reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- Speaker 0 apologized in 2016 for a promise about 1000 euros, stating that was a mistake and clarifying that it is not about Ukraine joining the European Union; they are against that as well. - On policy positions, Speaker 0 says: there should not be changes to mortgage interest deduction; they are not in favor of increasing the deductible; they are investing half a billion in the development of alternative energy, with a caveat about wind turbines, noting that those wind turbines operate on subsidies and “do not operate on wind.” - Speaker 1 recalls a statement from nine years ago about a street worker who works 40 years and can retire at 65, noting that nothing of that has been seen in recent years. Speaker 0 counters with “five years said, right?” to confirm the timeline. - Speaker 0 references a past claim about someone being under oath, saying that if it involved political motives, the law would be set aside. They remark not to recall a speech about “group immunity,” and state they have not heard such a speech. - The discussion moves to a person not being in service of the VVD; they state she does not work for the VVD, has no VVD parliamentary pass, and that Speaker 0 had lied about the matter being about Omtzigt. - Speaker 0 asserts that they did so to the best of their knowledge, admitting there was no memo that had been requested by the informant or informally requested; they did not have that memory and could not reconstruct what was discussed in 2015. They acknowledge uncertainty about what exactly was on the table in 2015 and admit they cannot precisely reconstruct those details. - They mention a second example and reference someone named Caroline, then question whether it is odd that officials would be aware of something and the other person would not be informed. They ask if this was four years ago, saying they would not know. They conclude by saying they have misremembered this in hindsight and express sincere regret.

"There's no concern at all." "Government subsidies were never meant to be a lifestyle." "Government subsidies were never meant to be a hammock. They're meant to be a trampoline." "I've met hundreds of people around our country." "She's 52 years old. She's been living there since 1953. Excuse me. She's 52 years old. She's been living there since 1973." "There's three generations living in government subsidies that are able-bodied, able-minded." "When you talk about time limits, time limits are kind of an encouragement." "we're gonna have workforce training around you." "We're gonna skill training around you to get out of government subsidies to live a life of self sustainability." "Poverty has no party." "This is not democrat. It's not republican." "Go research Bill Clinton's bill 1996 when they did real welfare reform." "You're too young." "but go research that."

Speaker 0 asks if increased electricity prices make a house more expensive, and Speaker 1 agrees it makes homeownership more expensive. Speaker 0 then asks if allowing 10-12 million foreign nationals into the country, all of whom need housing, increases the cost of homeownership. Speaker 1 says it's a distributional question and that they are there to talk about housing supply. Speaker 0 insists they are there to discuss homeownership costs and accuses Speaker 1 of being disingenuous for not admitting that increased demand raises costs. Speaker 1 reiterates that it's a distributional question.

The speaker believes a proposed $25,000 down payment for first-time homebuyers will never happen, comparing it to free college. They question where their own $25,000 is, arguing such a policy would inflate home prices. The speaker criticizes someone, likely a politician, for promising change after having had ample opportunity to enact it during a previous term. They question why action on border policy was delayed for three years and why previous policies were removed. The speaker suggests many Americans don't think for themselves and blindly believe news outlets like CNN, ABC, and MSNBC, urging people to do their own research.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 still wants to ban fracking. Speaker 1 says no, clarifying they stated in a 2020 debate they would not ban fracking as Vice President or President. Speaker 0 points out that in 2019, Speaker 1 said they were in favor of banning fracking. Speaker 1 responds that in 2020, they made their position clear, and they have not changed that position in 2024, nor will they going forward, and that they have kept their word.

The speakers debate whether the country is better off now than in 2018. Speaker 0 cites inflation, the immigration crisis, 8 million illegal border crossings, and crime as reasons the country is worse off. Speaker 2 attributes economic crises to the 2008 meltdown and the pandemic, claiming the country recovered better than other nations. Speaker 1 states that if you have money, things are worse. Speaker 1 also points out that Trump didn't build the wall. Speaker 0 says they can't really think that.

In the exchange, Speaker 0 recounts feedback from “real Chicagoans,” describing them as mostly Black and Brown, and claims they tell him that the other person does not seem to know the difference between illegal aliens and real Chicago citizens. He asserts that these individuals feel the other person is siding with illegal aliens over their communities. He then pivots to a direct line of questioning. The real question, as Speaker 0 presents it, concerns a violent incident: “An illegal alien from Nicaragua grabbed a woman on the North Side, bashed her head into the sidewalk, knocked her unconscious, and raped her.” He presses for a direct response about what would have happened “if that had been your wife, Stacy.” He stages the hypothetical to elicit a clear stance from Speaker 1 on how to respond to such a crime and its immigration context. Speaker 1, however, interrupts to steer the conversation away from the loaded scenario. He repeatedly signals a move on, indicating a preference not to engage with the hypothetical or to answer the pointed ethical dilemma on the spot. The back-and-forth centers on the tactic of addressing the question versus avoiding it, with Speaker 0 insisting on a straightforward answer “as a man, not as mayor, but as a man.” The exchange escalates as Speaker 0 urges Speaker 1 to provide a simple yes or no and to address the issue directly, effectively challenging Speaker 1 to commit to a position regarding ICE and deportation in light of the described crime. Speaker 1 responds by again stating to move on, resisting the direct yes/no framework. Throughout, Speaker 0 persists in pressing for a candid, personal response to the hypothetical crime and its immigration implications, while Speaker 1 maintains a boundary about continuing the discussion in that moment. Ultimately, Speaker 1 declines to answer the specific deportation question in the moment, and Speaker 0 reaffirms the demand for a direct personal answer. The segment ends with Speaker 1 thanking the audience and moving on, leaving the explicit yes-or-no question unresolved in this exchange.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 would serve in a cabinet under Geert Wilders. Speaker 1 responds that they don't see it happening because they believe the Netherlands needs a leader who can unite the country and lead internationally. Speaker 1 also doubts Wilders' ability to form a majority. Speaker 0 confirms that Speaker 1 will not join a cabinet under Wilders, to which Speaker 1 agrees, stating that the country deserves a leader for everyone. Speaker 1 believes Wilders' leadership would not be beneficial and emphasizes the need for a leader who can handle crises and promote economic growth. Speaker 1 also mentions that if Wilders were to win the elections, they would go into opposition.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about their populist strategy, which involves appealing to people's emotions and using strong ideological language. Speaker 1 denies talking about left or right and questions who would say they are like Donald Trump. Speaker 0 mentions that many Canadians might think so, but doesn't provide specific names. Speaker 1 asks for evidence and the conversation becomes unclear. Speaker 0 then asks why Canadians should trust Speaker 1 with their vote. Speaker 1 responds by promising to bring common sense to the country, criticizing the current government's handling of the economy, and pledging to cap spending, cut waste, balance the budget, and reduce inflation and interest rates. They claim to have the only common sense plan to improve people's buying power.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 2 of being anti-immigrant, based on information from the internet. Speaker 2 denies this and claims that black people do like them. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 2's presence in South London, to which Speaker 2 responds that they are there every day. Speaker 0 apologizes for being short and asks why everyone hates Speaker 2. Speaker 2 explains that it is unfair to accuse them of being anti-immigrant just because they want to control the number of people coming to Britain. Speaker 0 mentions being one of the numbers. Speaker 2 asks if there should be 5,000,000 or 10,000,000 people coming in each year. Speaker 0 interrupts, expressing surprise at being caught in a debate. Speaker 2 argues that the British population has increased by 10,000,000 since 2000, which has implications for access to healthcare. Speaker 0 suggests that Speaker 2 wants all the doctors to leave the UK. Speaker 2 clarifies that they are referring to the majority of doctors being Asian. Speaker 0 interrupts again, not fully understanding Speaker 2's point. Speaker 2 expresses frustration and Speaker 0 claims to be listening, but disagrees. They agree to disagree.

Speaker 0 states this is the most important election in most of their lifetimes. They claim Trump has made unacceptable threats against the economy, workers, and sovereignty. They believe a particular leader can address these issues and needs support. Speaker 1 accuses Catherine McKenna of losing track of 20,000 contracts worth $236,000,000,000, which they claim is why she is no longer in parliament. Speaker 1 repeats the accusation and insults Speaker 0. Speaker 1 continues to harass Catherine, repeating the $236,000,000,000 figure and using abusive language. Speaker 1 then states that everyone is "fucking retarded."

Brita Reeves is scrapping the Rwanda deportation scheme and cutting down on migrant hotels to save £8 billion. Concerns are raised about the cost of housing migrants and the lack of a clear plan from Labour. The acceptance rate for asylum applications has increased to 70%, leading to questions about future housing solutions and reforming the migration system. The discussion also touches on the impact on pensioners and businesses in the UK.

I'm in favor of addressing farming issues similarly to how Margaret Thatcher dealt with miners. So, you mean using force against them? No, I’m suggesting that if people are upset enough to protest against farmers, then we might not need small farmers anymore. Right, so you’re advocating for shutting down that industry? If the public is that unhappy, it indicates a need for change in the farming sector. Just to clarify, you were a former labor special adviser, right? Yes, but let's focus on the issue at hand.

Penny Morton was asked about the promise to reduce net migration in various manifestos since 2010, with over 4.3 million people entering the country. The questioner doubts the credibility of a new promise to cut migration in the 5th manifesto due to past failures.

In the exchange, the interviewer challenges the government’s line on its fiscal and welfare choices. The interviewer cites a statement attributed to the leader of the opposition, quoting: “For months, Reeves has lied to the public to justify record tax hikes to pay for more welfare. Did you lie?” The question is direct: did Reeves lie? Reeves responds by framing his role and goal. He says, “Look. I'm a labor chancellor. I want to reduce child poverty. I make no apologies for that.” He asserts this will be “the biggest ever reduction in child poverty in a parliament ever,” and he expresses pride in being the chancellor who “lifts half a million kids out of poverty.” He explains the practical implications of this aim as, “That means kids not going to bed hungry. It means kids not waking up in cold and damp homes.” He stresses that he is proud and happy to defend the choices he has made. The interviewer presses again, asking, “Did you lie?” Reeves repeats, “Of course, I didn’t.” The line of questioning returns to the reader’s interpretation that the welfare measures and tax policy were funded by misleading the public, but Reeves stands firm on his denial. The interviewer then asks a clarifying question about the prime minister’s involvement, wondering whether the prime minister was informed throughout the process. Reeves confirms, “Yes. And he was right there with you on it all? Yes. Of course.” This confirms that the prime minister was aware and aligned with the approach and decisions under discussion. The exchange centers on a clash between allegations of deceit regarding tax hikes and welfare funding, and Reeves’s declarative defense of his policy objectives—primarily reducing child poverty and preventing poverty-related harm to children—along with a reiteration that he did not lie and that the prime minister was informed and supportive of the course of action.

A privileged status exists for farms, and I believe we should take action against them, similar to what Margaret Thatcher did to the miners. You mean close them down? Yes, there’s an industry we could do without. If people are upset enough to protest and spray slurry, then we don’t need small farmers. So, you would use heavy-handed tactics to push them out of business? If the public is that angry, it indicates a need for change in the farming industry. Just to clarify, you were a former labor special adviser, right?

The speaker is asked about their strategy and is accused of using populist tactics. They deny talking about left or right and being influenced by Donald Trump. The questioner asks why Canadians should trust them with their vote, but the speaker doesn't understand the question. They then explain their plan to bring common sense back to the country by capping spending, cutting waste, balancing the budget, and reducing inflation and interest rates. They claim to be the only one with a plan to improve the buying power of Canadians' paychecks.

Speaker 0 states they are not a fan of Europe's handling of immigration, believing Europe is being badly hurt and needs to get smarter on the issue. They commend the prime minister for taking a tough stance on immigration, wishing others would follow suit. Despite this, Speaker 0 emphasizes the importance of Europe and their desire for it to do well. Speaker 1 notes that European Union policies have been changing over the last two and a half years. The focus has shifted from redistributing illegal migrants to stopping illegal migration, working with countries of origin and transit, and returning people. Speaker 1 mentions new rules about repatriations and credits Italy's example in lowering rates of illegal migration. Speaker 1 expresses optimism about the situation.

Speaker 0 asks Joe if he has ever been on the Senate floor and talked about cutting Social Security, Medicare, and veterans' programs. Joe denies ever saying that. Speaker 0 insists that Joe has made those statements multiple times, but Joe continues to deny it. Joe claims that he meant everything was on the table for discussion, but he did not support those specific cuts. Speaker 0 challenges Joe to watch videos on YouTube where he made those statements.

The speaker asserts that people will suffer due to an unspecified action. They state that fraud is a crime and claim there have been no referrals to the Justice Department in any instance. When questioned on this, the speaker initially denies being asked a question, then confirms that there have been referrals for fraud. The speaker then claims that billions of dollars were given to people for no reason and pivots to what they consider one of the biggest achievements of the first term.

Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 on leadership and promises, noting that public faith is essential to recover in the polls. They reference Speaker 1’s pledge to “smash the gangs” and point out that small boat crossings and the use of asylum hotels have continued to rise, asking if the mission is succeeding and whether the promise to end asylum hotels by the end of the parliament (2029) will be met. Speaker 1 responds that asylum hotels peaked at 400 and are now about 197, with some of that decline occurring before they came to power. The criticization centers on the previous government failing to process asylum claims, which allowed tens of thousands to arrive without determination. This, Speaker 1 argues, created a growing pool needing accommodation, making the hotel system “absurd.” The only long-term solution, he says, is to process those claims and determine who should stay and who should be removed. He claims they have removed 50,000 since taking office—the largest number in the best part of a decade—and reiterates a commitment to ending asylum hotels by the end of this parliament, though he notes it was not a fulfilled part of the manifesto. Speaker 0 presses again, asking for progress and whether the target will be met this year, emphasizing taxpayer frustration due to the last government’s mess and the tens of thousands in limbo awaiting decisions. Speaker 1 clarifies that there is no fixed date yet; he wants the timeline brought forward and accelerated, but he does not want to set a date until the team is confident it can be met. He asserts that the evidence of progress will appear in coming months, and, as they move into 2026, there will be visible steps toward closing the hotels. He stresses that the only lasting reduction in asylum hotels will come from swift processing of claims, ensuring those without a right to be here are removed, and that the pursuit of this objective must be brought forward, not delayed.

Speaker 0 questions Joe about cutting Social Security, Medicare, and veterans programs. Joe denies supporting these cuts, claiming everything was on the table but they were not implemented. Speaker 0 challenges Joe to be honest, citing past statements. Joe insists he did not support the cuts. Speaker 0 urges people to check YouTube for evidence of Joe's previous statements. Joe defends his position, stating he did not cut Social Security or veterans programs. Speaker 0 expresses surprise at Joe's denial.

Speaker 0 raises concerns about the current policies that are damaging our way of life and questions why such drastic measures are being taken. They mention influential globalists, like Claus Schwab, who see the pandemic as an opportunity to reset the world. Speaker 1, the Prime Minister, claims to be unaware of Schwab's book but advises against conspiracy theories. Speaker 0 presents evidence of a letter from the Prime Minister to Schwab, thanking him for his book and calling it a hopeful analysis. Speaker 1 dismisses it as a polite gesture and implies that they cannot read every book they receive. Speaker 0 points out the contradiction, and Speaker 1 deflects the accusation.

Privileged farmers are a concern, and I believe we could manage without them, similar to how Margaret Thatcher dealt with the miners. So, you would essentially push them out of business? Yes, if people are upset enough to protest and spray slurry, we don't need small farmers. Just to clarify, you were a former labor special adviser, right? Yes, emphasis on "former." Let's move on to Ed Miliband.

The speaker is asked if they would abuse power as retribution, and they respond by saying they wouldn't, except for day 1 when they want to close the border and drill. They clarify that this isn't retribution, but rather their plan. The speaker is then asked if they would be a dictator, and they deny it, saying they won't be except for day 1 when they will close the border and drill. The interviewer suggests that this sounds like going back to their previous policies as president.