Too far north?
Trump says he doesn’t know what Norway has to do with the Nobel Peace Prize.
Does he know what Sweden has to do with it?
Does he know what Nobel had to do with it?
Does he know anything?
Editing to add: Not to mention the complete absurdity of thinking that possession of the physical object=winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Of thinking it means anything.
If she does hand it over to him, Trump put it in Oval Office, though it might be hard to spot amidst the encrustations of gilded schmutz. Fifa will be bummed, having their ersatz Peace Prize upstaged by an example of the real thing, even if it is one that has been “collected” through extortion.
Trump seems to have a thing about trophies and awards:
He is such a baby! Geez. Demandy baby wants Machado to bring and give him her Nobel prize; he’s obsessed about prizes. Talk about stolen valor . . . .
He is confused of course, no news there. But for once I think maybe I understand the source of his confusion: Yes, the Peace Prize committee is based in Norway. And, in accordance with Alfred Nobel’s will, the committee is appointed by the Norwegian parliament. However, once elected, the committee is completely independent, and neither parliament nor any other branch of the Norwegian government can interfere with their decisions in any way. So in that sense, Norway “has nothing to do with it”. And our prime minister has been trying to explain that to the orange one, apparently with some, but very limited success.
A different issue is whether parliament should look outside our borders to find good candidates for being on the committee. I think that would be allowed, and it might help the committee to make better decisions.
I have absolutely no idea if they could have, or should have, guessed how the most recent prize would play out.
Forgot to add: Despite the nominal independence of the committee, their decisions can have quite severe consequences for Norway. After the 2010 prize to Liu Xiaobo, relations with China were chilly, to put it mildly. More like deep freeze, or being dipped in liquid nitrogen. That had real economic consequences, too.
I very much wish the answer were nothing.
At least we know what Machado is going to do if she ever gets into power (let’s hope not), i.e. refuse to accept the result of elections unless she wins, incite violent insurrections, weaponize the legal system to seek revenge on her personal enemies, send paramilitary forces into civilian neighborhoods to terrorize people, send them to foreign gulags, or execute them without a trial, blow up people in mid ocean without any hint of due process, use the presidency to funnel money into her private businesses and those of her cronies etc. etc. By sucking up to Trump in such a disgraceful way she has said a resounding yes to all the above.
Nice liberals and lefties keep making the mistake of thinking that being against one particular tyrannical regime implies being against tyranny in general, and that whoever doesn’t want to suffer oppression themselves cannot want anybody else to suffer oppression either, when, in fact, revolutionary movements are often just seeking to substitute one dictatorship for another. If Machado had anything but contempt for peace, democracy, human rights, or the rule of law, she couldn’t possibly have found anything praiseworthy about Trump. There is no such thing as being pro peace, democracy, human rights, or the rule of law and pro Trump at the same time.
Nobel invented dynamite. Trump wants the Nobel prize. So it fits. Sort of.