reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 talks about the movement of types A and how it affects their cheese and lunches. Speaker 1 adds a comment. Speaker 0 mentions a phrase in the family and the public fiscal issue. Speaker 1 talks about political parties and prosthetics. Speaker 0 mentions a case and a bonification. Speaker 1 talks about a grave matter and a presence. Speaker 0 mentions a school and a procedure. Speaker 1 talks about an accusation and a finish. Speaker 0 mentions a profile and a channel. Speaker 1 talks about a challenge and a discount.

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 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.

Speaker 0 expresses surprise and sympathy for the audience. They encourage them to go home and live for another day, suggesting they should support their side in the future.

Speaker 0 asks about the lack of disclosure regarding a Democratic donor funding the case. Speaker 1 denies any political motive and admits to forgetting about the donor during their deposition.

Speaker 0 zegt dat hij wil proberen wat er gebeurt als hij elke dag langskomt en het “dit en dit en dit” doet. Hij beschrijft dat iemand eerder eerst nog in bed lag, daarna op de bank zat en op de vierde dag aan het ontbijt zat, en concludeert: “dat is mooi” en dat tien mensen binnen vier dagen beter werden, waardoor hij het geen toeval vindt. Speaker 1 vraagt naar het vermoeden dat de inspectie handelt in opdracht van minister Hugo de Jonge, en waar dat vermoeden vandaan komt. Speaker 0 antwoordt dat dit vermoeden ontstaat doordat er WOV-verzoekers zijn geweest en e-mailconversaties naar buiten zijn gekomen. Daarin staat volgens hem dat Hugo e-mails stuurt naar appartementen en dat er bijvoorbeeld een overleg wordt genoemd: “IGJ onderzoekt dokter E.” Hij zegt dat Hugo dan vanuit Den Haag naar Rotterdam vraagt wat de inspectie kan doen met “dokter E.T.M.” Speaker 1: “Ja, wij hebben zelf ook…” Speaker 0 gaat verder en zegt dat dit voor mensen is die thuis kijken. Hij stelt dat het zeer traumatiserend voor hem is geweest dat de minister van Volksgezondheid hem aanvalt op zijn werk als dokter. Hij zegt dat hij, zijn collega’s en zijn gezin daar last van hebben gehad. Volgens hem is hij opeens “de kwaksalver” genoemd, er wordt een motie ingediend in de Tweede Kamer, en die wordt volgens hem niet gedaan omdat het om een “kwakzalve motie” gaat. Speaker 0 vervolgt dat hij vindt dat minister Hugo de Jonge, volgens zijn interpretatie, omgaat met een professioneel werkend arts in het epicentrum van de corona. Speaker 1 vraagt opnieuw: “Ik stel de vraag.” Speaker 0 zegt dat hij het zeer pijnlijk vindt en vraagt om excuus voor de actie die hij heeft gedaan.

Speaker 0 ran into a boy associated with Live Laser, who spoke of a communist platform. Speaker 0 said the situation led them to take that boy into a time-out. Speaker 0 described that the interview was not their best, but that the content stands. Speaker 1 asked whether this results in a time-out from the coalition toward Speaker 0’s party. They noted that the coalition had previously called for cooperation regarding creating majorities, particularly in the Second Chamber where Speaker 0 has been represented since Geert Wilders. Speaker 1 asked whether there is still any enthusiasm for such cooperation after the commotion and statements. Speaker 0 replied that they cannot force anyone to talk with them. They said everyone should “just count to 76,” that they had explained what they meant, and that they would not cross any legal boundaries, “also not morally.” Speaker 1 responded that the judge would ultimately decide.

Speaker 0 insults Speaker 1, calling them ugly and making jokes. Speaker 1 tries to be positive but Speaker 0 continues with insults. Speaker 1 brings preserves as a gift, but Speaker 0 insults them again. Speaker 1 tries to find something nice to say, but Speaker 0 continues to be rude. Speaker 1 mentions watching TV together, but Speaker 0 doesn't like the picture on the wall. Speaker 1 insists it's a package deal. Speaker 0 agrees to exercise. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 beautiful, but Speaker 0 clarifies they were looking at a junkyard. Translation: Speaker 0 insults Speaker 1, who tries to stay positive despite the insults. Speaker 1 brings preserves as a gift, but Speaker 0 continues to insult them. Speaker 1 tries to find something nice to say, but Speaker 0 remains rude. Speaker 1 suggests watching TV together, but Speaker 0 dislikes the picture on the wall. Speaker 1 insists it's a package deal. Speaker 0 agrees to exercise. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 beautiful, but Speaker 0 clarifies they were looking at a junkyard.

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 0: Look at what happened. If you want to see something good, take a look. Speaker 1: What do you know about Rolando? When it rains, you can climb and freeze when people talk. Translation (if needed): Speaker 0 is encouraging the audience to pay attention to something that happened, while Speaker 1 mentions Rolando and the effects of rain on climbing and freezing.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if he is a PVV Member of Parliament, and Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 says he recognizes them all, to which Speaker 1 agrees. The interviewer then asks about Speaker 1’s ambitions for the next four years, but Speaker 1 says he will answer later. Speaker 0 notes that Speaker 1 is high on the list and again says he will be told later. The interviewer mentions that Speaker 1 was described as “the new talent shaved,” and Speaker 1 responds that that will go well. Speaker 0 remarks that he hasn’t noticed it yet.

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: I feel elated. I feel, my goodness, two and a half hours. It's over, and and it's gone quickly. And and I was concentrating for most of the time. Once or twice, I slipped up because it just completely went. But, otherwise, I enjoyed it. Speaker 1: BBC should know in about ten days or so whether its early morning programs are receiving the 2,000,000 or so viewers they're expected to receive. In the meantime, director general Alastair Milne and BBC chairman George Howard declared themselves well pleased with the first program. And as for TVAM, the BBC's breakfast competitors who go on air in two weeks' time Speaker 2: Says they make no apology for that. Speaker 3: Looking at a political party that has values, principles, beliefs that that it will not compromise just for electoral success. And the great thing about last night is we haven't moved to the climate. The climate is moving towards us. Speaker 2: After a decade and a half on the sidelines, the Greens emerged this morning as a political force to be reckoned with. So much so, they're now setting their sights on Westminster. Speaker 4: But with increased public Brother is massive. It's global. It has multiple aspects, and they have not been discussed at this election apart from discussion by me. Speaker 3: What's his abacus for? Speaker 4: For children, very young children at four years of age. It's simple. We have But Speaker 3: the only numbers that are meant to count in this ballot Speaker 5: enough no more because everything this man has said Thank you. I bloody love you. This is what they mean by the beautiful people. And we and alike around the world are going to go down in history. As the people that brought freedom back from the brink just as the light was going out. A way, way into what we call the future. There will be children living in a world of freedom, fairness, justice, joy, and love. And they will sit in enraptured attention as the storytellers recall those special people way back in the ancient twenty twenties who secured freedom on this planet. Impact on the track. Yeah. Speaker 2: This is that CBIZ shit, that ER shit that you already fucking know. Speaker 6: That straight gas. Get that sauce, spill that Speaker 2: motherfucking joint. You feel me? CBIZ, truck. Speaker 6: I tell your man I fucked this girl. I hit the streets, I played the game. I build the shit, I made the name. I hit the note, I changed the game. I made some change, I changed my lane. I a change and broke the chain. I caught a case to change my name. I made the lane and showed the way. ER and so we ate. C biz best know it. E r, we done showed it. A nigga put me in the grave. Work. 40 counts best blow it. Boo. I hit the rave and shot it down. What? I moved the base and smoked the loud. Work. You broke the joke or just a clown. Work. You ain't the road, you're just about. See, there's the name sick. But flows hard, I take the piss. I pay the price, I get the brick. I break it down to feed the strip. It's 44 for protection. Who who go to my section? ER to the world. That's the team that I'm Speaker 2: six feet in the seat. Speaker 6: That's how we get down. Impact Speaker 5: on the tracks.

Gaza was given democracy, but Hamas was elected. Palestine lacks a military. Speaker 0 sarcastically mentions enjoying driving a BMW while the land is supposedly free. Speaker 1 agrees sarcastically. Speaker 2 mentions anticipating the situation.

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 notes that Biden “may have more explaining to do.” Speaker 1 introduces the topic as arising from taped remarks of Biden during an April campaign appearance in New Hampshire. Speaker 2 recalls self-descriptions Biden offered: that he “went to law school on a full academic scholarship,” being “the only one in my class that have a full academic scholarship,” that he “went back to law school” and “ended up in the top half of my class,” that he “was the outstanding student in the political science department at the end of my year,” that he “graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school and a 165 credits, only a 123 credits.” Speaker 1 states that Biden now concedes he did not graduate in the top half of his law school class, that he does not have three degrees from college, and that he was not named outstanding political science student in college. Speaker 0 reports Newsweek’s version: Biden “actually went to school on a half scholarship, ended up near the bottom of his class, and won only one degree, not three.” Speaker 3 adds: “Joe Biden ranked seventy sixth in the class of 85 at the University of Syracuse Law School. I mean, this guy comes off this whole thing as a flyweight.” Speaker 1 repeats that Biden says Newsweek is right and that his memory had failed him. Speaker 2 fires back: “And I’d be delighted to sit down and compare my IQ to yours if you’d like, Frank.” Speaker 1 repeats: “Joe Biden was victimized by the truth.” Speaker 2 concludes with “Bye bye Biden. He may not know it yet, but I think this is very diff going to be very difficult for him to recover it.” Speaker 0 asks: “Is Joe Biden dead meat? Yes or” Speaker 2 responds: “I think so. Bob? He’s” Speaker 3 interjects: “in terminal condition.” Speaker 0 asks for confirmation: “Terminal? Elinor?” Speaker 2 affirms: “Yes. Unless he comes in third in Iowa.” Speaker 0 labels: “Morton. Dying. I say dead.”

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 recounts seeing a man backstage at a benefit who looked dramatically different, noting that at 81 this is not wholly unexpected and that people’s worry was understandable. Speaker 1 responds by saying he sees Joe Biden almost every day and emphasizes that no one has said Biden has an age-related decline in governance. Biden would joke about aging and acknowledge it, admitting he doesn’t speak or walk as well as he used to, but Speaker 1 argues that the mental acuity and ability to govern were evident, with Biden engaging, understanding policy, and putting the American people first, which showed in what he could get done. Speaker 1 cautions against questioning heart or policies but notes that leadership requires more, and during a moment of great pressure on stage, there was a shock and worry that could not be assuaged. Speaker 0 adds that they cannot fault the factual basis of the concerns or the feelings, but emphasizes that the debate performance is what matters downstream. Speaker 1 acknowledges that the debate performance was shocking and disappointing, and describes the disappointment as significant, using Speaker 0’s word “herald” to characterize it. Speaker 0 concedes ongoing disagreement, and both express appreciation for the other’s presence tonight. Speaker 1 asks if there is one more thing to say, and Speaker 0 leaves the closing remark open.

Speaker 0 is asked if they will be running for reelection in 2026. They apologize for not hearing the question properly and ask for someone else to speak up with a different question.

Speaker 0 mentions that someone is only focused on NATO and not interested in the Netherlands anymore. They discuss a recent European debate about dividing land, including with Ukraine. Speaker 1 talks about countries that have lost wars and territory, mentioning the loss of land in 1938. Rutte was sharp during the debate. Translation: Speaker 0 notes someone's focus on NATO over the Netherlands. They discuss a recent European debate on land division, including with Ukraine. Speaker 1 mentions countries that lost wars and territory, citing the loss in 1938. Rutte was sharp during the debate.

Speaker 0 opens by stating the people involved have “been at war with us for forty six years,” framing the ongoing conflict as a long-standing confrontation. Speaker 1 responds with a broader critique, asserting that Scott Jennings is “more than happy to defend a war with a country that starts with the letters IRA,” and accusing the administration of failing, which would lead to “trillions and trillions of dollars more in debt.” They note their own relative youth during earlier administrations that defended prior endless wars, and they argue that the current war is “not going your way,” asking if eight weeks is “endless” to Speaker 1. Speaker 0 tries to remind the audience that the conversation is about the pace and direction of the war, stating the plan as “gonna be four to six weeks,” while Speaker 1 questions whether Speaker 0 “had the attention span of a net?” and recalls a previous TV debate “four to six weeks ago” where Speaker 0 claimed “we were weeks away from it.” Speaker 1 uses this to cast doubt on Speaker 0’s credibility, suggesting a failure to defend the war’s progress and calling out what he sees as a “political concession.” He asks Speaker 0 to name “one political concession” the administration has made, implying a demand for concrete examples of compromise or capitulation. Speaker 2 intervenes to restore order, saying, “Hey. Woah. Honestly. I’m not gonna have this guy’s gonna on my face,” and asks everyone to calm down, emphasizing that they are in a debate where points can be responded to. Speaker 1 presses the question, again asking for a named concession, while Speaker 0 reframes the issue, asserting a “very simple goal”: to “keep terrorists and a terrorist regime from having a nuclear weapon that can threaten The United States, our allies in Europe, anybody else.” This statement is presented as the core objective that should guide assessment of the war’s conduct and any concessions, though Speaker 1 challenges the framing by pressing for concrete evidence of political concessions. Speaker 2 concludes by signaling a transition: “Alright. We’re gonna leave it there, guys. Next for us, the president suggests ABC.” The exchange thus juxtaposes a debate over war strategy, duration, and concessions with a stated overarching objective of preventing nuclear threats from terrorist regimes, before moving on to a new topic framed as what the president is proposing to ABC.

The speakers critique how Holocaust education operates in today’s media landscape and its unintended effects. They reference a remark by a woman (Hurwitz) who said that “the real problem with all this Holocaust education is that now people are pissed off when we try to do it,” highlighting shock at the idea that someone would voice such a sentiment aloud. They confirm the quote with “Yeah. Here it is right here. Yep.” They argue that in the 1990s a young person wouldn’t easily find Al Jazeera or Nick Fuentes, but today “those media outlets find them” on their phones. This has coincided with a shift to a post-literate media environment: “less and less text, more and more videos.” TikTok is described as “smashing our young people's brains all day long with video of carnage in Gaza,” making it hard to have sane conversations with younger Jews because any message is filtered through a “wall of carnage.” Data, information, facts, and arguments are perceived as being drowned out by emotional imagery, and speakers acknowledge that people “are seeing in their minds carnage” and may call their rational arguments obscene. The dialogue emphasizes vivid images of dead children, noting that “these dead babies” have an emotional effect on people, and that facts alone seem insufficient against the visceral response. One speaker remarks that the emphasis on such imagery is powerful and difficult to counter with reason. A part of the discussion pauses to consider statistics and argues that Hurwitz’s argument lacks a clear statistical basis, instead presenting a visual argument through images of dead children. The speakers insist that the response is not a result of rational persuasion; one person insists, “It wasn't a choice I made with my brain. It was a choice I made with my heart, you idiot,” and asserts that genocide cannot be rationalized. The group reflects on how the “very smart bet” of Holocaust education serving as antisemitism education may be breaking down in the new media environment. They acknowledge that education about the Holocaust is “absolutely essential,” but contend it may confuse some young people about antisemitism, particularly when young viewers see “powerful Israelis hurting weak, skinny Palestinians” on TikTok. The implication is that the historical lesson (strong vs. weak oppression) could be misinterpreted as a justification to “fight Israel,” aligning antisemitism with the trope of anti-black racism in some perceptions. There is a stark contrast drawn between captives who “can’t leave” and those with the power to act, underscoring a perception of oppression and lack of mobility. The discussion uses strong metaphors, including comparisons to a “giant game of Saw,” to describe the perceived moral torture of the situation. Towards the end, the speakers acknowledge that the overarching topic across conversations—whether in Charlie Kirk’s letter to Netanyahu, CBS News, or related discussions—is “we're losing.” They acknowledge that “we get back to winning” is a recurring concern, indicating an awareness of a struggle to regain a strategic or communicative advantage in the discourse.

Speaker 0 expresses disappointment in Elon, stating, "I've helped Elon a lot." Speaker 1 asks if Elon raised concerns privately before making them public and questions whether Elon should be taken seriously about spending cuts, given his role in that area. Speaker 0 responds that Elon worked hard and did a good job, suggesting Elon misses his former position, noting the unique appeal of the Oval Office.

Governor Waltz stated he frequently checks Tesla stock to give himself a boost during the day. One speaker questioned how Americans should view politicians who take pride in the downfall of an American car company. Another speaker responded that Governor Waltz is living a sad existence after his devastating defeat on November 5.

Speaker 0 asks what you are here to talk about, says “Thank you very much,” and asks, “Any votes in the prime minister?”