Yes
No
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Well, insofar as President Obama himself at the time said that he did not really deserve the Nobel prize, it would seem counterintuitive. Suffice to say, it seems to have been awarded more as an honorific rather than based on anything Mr. Obama had accomplished.
Therefore, no, Mr. Obama did not, at the time he won it, deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Moreover, there was nothing really in his fairly unremarkable presidency that followed, that stands out sufficiently to merit the honor.
By the time Mr. Obama left office, things were about where they had been. The economy was better, but below historic norms. (Mr. Obama famously said that Americans should get used to 2% growth. By the end of Mr. Trump's first year - and I was no fan of Mr. Trump, I merely report the statistic - growth hit 3.1%.)
As to foreign policy, things were about where they had been. Maybe not worse, but certainly not significantly better. Hardly meriting a peace prize.
Overall, the Obama presidency was nothing to rave about. For all the talk of his historic election as the nation's first African-American chief executive, what followed was pretty conventional and nothing remarkable. Thus awarding Mr. Obama the peace prize, at best, had the effect of lowering the standard for the prize.
fuck no!
the NPP has become nothing but horseshit over the years, this fucktard didn't deserve shit.
1- he was the one who created and funded ISIS thus making the Middle East more hell then what it was
2 - Ironically everyone hated Trump for wanting to build a wall yet the Obama administration was the administration that deported more immigrants in US history, but nobody bat an eye.
3 - Unlike the media claimed, he did not help out Blacks and other minorities; which last time I checked it was us who helped him become president
Opinion
29Opinion
Yeah! What's more peaceful than drone striking a bunch of children in the Middle East and helping to divide half the country against each other? Why shouldn't he get the Nobel PEACE prize for war causalities and instigating political divisiveness in America?
(Option B.)
No more than Henry Kissinger, I'll wager. The thing is that politics is complicated, and it's often hard to tell whether a decision will make things better or worse in the long term- but the Nobel committee can only go by what was done in the past year.
Yes , he singlehandedly solved all the worlds problems, cured Cancer, balanced the budget and brought everlasting peace to his grateful nation.
I’m fine with heads of state winning Nobel Peace Prizes if they actually brought about a treaty or such that brought about a long-term solution to a conflict, pushed forward efforts to e. g. prevent sexual assault and things like that. For example, Willy Brandt, Sadat & Begin, Gorbachev. But Obama didn’t, he basically won it because he is not Bush, and that’s not a valid reason.
It was pure affirmative action. HIs main accomplishment was being 25% black. Deaths in wars all around the world were higher under his Presidency than any other since the Vietnam era. Numerous terrorist organizations and aggressive countries that stomp on human rights flourished during his reign of weakness. America Last.
I wish I could find it again but there's an illustration somewhere on the internet that says "Obama has killed more children than any other Nobel peace prize winner" which references the numerous children he has killed in over-seas drone strikes.
Np lol
He did keep the peace with Russia by practicing appeasement, that was after he had won it already.
He should not of got it because he didn't do anything at the time.
Like so many other things nowadays, the Nobel Prize had been kidnapped for ''political'' purposes.
Who cares - it's now a game for ''insiders'' to make them feel more important.
Of course not, but the Nobel Peace Prize is a political matter, and not usually do to any actual accomplishment.
Personally, I don't think ANY heads of nations or people in government should be eligible for that prize. That's why it becomes political. I'd rather see it go to private citizens only.
Of course not. But then again, they gave it to Yassir Arafat (a fucking terrorist) and not to Ronald Regan (the dude who ended the Cold War). So you've got a pretty good idea of how "legit" it is.
So what exactly was it that he did to warrant winning this?
@MCheetah he was half black
@888theGreat racist much?
@888theGreat That is true, but does it matter?
@AllThatSweetJazz Apparently it does not.
What is apparent is that it does. Even he admitted he didn't do anything to deserve it. It was just the media being obsessed with the idea of a black president, and that's obviously the only reason he got the award.
He didn't do a fucking thing to deserve it!!
I've done WAY more than him!! Where's mine?
The obvious answer is no, of course not; it was a clear political prize, and if he had any integrity, he would've turned it down.
He got it less than 2 weeks in office , so what did he do?
Of course not, at the time he won it he'd been President for less than a year.
This should be obvious how it was a joke from the start.
It was given to him simply because he became the first "black" US president, so no.
Nobel Prizes are just a circle jerk. They don't mean anything.
Obama was nominated for winning an election.
He was nominated before he took office.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions