Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is….
-
So 0, as far as you know. Got it. Thanks.
-
~~So how well did the UN’s approach of calling Putin a War Criminal and a monster in countless proclamations work in getting Putin to the table? ~~
So your answer is 0 holiday, but you reserve the right to still use it as a pointless argument because it might someday win you points. Got it.
The Brad
-
~~So how well did the UN’s approach of calling Putin a War Criminal and a monster in countless proclamations work in getting Putin to the table? ~~
So your answer is 0 holiday, but you reserve the right to still use it as a pointless argument because it might someday win you points. Got it.
@LuFins-Dad said in Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is….:
~~So how well did the UN’s approach of calling Putin a War Criminal and a monster in countless proclamations work in getting Putin to the table? ~~
So your answer is 0 holiday, but you reserve the right to still use it as a pointless argument because it might someday win you points. Got it.
Tuning into these rhetorical frequencies is a long and unpleasant process.
-
~~So how well did the UN’s approach of calling Putin a War Criminal and a monster in countless proclamations work in getting Putin to the table? ~~
So your answer is 0 holiday, but you reserve the right to still use it as a pointless argument because it might someday win you points. Got it.
@LuFins-Dad said in Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is….:
So your answer is 0 holiday, but you reserve the right to still use it as a pointless argument because it might someday win you points. Got it.
I don’t even understand this sentence so pick your mic back up.
One imagines that violating international law by bombing commercial boats and threatening historic allies over their territory would be on the negative side of the ledger as well. Not even mentioning his effective declaration of war on various American cities.
If you don't take it, it can only good happen.
-
If nothing else I'm sure we can all agree that Trump is the moral victor in the fight for the Peace Prize.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is….:
So your answer is 0 holiday, but you reserve the right to still use it as a pointless argument because it might someday win you points. Got it.
I don’t even understand this sentence so pick your mic back up.
One imagines that violating international law by bombing commercial boats and threatening historic allies over their territory would be on the negative side of the ledger as well. Not even mentioning his effective declaration of war on various American cities.
@jon-nyc said in Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is….:
@LuFins-Dad said in Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is….:
So your answer is 0 holiday, but you reserve the right to still use it as a pointless argument because it might someday win you points. Got it.
I don’t even understand this sentence so pick your mic back up.
It might have some vague connection to this sort of progression. On one day, be the sort of person who writes a thoughtful critique of why appropriating dramatic words is rhetorically cheating, and bad for discourse in general:
https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/349345
Honestly it’s like calling a glance at a black woman’s hair ‘white supremacy’.
You take a word with a well understood and emotionally charged meaning and apply it to something very different with the hopes of getting some of the stink of the word on the new thing.
Of course it also cheapens the word if you’re successful.
Then on the next day, maybe say that Trump is "effectively declaring war on American cities".
-
Well he’s declaring them to be in a state of war, whatever that means, on the theory that that allows him to send troops in to offer violence to his political enemies.
Thats a lot more words but still falls on the opposite side of the Nobel laureate ledger.
-
Well he’s declaring them to be in a state of war, whatever that means, on the theory that that allows him to send troops in to offer violence to his political enemies.
Thats a lot more words but still falls on the opposite side of the Nobel laureate ledger.
@jon-nyc said in Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is….:
Well he’s declaring them to be in a state of war, whatever that means, on the theory that that allows him to send troops in to offer violence to his political enemies.
Thats a lot more words but still falls on the opposite side of the Nobel laureate ledger.
So in an economy of words, you sacrificed detail, in order to enhance communication. The dramatic word choice of "declare war on American cities" happens to be pretty damning to the politician you hate, but that was incidental. Your goal was simplified communication. Thank you for your explanation. I am now disabused of the notion that you often use bs rhetoric to support whatever point you're making that day, even though you're more than capable of arguing intelligently about why your bs rhetoric is bs.
Occam might think that you just have a point of view, and you don't really care about the quality of rhetoric you will employ to convince people of it. But Occam's problem is that you haven't explained everything to him.
-
I put the word ‘effectively’ in there lest someone thinks the Congress who’s afraid to be in session lest they pass a discharge petition on the Epstein files actually issued a declaration of war.
If you don't take it, it can only good happen.
-
I put the word ‘effectively’ in there lest someone thinks the Congress who’s afraid to be in session lest they pass a discharge petition on the Epstein files actually issued a declaration of war.
@jon-nyc said in Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is….:
I put the word ‘effectively’ in there lest someone thinks the Congress who’s afraid to be in session lest they pass a discharge petition on the Epstein files actually issued a declaration of war.
Sorry for straw manning you. It's difficult to keep up with the rhetorical honesty and economy of your words. One minor tweak, and the magic is lost.
-
@jon-nyc said in Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is….:
Yes adding ‘effectively’ does change the meaning of the sentence.
Indeed, and I'll relay that to Occam. But it's probably best if you do the talking. I can't imagine the magic words which will convince him, but I think you can.
-
~~So how well did the UN’s approach of calling Putin a War Criminal and a monster in countless proclamations work in getting Putin to the table? ~~
So your answer is 0 holiday, but you reserve the right to still use it as a pointless argument because it might someday win you points. Got it.
@LuFins-Dad said in Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is….:
~~So how well did the UN’s approach of calling Putin a War Criminal and a monster in countless proclamations work in getting Putin to the table?….
Got it.
That was not the point of the ICC indictment. Putin has never come to the table. The Alaska summit was a farce with tragic consequence.
Putin has no intention to negotiate anything less than the unconditional surrender of Ukraine. Get it?
-
The Trump nominations weren’t related to the newest Israel/Palestinian Peace Deal. They were based on ending the India/Pakistan conflict, The Congo and Rwanda Settlement, The Cambodia/Thailand Ceasefire, the Armenia/Azerbaijan settlement, and the earlier temporary ceasefire in Gaza.
So kindly let me know who has accomplished more this year, and that’s excluding the current peace plan in Gaza…
@LuFins-Dad said in Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is….:
The Trump nominations weren’t related to the newest Israel/Palestinian Peace Deal. They were based on ending the India/Pakistan conflict, The Congo and Rwanda Settlement, The Cambodia/Thailand Ceasefire, the Armenia/Azerbaijan settlement, and the earlier temporary ceasefire in Gaza.
So kindly let me know who has accomplished more this year, and that’s excluding the current peace plan in Gaza…
As I said in another thread
Has his foreign policy made the world a safer place?
MIddle East/Israel - I am not sure what has changed that will carry on for years.
India/Pakistan - India is moving much closer to China. Also, it can be an arguement that things with Pakistan and India did not really "flare up" until President Trump was in office. Nothing has really changed there. India and Pakistan have been "at odds" with various firing at each other for decades.
Ukraine/Russia - still waiting for that 24 hour time limit to start to bring peace there.
China relations/DPRK - relations with China continue to be downward, though that is actually a continuing from President Biden's time. I would say that DPRK is probably more powerful now than they were a year ago.
Thailand/Cambodia - I think that President Trump had something to do with the ceasefire, but the overall situation is really unchanged, other than the PM of Thailand has been removed and replaced.
Africa - dont know much about it Revisit in a year. (The biggest fighting group in Rwanda/Congo says that the agreement signed does not apply to them.)
-
Africa is getting peacefully quiet now that about a million folks have died due to the abrupt US AID withdrawal. Plus there is peaceful DC thanks to the machine guns and mine resistant vehicles.
You wonder if folks remember this is about promoting fraternity between nations and reduction of armies... The Sudanese ERR is really a remarkable story and model for the world, although I'd argue they are a bit more on the humanitarian side than the "promotion of peace" side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Response_Rooms
All of that being said, I could see it being Trump. Indeed the US has brokered a number of initial agreements between conflicting nations. While one could argue that the agreements were coerced from a heavy, threatening, tariff-loving, orange hand, it nonetheless has occurred and is a good argument for Trump being awarded the prize for peace, his "I'll end the Ukraine war in one day" epic failure and his "shoot priests with rubber bullets from the roof in Portland" notwithstanding, of course.
