reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speakers discuss the political situation surrounding Geert Wilders and the PVV. The first speaker suggests that if Wilders had participated in a debate, the other side might have won, and expresses frustration that “nothing happens in the Netherlands” right now. The dialogue turns to the nature of democracy within the parliament, with one speaker insisting that the parliament is “super democradig” while implying the PVV is not. The conversation questions the democratic legitimacy of the PVV, reinforcing that one speaker is not a member of the PVV in the traditional sense. A key point raised is the claim that there is “not a democratic club” for the PVV, contrasting their approach with the broader parliamentary system. The other speaker counters by noting that they are a member of the faction, not the party, highlighting a formal distinction: “Not of the party, because there is but one person and that is Geert Wilders himself.” This statement emphasizes a centralized leadership structure and suggests that the party’s organizational breadth is limited to a single figure at the top. The exchange also touches on the hypothetical impact of broader party membership, with a suggestion that if the PVV could assemble more members, it might be argued to be more democratic. Despite this, the speaker indicates that they will refrain from pursuing that argument in the current discussion. Throughout, the speakers grapple with how representation and democratic processes operate within the Netherlands’ political landscape, especially in relation to Wilders and the PVV. The dialogue conveys a sense of urgency and dissatisfaction about the state of politics, underscored by the assertion that a debate or more widespread participation could have changed outcomes, in contrast to the stagnation they perceive in the present moment.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

Speaker 0 questions the idea of representative groups and opposes representing individuals based on group identity, using the example of Jewish representation in Congress. Speaker 1 argues that the entire population is not fully represented, noting the absence of a Black female president. Speaker 0 raises the question of whether Jews are considered white, stating it's been debated and depends on the context. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 directly if he identifies as white. Speaker 0 clarifies he's a man of Jewish ethnicity, sometimes grouped with white, sometimes not, depending on who is doing the grouping. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 is not white at all. Speaker 0 reiterates that it depends on the context and acknowledges that Jews have been grouped both with and without white people.

The discussion centers on the way lawmakers reference religion in foreign policy and whether that approach is effective. Speaker 0 asks the audience how many think a respected lawmaker like Ted Cruz uses the Bible to justify aid to Israel, even if he doesn’t know the verse, and whether that is the best approach. Speaker 1 responds by referencing Ted Cruz’s Genesis twelve three, and notes that many find that off-putting when contrasted with the New Testament, specifically Paul’s writings about the new flesh not being the same as the people in the old covenant. Speaker 1 asks, “Yes. Romans nine?” and agrees with the sentiment. Speaker 0 then asks Speaker 1 if they are Catholic, to which Speaker 1 replies that they are converting Catholic from Judaism, revealing that they are ethnically Jewish. The exchange confirms Speaker 1’s Jewish ethnicity. Speaker 0 brings up concerns about APAC, asking if Speaker 1 has concerns about APAC. Speaker 1 confirms that they do. Speaker 0 notes that some people tell them that criticizing APAC equates to being anti-Semitic, asking whether this is true. Speaker 1 calls that notion ridiculous and says it’s great to have concern for one’s country. The conversation shifts to APAC’s influence. Speaker 0 presents a characterization (as a possible summary of Speaker 1’s view) that APAC represents a form of prioritization that cuts in line, away from the American people. Speaker 0 asks whether this is a fair summary. Speaker 1 answers affirmatively, “100%.” Finally, they articulate the core idea: the public votes and are citizens, but a separate group is described as receiving higher priority for whatever reasons. Speaker 1’s agreement underscores a shared concern that APAC’s influence creates a prioritization that bypasses the ordinary American electorate.

Speaker 0 questions the strength of the new president's mandate, noting he won the popular vote by only 1.5% and the general election with less than 50% of the vote. Speaker 1 argues that the president does have a mandate, stating they are not a supporter of Trump, but of truth and facts. The president won every swing state, increased voter turnout among Black, Latino, and young voters, and 89% of counties shifted to the right. Republicans hadn't won the popular vote since 2004, but they did this year, also winning the electoral college. Speaker 1 doesn't understand how people can look at that and say there's no mandate. Speaker 0 suggests they have different definitions of a mandate. Speaker 1 believes Democrats may use the close margin as an excuse to avoid changing their strategy.

The speaker discusses the Great Replacement theory and the impact of undocumented immigrants on elections. They argue that illegal immigrants in blue states increase Democratic votes due to apportionment in the House and Electoral College. The other speaker counters, stating that the Electoral College balances power for smaller and red states. The debate continues on the influence of illegal immigrants on election outcomes. Translation: The speaker talks about the Great Replacement theory and how undocumented immigrants affect elections in blue states, leading to a discussion on the Electoral College's role in balancing power.

Speaker 0 asks if the person really wants Tom Emmer to be speaker, as they did not vote for congressman Jim Jordan. Speaker 1 responds that they do not like Tom Emmer and think it is a terrible job. Speaker 0 clarifies that they voted for someone they don't like because they didn't want to vote for Jim.

Speaker 1 is asked about their previous tweets regarding Trump and Brian Kemp stealing elections. Speaker 1 dismisses the comparison as ridiculous and clarifies that they were referring to the threat to voting rights at that time.

**Speaker 0:** 212 Democrats voted against no tax on tips, Social Security, and overtime. If the government makes money and spends it responsibly, taxes aren't necessary. The new administration is holding the government accountable, and people are mad about it. **Speaker 1:** There's no tax on tips, overtime, or Social Security in the budget resolution. Taxes are normal. This utopia where nobody pays taxes isn't going to work. Read the budget before lecturing people about it.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while serving as Speaker of the House. Speaker 1 defends the decision, stating there was no conflict of interest. Speaker 0 presses for clarification, but Speaker 1 maintains there was no wrongdoing.

Speaker 0: Zuckerberg claims to be an old-fashioned liberal who dislikes censorship, but why doesn't Facebook take a similar stand on free speech? It seems rooted in American political tradition. Speaker 1: Zuckerberg reportedly spent $400 million in the last election, primarily supporting Democrats. This raises questions about his impartiality.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they expect Democrats to support them. Speaker 1 responds that they personally do not. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 needs the Democrats' help to stay in a leadership position. Speaker 1 answers no, stating that if five Republicans side with the Democrats, they will be out. Speaker 1 acknowledges that this situation is complex.

Speaker 0 expresses frustration with the constant influx of bills and the struggle to provide for their constituents. They believe that the power given to one person goes against the constitution. Speaker 2 agrees, feeling trapped by rules that limit their ability to represent their people. They argue that although they live in a democracy, it doesn't feel that way in their current situation. They urge others to understand the power and control held by the speaker and the need to convey this message to their own districts. They emphasize that everyone, regardless of party, is affected by these limitations.

Speaker 0 asks for reassurance that the upcoming election won't be rigged or stolen. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that having Democrats in charge of the voting machines in Ohio is helpful. However, they also acknowledge that both Republicans and Democrats have manipulated elections in the past. Speaker 1 explains that those in power tend to try to tilt things in their favor.

Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker McCarthy for taking credit for the single subject appropriations bills, stating that it was not his original plan. They argue against lumping together departments like Education and Labor with the military and border patrol, calling it chaotic. Speaker 0 claims that they forced the change and warns that if Speaker McCarthy continues, the appropriations process will become a sideshow controlled by lobbyists and special interests. They express frustration with how the American people have been mistreated for decades and vow to fight against it.

With the Liberals now holding a majority government, their next focus is on reshaping how House of Commons committees are staffed and controlled. House Leader Stephen McKinnon indicated that the Liberal side intends to change the standing orders to ensure they hold the most votes on committees. This ambition follows from the Liberals’ position after the election and their desire to influence committee decisions more decisively. Under the current arrangement agreed after the last election, committees are formed with a balance of four Liberal members, four Conservative members, and one member from the Bloc Québécois. McKinnon’s proposed change would alter this balance on most committees to consist of seven Liberal members, four Conservative members, and one Bloc Québécois member. In other words, the Liberal side would gain a numerical edge on the majority of committees, increasing their ability to steer committee work and outcomes. The standing orders, which govern these committee compositions and procedures, are typically established and maintained by consensus among the parties. However, the proposed modification would not be a mere courtesy adjustment; it would require a formal vote in the House. That means the Liberals would need to secure sufficient support to adopt the change, rather than relying on unanimous agreement. McKinnon signaled that he plans to move forward with this strategy through a formal process. He intends to give notice of a motion in the coming days, signaling the party’s plan to bring the proposal to the House for consideration and a vote. The timing remains to be determined, but he indicated that notice would be set in the near term, with a vote to follow once the motion is formally tabled and debated as part of the House’s proceedings. In summary, the Liberals are pursuing a procedural shift aimed at strengthening their control over House of Commons committees by changing standing orders to favor seven Liberal members, four Conservatives, and one Bloc Québécois member on most committees. This change would necessitate a House vote rather than unanimous consent, and McKinnon plans to provide notice of the motion within the next couple of days to advance the proposal through parliamentary channels.

Speaker 0 asks if the person really wants Tom Emmer to be speaker, as they did not vote for congressman Jim Jordan. Speaker 1 responds that they do not like Tom Emmer and believes it is the worst job in America. Speaker 0 clarifies that they voted for someone they don't like because they didn't want to vote for Jim.

Speaker 0: This all started because of redistricting in Texas, and this was Trump pushing Republican controlled states to throw out their current congressional maps so as to cook the books so that there is less likely for Democrats to retake control of the house during the next year midterms. Is it fair to argue that Republican Party is starting this? Speaker 1: No, Jake. There has been gerrymandering going on for two hundred years. There is such extreme gerrymandering going on that in a state like Massachusetts, it has 40% of the people voting for Trump. They only had they have zero representatives. The Republican party has zero representatives sent to the house. Think about that. In New Mexico, if 45% of people voted for Trump and vote Republican and zero is sent to the house, zero representative from the Republican party. So there's gerrymandering, crazy gerrymandering going on all over the country and we wanted to try to stop it in California and we did stop it in California and we went around the country. So I think this whole thing about finger pointing and said they did it, so therefore we should doing it. That's not really the way to go. The one party should outperform the other party. It should be performance. And when it comes to midterm elections as you know, always the party that is not in the White House usually wins by twenty, twenty five, 30 seats. So what does five seats matter in the first place in Texas? It is crazy. We should outperform them. That is where the action is.

Speaker 1 admits to leaving a required oversight hearing in order to go on a personal vacation. Speaker 0 finds this unacceptable and questions if Speaker 1 paid for the flight. Speaker 1 confirms they paid for it and agrees to provide receipts to the committee. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is still capable of doing their job, to which Speaker 1 responds affirmatively. However, Speaker 0 disagrees and believes Speaker 1 should have been removed long ago.

Speaker 0: Reclaiming time from Chairman, Hunter is avoiding my words. Speaker 1: House committees seek relevant info, but GOP misuses subpoenas for political gain, ignoring offers and leaking witness statements. Translation: Speaker 0 reclaims time from the Chairman as Hunter avoids their words. Speaker 1 mentions that House committees are seeking relevant information, but Republicans are misusing subpoenas for political purposes by ignoring offers and leaking witness statements.

Speaker 0 asks if anyone on the vaccine committee has received money from vaccine manufacturers. Speaker 1 tries to answer but is interrupted. Speaker 1 explains that according to regulations, people who receive royalties are not required to disclose them, even under the Bayh Dole Act.

Speaker 0 argued that Nancy Pelosi set a precedent by waiting to hold a vote on the first impeachment of Donald Trump. Speaker 1 dismisses this claim as ridiculous and states that there is no requirement for a vote at this time. They express satisfaction with the support and thoughtfulness of their caucus in pursuing fairness, truth, and upholding the US constitution.

Speaker 1 believes the justice system is being compromised for political gain. Speaker 0 thinks the situation reveals widespread corruption and distrust in institutions. Speaker 1 wonders why charges aren't dropped, but Speaker 0 has no answer. They agree on the need for change.

Speaker 0 claims most people in the country voted for Trump and that he won the popular vote. Speaker 1 disputes this, stating it was a slim majority of voters and that too few people voted. Speaker 0 says those who cared about issues voted for Trump to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Speaker 1 counters that lots of voters were purged from voter rolls before the election. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of election denial. Speaker 1 accuses the "narcissist in that building" of gaslighting.

Speaker 0 asks, "What is a woman?" Speaker 1 says they are unsure how to answer the question. Speaker 0 states that a woman is an adult human female and that men cannot become women. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1's party of violence and erasing women, further claiming they don't respect women. Speaker 0 calls Speaker 1 a bigot, misogynist, and sexist.