Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
knapplc

Trump and the Nobel Prize

Recommended Posts

Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize. He's lobbying for it:

 

 

And Trump's bedfellows (not the ones from the Russian hotel) are chiming in.  Boris Johnson of Great Britain has offered his opinion, as has the South Korean president:

 

Quote

 

Another top official says Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize (unless he messes things up)

 

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has become the latest foreign politician to advocate for a Nobel Peace Prize for President Trump — unless he makes a mess out of things.

 

“If he can fix North Korea and if he can fix the Iran nuclear deal, then I don’t see why he’s any less of a candidate for a Nobel Peace Prize than Barack Obama, who got it before he even did anything,” Johnson told Sky News on Monday.

 

It’s the second time within two weeks that a leading foreign politician has mentioned the possibility of a Nobel Peace Prize for Trump. At the end of April, South Korea’s president, Moon Jae-in, rejected suggestions that he should win the prestigious award himself for his negotiations with Pyongyang, instead crediting Trump. “President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize. The only thing we need is peace,” Moon said. Trump’s nomination for the prize by a dozen and a half House Republicans last week may have come less as a surprise, but why are foreign officials of nations, many of them wary of Trump, suddenly so full of praise?

 

 

He's even been nominated for it. Twice.  But they were fake.

 

Quote

 

The mystery of Trump’s fake Nobel Peace Prize nomination

 

If things go well on the North Korea front, some have suggested that President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize — for his push for talks with Kim Jong Un. Whatever happens, however, Trump will not win in 2018: Submissions for the prize had to be sent in by Jan. 31, some time before a potential summit with the North Korean leader had been announced.

 

PRIO said the nomination had been confirmed by a "U.S. nominator." The language used to describe the nomination was the same as that used the year prior, when Trump was also nominated, according to PRIO.

 

But details soon emerged that suggested all was not as it seemed. The next month, Njolstad told AFP that "we have good reason to believe that a nomination we received concerning Trump has been falsified." Njolstad later told the New York Times that the nomination the prior year appeared to have been faked, too, and that the discovery had been confirmed after the alleged nominator said he or she had not nominated the U.S. president.

 

Norwegian police had been in contact with the FBI since fall 2017, the Times reported, suggesting that there was suspicion the fraud had originated in the United States. However, this week, Norwegian police suggested that although the nomination was "openly fraudulent," a lack of progress in the investigation meant the case was closed.

 

"We haven't been able to find the [real] identity" of the person, Oslo police's Tone Bysting told AFP.

 

 

So Trump isn't eligible for the 2018 Peace Prize (something I'm sure we'll hear griping about from the loyalists when the winner is announced).

 

But he is eligible for 2019. And if things go well with North Korea and/or Iran, he could be up for consideration.

 

Quote

 

House Republicans nominate Trump for Nobel Peace Prize

A group of President Donald Trump's most ardent supporters in the House of Representatives have sent a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, formally nominating the President for a Nobel Peace Prize.

The nomination was spearheaded by Indiana's Rep. Luke Messer, who is locked in a fierce GOP primary battle in the Hoosier State for a Senate seat.

 

In the letter, Messer and his Republican colleagues endorse Trump's nomination by arguing that he deserves the award because of his work to end the Korean War and bring peace to the peninsula.
 
"Since taking office, President Trump has worked tirelessly to apply maximum pressure on North Korea to end its illicit weapons program and bring peace to the region," the letter reads.
 
Joining Messer in the letter are conservative members like Freedom Caucus leader Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina and Rep. Steve King of Iowa. Six of the signatories are seeking higher office, including Rep. Marsha Blackburn, the presumptive Republican nominee for Senate in Tennessee; Rep. Diane Black, who is running for governor in Tennessee; Rep. Evan Jenkins, who is part of a three-way primary for Senate in West Virginia; Rep. Jim Renacci, who's running for governor of Ohio; and Rep. Kevin Cramer, who is attempting to unseat Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota.

 

 
We'll have to keep an eye on this as the situations in Iran and North Korea develop.  We're as likely to start shooting in Iran as we are to have peace, so that may not help his bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to include this little nugget.  Not exactly an endorsement for the resume, but...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just logged onto this link to aay I threw up a little in my mouth when I saw the title of this thread.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Forgot to include this little nugget.  Not exactly an endorsement for the resume, but...

 

 


Not saying this is wrong, but when people post statistical data like this I really doubt they have concrete numbers, especially in middle eastern countries 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still chuckle at the terminology involved. "Push" for talks. Trump is just such a supremely lazy individual. In this context, "push" likely means sitting around complaining a lot about Kim Jong Un and how much Obama sucks and why no other president fixed North Korea and how he was the only one who could do it. And, of course, ripping off a lot of tweets about the situation, including some pretty embarrassing ones.

 

I'm of the mind NoKo is coming around because A) they have to and B) it's the rational thing to do. They've convinced people they have nuclear capabilities but their test site also collapsed. This is the strongest negotiation position Kim has ever had.

 

But whatever. Obama got one for similarly little work, and now Republicans want Trump to get one. Who cares. Knock yourself out.

 

The backdrop of one of the most angry, hateful politicians in my lifetimes, likely since McCarthy, winning a Nobel Peace prize, would be something, though, wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:


Not saying this is wrong, but when people post statistical data like this I really doubt they have concrete numbers, especially in middle eastern countries 

While that may true to an extent, its hard to argue the data given the timeline and the change in rhetoric coming out of America over that time period. Trump pushing for a Muslim ban certainly doesn't make the US look like an ally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

Obama got one for similarly little work

 

I think the Obama Nobel Prize will forever be the benchmark of stupid Nobel prizes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:


Not saying this is wrong, but when people post statistical data like this I really doubt they have concrete numbers, especially in middle eastern countries 

 

From the article:

 

About the survey: 3,500 18-24 years olds from 16 countries were surveyed, with an even split of men and women. Countries included are grouped into the GCC (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE), North Africa (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia), and the Levant + Other (Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, Palestinian Territories).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:


Not saying this is wrong, but when people post statistical data like this I really doubt they have concrete numbers, especially in middle eastern countries 

No different then market research done in America. The firm that conducted the research is based out of Dubai, so I would guess they know what they are doing to have information to sell to companies. Given that it was only 3,500 people over 16 countries I would be weary of the margin of error, but that still is an impressive slide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

From the article:

 

About the survey: 3,500 18-24 years olds from 16 countries were surveyed, with an even split of men and women. Countries included are grouped into the GCC (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE), North Africa (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia), and the Levant + Other (Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, Palestinian Territories).

 

 

 


There are almost 100 million people living in Egypt alone. 3,500 people is a tiny tiny sample size. I get that Trump isn't helping his cause and my post wasn't directed towards him, just at stats in general when posted on social media. 

 

"Nebraskans prefer apple juice over chocolate milk" new study suggests. Surveyed 200 people in Omaha, NE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BIG ERN said:


There are almost 100 million people living in Egypt alone. 3,500 people is a tiny tiny sample size. I get that Trump isn't helping his cause and my post wasn't directed towards him, just at stats in general when posted on social media. 

 

"Nebraskans prefer apple juice over chocolate milk" new study suggests. Surveyed 200 people in Omaha, NE. 

 

Apparently there's science and math and stuff behind why this works.


 

Quote

 

How can a poll of only 1,004 Americans represent 260 million people with only a 3 percent margin of error?

 

A "3 percent margin of error" means that there is a 95 percent chance that the survey result will be within 3 percent of the population value. To put it another way, you would expect to see a less than 3 percent difference between the proportion of people who say "yes" to the survey question and the proportion of people in the population who would say "yes" if asked.

 

How is it that a survey of only 1,000 people can reach this level of accuracy? You must first assume that the survey respondents have been sampled at random from the population, meaning that people are selected one at a time, with all persons in the U.S. being equally likely to be picked at each point. For most polls, this is approximated by calling phone numbers generated randomly by computer.

 

The margin of error depends inversely on the square root of the sample size. That is, a sample of 250 will give you a 6 percent margin of error and a sample size of 100 will give you a 10 percent margin of error. A 10 percent margin of error is not so useful. It would give you vague claims such as, "The proportion of Americans who support the death penalty is somewhere between 60 percent and 80 percent." Pollsters thus spend the money to get a reasonably large sample. In the other direction, by surveying 4,000 people, you can get the margin of error down to 1.5 percent. This sounds appealingly precise (for example, "The proportion is between 68.5 percent and 71.5 percent"), but it is generally a waste of time because public opinion varies enough from day to day that it is meaningless to attempt too precise an estimate. Indeed, to do so would be like getting on a scale in the morning and measuring your weight as 173.26 pounds.

 

The margin of error is a mathematical abstraction, and there are a number of reasons why actual errors in surveys are larger. Even with random sampling, people in the population have unequal probabilities of inclusion in the survey. For instance, if you don't have a telephone, you won't be in the survey, but if you have two phone lines, you have two chances to be included. In addition, women, whites, older people and college-educated people are more likely to participate in surveys. Polling organizations correct for these nonresponse biases by adjusting the sample to match the population, but such adjustments can never be perfect because they only correct for known biases. For example, "surly people" are less likely to respond to a survey, but we don't know how many surly people are in the population or how this would bias polling results.

 

Finally, the 3 percent margin of error is an understatement because opinions change. On January 3, 2004, the Gallup poll included 410 Democrats, 26 percent of whom supported Howard Dean for president. The margin of error was 5 percent, and so we can be pretty sure that on that date, between 21 percent and 31 percent of Democrats supported Dean. But a lot of them have changed their minds. A poll is a snapshot, not a forecast.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he doesnt win you know its because the whole Nobel thing is rigged! Crooked peace prize. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FrankWheeler said:

Bring in the resident statistician!  @Moiraine!!!

 

 

The explanation knapp quoted is good but this part is vital:

 

Quote

You must first assume that the survey respondents have been sampled at random from the population

 

IF the sample is random there's no question the margin of error is correct. It's extremely simple to test this with simulations and it's been done.

 

That said... there are different types of confidence intervals and I don't know what kind they used. The normal one that everyone uses (Wald) can be bad for low or high proportions. By "bad" I mean the stated confidence level might be 95% but the true confidence level is 80%.

 

In this case we're talking 57% vs 32%. That's going to be a significant difference by most definitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

“What my friends didn’t see when they were rooting for the Iran deal,” he recently told me solemnly, “was that there’s a segment of the American political establishment that can never forgive us for kicking the United States out of Iran during the revolution in 1979. I mean, the United States was the shah’s biggest ally, and then we came to power and told them they couldn’t dictate how we governed anymore. And once we took their embassy and held their people hostage in 1980, that was a slap in their face. They can never forgive us for that. They want to see us broken at our knees, in complete surrender.”
 

“It doesn’t matter if there are people in both of our countries who want to turn a new page,” he continued. “The Obamas and Rouhanis of our countries are just one segment of the political establishment.”
 

The feelings of frustration, anger, and betrayal were palpable in every conversation I had with my research interlocutors the past few weeks, as the fate of the Iran deal hung in the air. But the word that kept coming up over and over again was “naive.”
 

“Iran had abided by this deal, and not only does America want to go back on its word, but it also seeks to spread lies about our activities” Hasan told me, angry at the narrative now coming out of the United States and Israel. “Look, I make movies for a living, and what the United States and Israel are doing today is a carbon copy of the screenplay they used to sell the invasion of Iraq in 2002. We were naive to think the Americans would stick to their promises in this deal, but are the American people and the rest of the world really that naive to fall for the same lies again?”
 

No matter what policy Trump settles on going forward, the men I talked with all said they want Iran to continue working with Europe. “But we won’t be this naive again, not when it comes to America,” Mehdi, a high-ranking member of the IRGC, said. “The old clerics at the top of our government, most of whom have never trusted the United States since taking power, are probably having a good laugh at us right now.”

 

Iran is not going to be willing to come to the table for any of our demands now. They are more than happy to keep working closely with Europe, because Europe weren't the ones to poke them in the eye. But given what we've done & who's got seats at the table, military interventionism is all but assured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am starting to think that Trump and the horde of  trumpettes were counting their chickens before they hatched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, commando said:

i am starting to think that Trump and the horde of  trumpettes were counting their chickens before they hatched

 

Kind of reminds me of Kirk Herbstreit calling the 2005 USC team the 2nd-best team ever (behind 2001 Miami) a few days before they ended up losing to Texas in the BCS Championship Game. A totally different facet of life, but it probably riled up about the same number of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2018 at 9:36 AM, knapplc said:

 

I think the Obama Nobel Prize will forever be the benchmark of stupid Nobel prizes. 

 

If you look closely at Obama's aggressive use of drone warfare, it's fairly chilling and morally compromised. 

 

I guess that's why people don't look at it too closely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the nobel prize is probably a pipe dream at this point....but the dumbbell award might be within reach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2018 at 11:30 AM, BIG ERN said:


There are almost 100 million people living in Egypt alone. 3,500 people is a tiny tiny sample size. I get that Trump isn't helping his cause and my post wasn't directed towards him, just at stats in general when posted on social media. 

 

"Nebraskans prefer apple juice over chocolate milk" new study suggests. Surveyed 200 people in Omaha, NE. 

 

I get what you're saying about how surveys and stats can be bent to prop up whatever narrative the survey is pushing.  But, anti-US sentiment in the Middle East has been strong for a long time.  So yeah, while the sample size is small, I think it is pretty reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×