reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Demissionary Prime Minister Mark Rutte has been in office for thirteen years. It is unlikely that he would want to leave a legacy of aligning with the PVV's election program, as he aspires to top positions in the European Union or NATO. This could have consequences for his future, as some in Brussels believe that if the VVD were to form a coalition with Geert Wilders, Rutte's chances of becoming NATO's top leader or holding a position within the European Commission would be jeopardized. Therefore, Rutte's future prospects are at stake.

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.

The speaker was asked what office they were elected to and if they needed support. The speaker responded that they are not the one to ask and that the person should speak with a man. The speaker then stated that they speak to over a million people.

Speaker 0 is asked if he accepted bribes and if he would comment on the arrest of the former president.

Speaker 0 raises the question: “11 zetels verlies, word je daar nou op afgerekend?” Speaker 1 replies he’s going to fetch a plant, a free houseplant, and asks if Speaker 0 can take care of it. “Mooi om een gratis plantje. moet jij ook een kamerplanten? Kan je daar wel voor zorgen” and “Beetje water geven, moet zelfs jou lukken toch? Jij krijgt de plant, ik niet. Ik weet nog niet of ik hem krijg. Ik ga zo zien of ik hem krijg.” Speaker 0 asks for any reflection on the loss. Speaker 1 says he’s busy getting a houseplant and notes that loss is being forgotten: “Ik ben nu bezig met het halen van een kamerplant. Dat ben je alweer vergeten, dat verlies. Welk verlies? 11 zetels.” He adds it’s “een na hoogste score ooit,” indicating it is a high (second-highest) score ever, despite the loss. Speaker 1 comments on its cost, asking if it isn’t costly, and reiterates: “Een na hoogste score ooit.”

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 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 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.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they will run for president again. Speaker 1 responds that they are 83 years old and unsure if the American people would be enthusiastic about someone who is 100. Speaker 0 notes that Speaker 1 is only a couple of years older than Biden.

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 is asked if they wish they had a third term. They respond by saying they would be fine with having a stand-in who would wear an earpiece and deliver their lines while they stay in their basement. Speaker 2 interrupts and tells everyone to ignore the person in the earpiece. Speaker 3 mentions something about getting Republicans elected. Speaker 4 says the person speaking is not recognized. Speaker 5 reminds everyone not to engage in personal attacks. Speaker 1 repeats their earlier statement about having a stand-in and being fine with it.

Speaker 0 announces their plan to run for reelection in 2026. They acknowledge a question about their candidacy and apologize for needing a moment to gather their thoughts.

Speaker 0 is asked about their thoughts on running for reelection in 2026. The senator acknowledges the question but doesn't provide a direct answer. They apologize and ask if someone else has a different question.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the possibility of forming a government. Speaker 1 mentions that Mrs. Jesus said they will not be ruling, but Speaker 0 clarifies that she meant they will not rule under a Wilders-led government. Speaker 1 adds that they may consider supporting but not participating in a cabinet. Speaker 0 questions if Mrs. Jesus was clear on this, but Speaker 1 believes she was. Speaker 0 suggests that they should have a serious conversation with Timmerman, potentially leading to a coalition with the VVD. Speaker 1 thinks Speaker 0 is jumping ahead and clarifies that they should at least have a conversation with Timmerman. Speaker 0 emphasizes the importance of not excluding any party, except for a coalition with the PvdA. They discuss the differences between parties and Speaker 0 rejects the notion that they are comparable to the PVV. Speaker 1 agrees and clarifies that they did not make that comparison.

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.

Demissionary Prime Minister Mark Rutte has been in office for thirteen years. It is unlikely that he would want to leave a legacy of aligning with the PVV's election program, as he aspires to top positions in the European Union or NATO. This could have consequences for his future, as some in Brussels believe that if the VVD were to form a coalition with Geert Wilders, Rutte's chances of becoming NATO's top leader or holding a position within the European Commission would be jeopardized. Therefore, Rutte's future prospects are at stake.

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 is asked if they will be running for reelection in 2026. They apologize for the interruption and ask for another question.

Speaker 0 questions Meneer Markushauer about why he could not become vice premier, implying it would have happened if it were up to Geert Wilders. The questions prompt whether he should ask Wilders about the matter and suggest that not everything passed the AIVD security check. The line of questioning then shifts to which foreign intelligence service Markushauer actually works for, asking him to declare whether he works for any foreign security service and specifically referencing the Turk. The questions continue to press: what foreign affiliation does he have, if any, and whether he has ties to a foreign intelligence agency. The speaker mentions the Stichting bij Leven en Welzijn and asks about firearms, suggesting this is a recurring topic in related groups. There is an insinuation that Denk might nominate a member of parliament who works for the Turkish security service, and the speaker urges Markushauer to answer plainly if there is nothing to hide. The conversation also notes that ANP (the news agency) wants an answer from Markushauer, signaling media interest in his affiliations and security clearance. The overall point is to probe Markushauer’s possible connections to foreign intelligence services, questions about his eligibility for high office based on security checks, and to obtain a clear admission or denial regarding any such affiliations, with an emphasis on transparency given political risk and media attention. The exchange presents a sequence of provocative questions intended to challenge Markushauer on loyalties, security vetting, and potential foreign influence, while underscoring public and media demand for clarification.

Speaker 0: The discussion turns to how long you plan to stay in public life. Speaker 1: I don’t measure it by time, but by missions and tasks. I’m supported by a great majority of the people in the country, and that support comes despite foreign reporting. That is why I keep winning elections. When people say I might be a king, I respond that I’m not a king—I have to get elected, for God’s sake. I have great support at home: my wife is incredible, she’s a lioness; my two boys support me; and the people support me. Speaker 0: What do they support you for? Speaker 1: They want me to complete the quest for peace. They understand that I really liberated Israel’s economy from stagnant semi-socialism to become one of the most remarkable founts of creativity, innovation, and technology in the world. We have unbelievable technology today, and we now have an opportunity. Israel was a country with $17,000 per capita when I took over as foreign minister; I had a brief stint there. Today it’s going to cross $60,000 per capita. It’s still a way to go, but that’s a change that no country experienced because of the free market revolution that I introduced here. Speaker 0: There’s a sense of an upcoming revolution. Speaker 1: I see a much greater revolution coming. It’s here, it’s not coming; it’s already here. All the wondrous technologies we have—some of them are very frightening. I’ve talked to the leaders of AI in the world, and you ask yourself, there are so many blessings in this, but there could be a curse. The task is to challenge it, or to channel it into the blessings that Israel can give itself and the world. I think there’s another revolution coming, and I tend to steer it along with the achievement of a broader peace. These are two enormous tasks that I’d like to take on. And when history is within reach, you don’t step aside; you step forward. And that’s what I’m doing.

The speaker proposes bringing someone up for a couple of minutes. The speaker states that the world will see a vibrant Republican.

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

Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister, has been in office for thirteen years. It is unlikely that he would want to leave a legacy of aligning with the PVV's election program, as he aspires to top positions in the European Union or NATO. This could have consequences for his future prospects. People in Brussels have already made this connection, suggesting that if the VVD were to form a coalition with Geert Wilders' party, Rutte's chances of becoming NATO's top leader or holding a position within the European Commission could be jeopardized.