Politicians like to be recognized as "great" and a the Nobel Peace Prize does appeal to many. Trump's desire is a good example. If you avoid controversial figures, you avoid using the prize as a motivator exactly where you need it.
For example, Begin/Sadaat and Arafat/Rabin. The first peace worked out. The second one didn't. But, all four of these people led a pretty violent life as militaristic and nationalistic leaders. They're all extremely controversial in the middle east, and in their own countries.
I definitely don't think avoiding divisive political figures is a good. thing. That said, I don't think he's earned one.
When did obama say anything devisive? When did he actively intended to enflame tense situation? When did he say anything outright disrespectful to his opposition ?
Obama may not have been perfect but he was always respectful, always kept his cool.
Comparing Trump's hateful rhetoric of his opposition to
How obama conducted himself is a bad joke.
One thing a lot of people don't realise is that Trump is the first president in a long time that hasn't invaded a country. Sure he's authorised bombings, which president hasn't?
But I can't remember the last time a president didn't put troops somewhere. Ironically he's getting a lot of hate for pulling out of Syria/Germany.
Try listening to his addresses and speeches over the last couple years, and look at the policies he's implemented. Look at all the dishonest coverage, and yes his blunt way of talking doesn't help, but it's still hard not to conclude that the media is the primary source of him being considered divisive.
I've seen a bunch of his speeches and many if not most of his speeches made my blood boil and I don't even live in the US, I don't read/watch much US media and my local news though allegedly left leaning only reports factual news on him and US politics in general.
Can you give an example of him being respectful or understanding of democrat policy or politicians?
The only way the media is making Trump look divisive is by reporting his words.
He has called fascists good people. He has called Mexican immigrants rapists. He has called other countries shitholes. He has recognized the illegal move by Israel to have Jerusalem as their capital (one of the only countries in the world to do so!). He refuses to endorse BLM, one of the largest popular movements in decades, and has sent armed forces to crash peaceful protests. He has escalated deportations even more. He has continued and increased Obama's assassination programs in the middle east, even assassinating a high foreign dignitary on another country's soil. He has repeatedly downplayed and refused to manage the greatest medical and economic emergency in almost 100 years, with consequences that will be visible for the next 20 years.
Maybe the fascists one is a little ambiguous. I believe that he meant exactly what I said, but I admit that other rational people can believe otherwise.
But for the second one he has stated 'When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.' I don't know how you can read this other than as a statement that most Mexican immigrants are drug delaers/users, criminals or rapists.
Not a Trump fan but by "...rapists. And some, I assume, are good people" he no doubt meant some were rapist not all, which is factually correct. Trump says so much bad stuff that twisting his words only really weakens the opposition case.
That expression clearly implies that MOST immigrants are drug dealers, criminals, or rapists - and that he can only assume that a few of them must also be good people (he can't know for sure that any are, though, he can only assume it - implying he has only seen the drug dealers, criminals, and rapists).
Politicians like to be recognized as "great" and a the Nobel Peace Prize does appeal to many. Trump's desire is a good example. If you avoid controversial figures, you avoid using the prize as a motivator exactly where you need it.
For example, Begin/Sadaat and Arafat/Rabin. The first peace worked out. The second one didn't. But, all four of these people led a pretty violent life as militaristic and nationalistic leaders. They're all extremely controversial in the middle east, and in their own countries.
I definitely don't think avoiding divisive political figures is a good. thing. That said, I don't think he's earned one.