this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
79 points (98.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8258 readers
262 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The wild thing is, the headline is objectively correct. (But really, no US president ever deserves a NPP.)
Just look at the other NPP presidential recipients:
Barack Obama had a kill list, a gulag at Gitmo, and was dropping bombs on seven different countries during his presidency. Jimmy Carter's hands were blood-soaked, especially in Southeast Asia. Woodrow Wilson got us roped into WWI, where millions died over a literal few meters of terrain. Teddy Roosevelt got us roped into the Spanish-American War and whined that the US didn't involve itself in WWI early enough.
Whether you like him or not, Donald got us out of Syria and Afghanistan, and while definitely doing so for the wrong reasons, he's done more to try and resolve the genocide in Palestine than anyone since Clinton.
"resolve the genocide in Palestine". Are you talking about his plan to mass deport Palestinians and build resorts on their land? Kind of like answering the "Jewish Question" was for the Nazis.
Yeah I'm all for pointing out how ludicrous it was to give Obama a Peace prize. But it's ludicrous to somehow pretend the guy currently actively inflaming genocide, aiding a foreign country firing missiles completely unprovoked at another foreign country, and sending residents to concentration camps without even the pretense of due process is somehow more deserving.
Just wait until we crack open an American history book for you, friend.
It's going to be illuminating.
The point here isn't that Donald is a good, virtuous leader. It's that US foreign policy and every former president have set the bar so low for peace that Donald can do all this shit and he's still better-qualified for an NPP by virtue of the fact that he actively ended several wars during his first term.