Take Seriously’ is a sentiment that seems to be widely shared, considering the former president’s actions and rhetoric. The idea of him being considered for the prestigious award elicits chuckles and incredulity. It’s as though the very concept contradicts the principles of peace and diplomacy that the prize represents. The general consensus is that his behavior, which includes instigating conflicts, threatening adversaries, and using military force against his own citizens, makes the idea of a Nobel Peace Prize for him simply absurd.
The list of actions that appear to disqualify him from any consideration for the prize is substantial and seemingly ever-growing. Mentioned are instances of military force deployed against other nations, talk of annexing territories, and using the U.S. military against American citizens. These are actions typically seen as the antithesis of peace, creating an obvious disconnect with the award’s criteria. The suggestion that his actions might actually be war-like, and therefore antithetical to peace, underscores the irony that permeates this discussion.
The desire for the award, as perceived, seems to be fueled by a need for validation and a desperate yearning for positive recognition. This contrasts sharply with the perceived qualities of a truly deserving recipient, someone who is humble and doesn’t actively seek out accolades. There’s a strong feeling that genuine peacekeepers would be more interested in the work itself than in the fame it brings.
Many comments express the opinion that the situation has become an international joke, with the world observing the perceived disconnect between the former president’s actions and his aspirations for the Peace Prize. This shared perception adds to the overall tone of disbelief, making it nearly impossible to take his perceived ambitions seriously. It’s as if his desire for the prize is a constant source of amusement, not only for the “Nobel insiders” but for many others who see it as completely unwarranted.
The idea of awarding the prize to figures like Greta Thunberg or even President Biden, just to antagonize him, is indicative of the playful, almost mocking tone that surrounds the topic. The mere suggestion of these possibilities highlights the perception that the award should be given to someone who embodies the spirit of peace and cooperation, as opposed to someone seen as actively working against those ideals.
The discussion also brings up the idea that giving the prize to Obama again would be a particularly pointed jab at him. This reveals the extent to which his perceived desire for the prize is seen as a personal, ego-driven quest. The implication is that his disappointment at not receiving the prize is a source of entertainment for those observing the situation.
The tone of the commentary veers towards the sarcastic and the humorous, using terms like “Piece (of Shit) prize” and suggesting he’d be more suitable for a Darwin Award. These playful jabs highlight the perceived absurdity of the situation, creating a sense of shared amusement. It’s as if the sheer incongruity of his aspirations versus his actions is too much to bear without humor.
The discussion also expresses concerns about the potential consequences of his actions, hinting at a fear that not receiving the award could provoke further aggression. This suggests that the laughter is perhaps tinged with a bit of nervous anticipation.
The overall impression is one of widespread amusement and disbelief. It’s a situation that invites sardonic commentary and a healthy dose of mockery, driven by the stark contrast between his apparent ambition for the award and the actions that many feel disqualify him from receiving it. The idea that someone who has seemingly done so much to contradict the values of peace could even be considered for the prize appears to be the central source of amusement, making it a topic that is, as the title suggests, “hard to take seriously.”