[nevi-me]

You assume that we're dealing with a rational person who has all their senses intact.

The deal would likely take months for the world to see if it's successful. He can get nominated next year if he keeps his own house peaceful too, else he should forget about a rational nomination + award of the Prize.

[philipallstar]

You're not dealing with anyone. There's a chap in the white house you don't like, and you want to have a pre-emptive go at him. Either he doesn't say anything, in which case you forget you said this. Or he is upset, in which case you feel justified in this. Or he's happy for the winner, in which case you feel like if he mentions it at all he must be upset.

If there's no way for you to change your stance based on any outcome, then it's pointless to say.

[greggoB]

I like how in turn you're having a preemptive go at this person.

Also: the day Trump shows genuine selfless happiness for another's accomplishments, there won't be enough boots for me to eat.

[philipallstar]

I am actually dealing with a person though, and have set out a falsifiable case.

> Also: the day Trump shows genuine selfless happiness for another's accomplishments, there won't be enough boots for me to eat.

Same, but it's also true for anyone else.

[greggoB]

> I am actually dealing with a person though, and have set out a falsifiable case.

As have they? We have many tests for determining whether or not a given person's senses are or not intact.

> Same, but it's also true for anyone else.

Note I said show. If you happen to live in a world where you feel you've been devoid of such empathy then I feel for you, but such an environment of narcissism is hardly representative.