Trump Receives Nobel Peace Prize Nomination
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/60034597/GettyImages_971886594.0.jpg)
President Donald Trump was nominated Wednesday for the Nobel Peace Prize by two Norwegian lawmakers for his work seeking denuclearization of North Korea.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un met with Trump for a summit Tuesday in Singapore, where they signed an agreement to work together towards peace and denuclearization. North Korea also agreed to return the remains of American military personnel killed in that country during the Korean War from 1950 to 1953.
Norwegian Progress Party leaders nominated the U.S. president a day after the summit ended. Progress Party member Per-Willy Amundsen said that the developments are historic, and it could lead to world peace, according to Bloomberg News.
Trump has been cited as a possible nominee since Kim ended a series of provocative threats and missile tests last year. Kim backed off in response to Trump's multiple demonstrations of U.S. military power and resolve, and his toughening of economic sanctions against North Korea.
What's going on now is historic," Amundsen told Norwegian state broadcaster NRK. "A process is underway to ensure world peace in the future. It's a fragile process, but we must, of course, do what we can to help this process bring good results."
The North Korean situation has been rocky as it has unfolded, but there has been significant progress. Trump himself almost pulled out of the summit in the weeks leading up to it. But the two leaders did meet in Singapore and concluded their discussions by signing an agreement to continue the talks and efforts to achieve a long-term peaceful solution.
Trump has deployed heavy sanctions to bringing Kim to the table and end his nuclear program. He first referred to the approach as a "maximum pressure" campaign before backing off from the term in recent weeks. The strategy is to achieve denuclearization by demonstrating U.S. firmness and resolve in contrast with efforts by previous administrations.
Trump would be the fifth U.S. president to receive the Nobel Peace prize if the nomination is successful. President Theodore Roosevelt became the first to receive it for his role as the collaborator of various peace treaties in 1906. He was followed by Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. Vice President Al Gore also received one for his role advocating radical anti-global warming measures in 2007.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
120 visitors
It could happen?
It could also happen in your world that unicorns will show up and, pigs will fly. Trump has done nothing to deserve a Nobel prize of any kind, unless of course they have one for the most gullible leader of the free world, then he would get it.
He has taken a first step in the road to peace. A peace that involves many nations. When a verifiable agreement is reached and ratified by the Senate it will be a possibility. Though I doubt it based on the mindset of those who give the award
BS....... the only people responsible are those who SERVED WITH HONOR …. not a draft dodger like trump.
What?
What did he do besides give away our bargaining chips? Kim got what he wanted and, we got nothing.
What did Trump give?
Kim Jong un gave up testing, a nuclear site, hostages and soldier remains - all to sit at the table with someone who dosen't play games
No, he said he would talk about it, Maybe, in six months.
A site that was damaged in an explosion and, couldn't be used again
Hostages yes, soldiers remains no, that was a Trump fantasy.
All to sit at a table with someone who gave up troop movements in North Korea, sanctions on a repressive government and, possibly our troops in South Korea and, Japan.
He did not give up testing. He signed a useless piece of paper that says he will "work towards" denuclearization.
He did not give up a nuclear site. He invited a hand full of media people, zero weapons inspectors, and blew up a random hillside with ZERO verification it had anything to do with their nuclear capabilities.
He did release 3 hostages in fairly good health, of course after releasing a fourth last year who almost immediately died from the abuse he received at NK's hands. I suppose 3 out of 4 isn't too bad for Trumps supporters looking for any positive.
He's allowing the remains of POW's/MIA's to be repatriated. Oh my, what a huge concession.
And what did the President give? Our military readiness in the region, allowing a tiny dick tater to stand on equal footing with the United States, praising a murderous authoritarian while simultaneously disrespecting our allies.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said Friday the country will halt nuclear tests and suspend long-range missile launches. The surprising shift comes ahead of an expected meeting between Kim and President Donald Trump.
And that was back in April!
I see you have conceded on the rest.
Thank you.
Actually he did it. No tests in months. What's the matter? Sad because Trump was able to accomplish what 3 well polished establishment politicians could't do?
Sorry, this should read South Korea.
No problem. I told you before mistakes do not take away from your argument. I knew what you meant
No, I've seen this play out before, the North Koreans stop testing long enough to make it look good and, then start testing as soon as they decide that the U.S. isn't going to be happy with them keeping Nukes, Nukes are the only thing that make Kim something of a world power, with them he is nothing and, he knows how the U.S. treats government leaders who give up their Nukes. Libya and, Iran ring a bell?
If you don't understand that those who actually serve the nation on the front lines are the ones who held this at bay till the point that NK is coming around then you don't know what is going on around you.
You mean when Bill Clinton tried to bribe em? Well this isn't Bill Clinton.
Nukes are the only thing that make Kim something of a world power,
Actually the thought of being accepted without the threat of regime change combined with the kind of prosperity enjoyed by South Korea might be appealing, ESPECIALLY when the alternative is Donald Trump pushing that nice big button!
The Military? Yes, they have saved us and our allies
Also,
This right after saying that NK is no longer a threat.
Seriously? You're just going to take the word of the murderous dictator? No proof, no evidence, no inspectors, just the word of a guy who's assassinated his brother in law, put his uncle to death, had a US hostage beat to death just last year, and has told the US several times in the past that they were giving up their nuclear ambitions but never did. And on top of all that he imprisons his own people, several hundred thousand of them, for not loving him enough and trying to escape or exercise free speech. That's the guy you're betting on? Trusting his word over the words of those who have escaped telling us not to trust anything the little dick tater has to say?
No, Bill Clinton was better at the job.
Unless the military has gone completely nuts they won't launch one nuke at North Korea, they understand that with our troops right there, there is no reason to do such a thing and, besides, our troops would get hit as well. Kim won't give up his nukes because he knows when he does, nothing will stop the U.N. or, the U.S. from coming in there and, killing him and, he knows that if he gives in to U.S. demands there is nothing to stop the U.S. from going back on our word to him, he has been watching what is going on with Iran and, other country's that we have dealt with.
Yep, the same shit, different president.
That sounds a lot like Clinton-- and his "first step towards peace" (although I believe in Clinton's case things proceeded further than what just happened with Trump).
Discussion (on NT):
Clinton: U.S. & N Korea Reached Agreement That Will Make The US, Korean Peninsula, & The World Safer.
NK already has achieved what they needed and have little if any need for more nuclear tests, at least not to gain data. There could however be political value in future underground detonations.
so your'e telling us that the talks are over? I got a little bulletin for you - this is going to take many months and there will be verification, REAL VERIFICATION, and there will be a timeline. I hate to inform you that this process will go way beyond the November elections. How do you think independent voters will feel about the end of the North Korea problem?
Not really, though I do give Clinton credit for reforming welfare, punishing criminals and not tinkering with Reagan's economy or the high tech boom.
Unless the military has gone completely nuts they won't launch one nuke at North Korea,
Sorry, It dosen't work that way. The President makes that call, yes, even this one! I'm happy to say the military has yet to be infected with progressive ideology - they won't commit treason. That is why Kim Jong un said to himself "Oh God get me to that table before this unpredictable President destroys me and my regime! Progressives get some of the credit for convincing Kim Jong un of that danger. You do recall HRC saying "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." Yup, she posted that everywhere. Thanks Hillary
Lol, of course, you are comparing the long stretch of negotiations Clinton had with a different Kim to day one of Trump's negotiations. Talk about a false analogy.
Could you give us some info on that claim, a link perhaps?
I find it amazing that some people seem to have a complete lack of historical knowledge as to how long it takes for international and national negotiations to be effectively reached.
I suspect they know better.
I agree. It's sad that they allow partisan politics to cloud their comments.
Yup, and they don't seem to be concerned about how obvious it is
Something to think about, in the military there is an oath that must be taken when you join, in that oath there is a phrase, "to protect the Constitution against all enemy's, foreign and, DOMESTIC," that would include a president who try's to use nuclear weapons against an enemy or, a country without authorization from Congress or, without that country firing first. The military has the right and, the responsibility to refuse any order it feels isn't lawful as well and, such an order would not be lawful.
I refer you to:
Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.
I refer you to the oath of the military.
And who decides an order to be unlawful?
Remember the last person to do that? That would be the radical Sally Yates - and she was 100% wrong
I suggest you learn about the Nuremberg trials.
Would he lie?
Of course not-- Kim Jun Un is a man of extraordinary high moral principles!
(I wish more world leaders would follow his sterling example!!!)
Sally Yates wasn't in the military.
So, the victors decide? Got it.
Of course, but so far (about 6 months now) he hasn't. He has lived up to everything in his dealings with this President. We shall see how it goes. It will be a long process
Don't know what that means? She served in the DOJ and had a duty to follow a legal order from the President. She refused on ideological grounds.
That is what you want the military to do.
Actually it is far worse. These haters want to remove a duly elected President from office at all costs.
Some times "legal" orders can be wrong, some times it is more important to take a moral stand, in the case of the military that is even more important to do.
The main message in this context is that "I was just following orders" is no excuse for committing war crimes. That's why our military recognizes that each soldier has an obligation to disobey an unlawful order.
Sorry but the AG's oath is to the constitution not the president. Her obligation is to give her independent professional assessment of a law, not to follow the whims of a moron. And so far it looks like Yate's assessment was correct, that what Trump was trying to do was unconstitutional.
Trump cancels ONE joint exercise with South Korea, and suddenly we have NO presence in Southeast Asia? Is that what you are saying?
And, her interpretation was actually an opinion that had no basis except for rhetoric that was not even part of the ban's text. She did not objectively look at the ban, and therefore gave a biased opinion. Remember, this was a temporary ban on travel and legal immigration from seven countries that either sponsored terrorism, were in the middle of being overrun by terrorists, or were in the middle of violent civil wars. Her duty was to the American people and to their protection. What she did was politically based and did not even consider the facts of the matter when she refused to defend it in court. That was a violation to her oath of office.
You mean in your biased opinion, right?
FYI, the majority of courts have agreed with Yates' assessment that the ban is unconstitutional, and also concluded that the Trump campaign's stated intent for the ban should be considered when evaluating the constitutionality of this foolish policy. Given how many times the Trump regime has revised and rewritten that ban it seems even they realize they effed up.
And, those courts have cited Trump's rhetoric as the reason why they did not approve the temporary ban. They did not look at the number of majority Muslim countries, of which there are around 50, and compare that to the number of countries on the list (7) and what the situation was regarding those countries. If they had, they would have realized it wasn't a Muslim-ban.
Actually they did and they found that Trump's travel ban wasn't rational. That's why the DOJ has repeatedly rewritten it.
The reasons she gave in her letter referred to matters beyond the scope of the attorney general. She criticized the order on policy grounds and said that it was not “right.”
She also referred to its possibly being unconstitutional and unlawful. Had she stuck to the latter two criteria she would have been on more solid ground, although perhaps wrong on the merits. But by interjecting issues of policy and directing the Justice Department not to defend any aspect of the order, she overstepped her bounds.
An attorney general, like any citizen, has the right to disagree with a presidential order, but unless it is clear that the order is unlawful, she has no authority to order the Justice Department to refuse to enforce it. This order is multifaceted and complex. It raises serious constitutional and legal issues that deserved nuanced and calibrated consideration from the nation’s highest law officer.
that what Trump was trying to do was unconstitutional.
There are significant differences between the constitutional status of green card holders on the one hand, and potential visitors from another country who are seeking visas. Moreover, there are statutory issues in addition to constitutional ones. A blanket order to refuse to defend any part of the statute is overkill. If she strongly disagreed with the policies underlying the order, she should have resigned in protest, and left it to others within the Justice Department to defend those parts of the order that are legally defensible.
I think with only one exception the courts so far have agreed with Yates. Bummer for your side, eh?
Not when the one exception was the SCOTUS.
LOL.......SCOTUS hasn't yet ruled on the issue but the Masterpiece ruling doesn't bode well for your side.
Yeah, only one, sure.
Your article doesn't say that any war games were actually cancelled. In fact, it says the opposite. It says the military in South Korea never got any orders to cancel the war games.
We can now add to his resume the fact that he nominated Donald Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Christian Tybring-Gjedde (born 8 August 1963) is a Norwegian far-right politician , [1] anti-immigration activist, Islamophobe [2] and climate change denier . He currently represents the anti-immigrant [3] party Fremskrittspartiet —the party of which Anders Behring Breivik was a high-ranking youth leader—as a member of the Norwegian parliament, and is arguably its most extreme MP. [4] His extreme views have put him on a collision course with somewhat more moderate factions even within his own far right party. [5]
Climate change denier [ edit ]
On climate change , Tybring-Gjedde has said: "I don't believe in the climate hysteria." [6]
Anti-immigration activist and Islamophobe [ edit ]
Christian Tybring-Gjedde is noted for his activism against immigration , and specifically against the immigration of Muslims to Norway. He has claimed that he "doesn’t have the conscience" to be quiet about his conspiracy theory that Norway is a victim of "sneaking Islamization," a claim he has made repeatedly. [7] He has further claimed that immigrants "are threatening Norwegian culture." [5]
In a 2010 op-ed, he wrote "we don't believe in multiculture " and claimed that immigration of non-ethnic Norwegians was "idiocy in the long term, and we think it might tear our country apart," echoing Anders Behring Breivik 's later manifesto. [8]
References [ edit ]
Who would give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who is either this deceitful or this stupid
-
Trump Claims Parents Of Korean War Veterans Asked Him To Bring Their Sons’ Remains Home
“One of the things that really, I’m happy, is that the soldiers that died in Korea, their remains are gonna be coming back home. And we have thousands of people that have asked for that. Thousands and thousands of people. So many people when I was on the campaign – I’d say, ‘Wait a minute, I don’t have any relationship’ – but they said, ‘When you can, we’d love our son to be brought back home.’ You know, the remains.” – Donald Trump, speaking with Fox News this afternoon.
Perhaps obviously, such “parents” – if they actually existed, would be in their early 100s. At least.
You can tell by this that Trump has never opened a history book in his life.
I love that. Trump gets trolled by a North Korean military official. Can you imagine what Trump would have said if Obama had made that move?
Trump is being crushed by the weight of the world?
Obama got it for doing nothing and now Trump is nominated for doing nothing? Lol, good thing I never considered it a real award to begin with. The Nobel for the sciences is all that matters in my book.