• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Geert Wilders on Track to Become Next Prime Minister of the Netherlands[W:91]

Regardless, it’s striking that someone who quite literally ran afoul of hate speech laws has a plausible chance of being the country’s next prime minister. It shows that the values Europe claims to cherish — so much so that it has attempted to criminalize speech transgressing them — are under direct assault.

This is a Vox article and they are talking about Wilders. The other garbage about values and attacking them is propaganda. The point is Trump happened lets's keep the ball rolling.

The Dutch politician convicted of inciting anti-immigrant rage is going up in the polls - Vox
 
Well, that is utter nonsense. The court is the absolute opposite of a "kangaroo court", all the court does is uphold the law, Wilders broke the law and has been convicted for his offenses.

And this has nothing to do with the reading of the Koran or stating what is in it (especially due to very biased and incomplete reading that Wilders has used in the past). And the loons are Geert Wilders and the lunatics who believe every lie this man has stated.


One example of a lie please. A quote would be nice.
 
~ no party wants to join a PVV government

I read this somewhere - what do you think?

political scientist Andre Krouwel said:
~ The PVV has no party organisation or local branches, no member or activist base, he is the only member of the party.

The other thing the article I read stated that most PVV supporters don't confess in public to supporting him but the latest estimate says 3 million votes in the next election.

Wierd Duk said:
It's socially not acceptable to vote PVV, they're considered extremist-right wing, they would be excluded from their social circle, work, they'd lose friends, promotion opportunities. If you out yourself as a PVV supporter you're seen as a threat to the dominant ideology of tolerance and consensus.

I think there will be a surprise, not that Wilders will end up as leader but he may gain quite a few seats and have an impact in the way the freedom party in Austria became power broker behind the scenes.
 
One example of a lie please. A quote would be nice.

Well, Geert Wilders has said:

“The Moroccan violence is pure racism because the victims of their violence are almost never people of Moroccan descent or Muslims".

Which is a lie because:

1. there is no registration of religion of victims or of the country they came from/parents came from
2. the PVV on it's on website says that domestic violence due to honor crimes is an issue among Muslims
3. there is a study that finds that Muslims are more often victims of crimes than non Muslims (mostly due to the location they live in, big cities and poor neighborhoods).

And even if it were true that Muslims where less often the victim of crime and violence (which is nonsense), that still does not mean that Moroccans commit crimes for racist reasons as Geert Wilders claims.


Wilders also claimed that when the Netherlands leaves the EU, we would be better off by billions of dollars even though the report Wilders uses at first had a warning (conveniently left out of the final draft that Wilders paid for) that if the Netherlands would leave the EU there is a serious chance of a credit crisis with banks toppling and the need for the government to bail out the banks and financial sector.

And then we are not talking about the distortions and the false things he proclaims (like a Tsunami of Islamism).

Last week he tweeted a video of a riot/fight at an asylum seeker center that he said happened on December second 2016. Now sure, there was a fight in that asylum seeker center but that happened over a year ago during the time when thousands and thousands where shuffled around in temporary housings but as said that fight he proclaimed happened last week was more than a year old and the asylum seeker center where he claimed this violence took place was closed months ago so it can hardly have been the scene of a violence riot a few weeks ago.

Also Wilders is a liar because the things he says in the political arena and the best example is that he ran on a program of never agreeing to raising the pension age (that at the time was 65) but as soon as he was part of the government he supported he traded that "never allowing the pension age to be raised" in a heart beat.
 
I read this somewhere - what do you think?



The other thing the article I read stated that most PVV supporters don't confess in public to supporting him but the latest estimate says 3 million votes in the next election.



I think there will be a surprise, not that Wilders will end up as leader but he may gain quite a few seats and have an impact in the way the freedom party in Austria became power broker behind the scenes.

It is true, the PVV has only one member, Geert Wilders and several politicians have left his party due to the undemocratic nature of the PVV party.

And while he may get 1/5th of the votes (possibly) but that still means that 4/5th of the votes go to parties that vehemently oppose Wilders.
 
Well, Geert Wilders has said:

“The Moroccan violence is pure racism because the victims of their violence are almost never people of Moroccan descent or Muslims".

Which is a lie because:

1. there is no registration of religion of victims or of the country they came from/parents came from
2. the PVV on it's on website says that domestic violence due to honor crimes is an issue among Muslims
3. there is a study that finds that Muslims are more often victims of crimes than non Muslims (mostly due to the location they live in, big cities and poor neighborhoods).

And even if it were true that Muslims where less often the victim of crime and violence (which is nonsense), that still does not mean that Moroccans commit crimes for racist reasons as Geert Wilders claims.


Wilders also claimed that when the Netherlands leaves the EU, we would be better off by billions of dollars even though the report Wilders uses at first had a warning (conveniently left out of the final draft that Wilders paid for) that if the Netherlands would leave the EU there is a serious chance of a credit crisis with banks toppling and the need for the government to bail out the banks and financial sector.

And then we are not talking about the distortions and the false things he proclaims (like a Tsunami of Islamism).

Last week he tweeted a video of a riot/fight at an asylum seeker center that he said happened on December second 2016. Now sure, there was a fight in that asylum seeker center but that happened over a year ago during the time when thousands and thousands where shuffled around in temporary housings but as said that fight he proclaimed happened last week was more than a year old and the asylum seeker center where he claimed this violence took place was closed months ago so it can hardly have been the scene of a violence riot a few weeks ago.

Also Wilders is a liar because the things he says in the political arena and the best example is that he ran on a program of never agreeing to raising the pension age (that at the time was 65) but as soon as he was part of the government he supported he traded that "never allowing the pension age to be raised" in a heart beat.

You should ask yourself why you are allowed to call Wilders a racist, and he can't call out a group he considers racist? The crime is what matters. That is why this **** goes on to hide facts that more people are seeing. Making Wilders the demon, and the loss of culture mandatory, is most certainly what most people want. Not.
 
You should ask yourself why you are allowed to call Wilders a racist, and he can't call out a group he considers racist? The crime is what matters. That is why this **** goes on to hide facts that more people are seeing. Making Wilders the demon, and the loss of culture mandatory, is most certainly what most people want. Not.

1. I am saying his party has racist ideas

2. he has been convicted of promoting discrimination and group insult.

3. he can call out any group he wants by honest criticism, he however is not allowed to promote discrimination and insulting groups of people on racist/religious grounds.

4. I am stating Wilders is racist based on his previous and currents statements, ideas and criminal record, something that is quite different from claiming an entire group of 300,000 people as racist criminals based on the fact that a small minority of these Moroccan or second generation Moroccans have committed crimes. He is generalizing over hundreds of thousands of people, I am not. Two very different accusations IMHO.

5. Nobody is hiding facts, but it is a fact that Wilders and a lot of his supporters make up things (usually lies or fake statistics) to suit their needs (demonizing people of Muslim descent).

6. Wilders is no demon, he is however a racist piece of crap that must be fought but telling the truth and not giving in to hatred and intolerance. I may disagree with Wilders and his supporters but I do not hate them (I may not have a high opinion about them but I do not hate them) which is something very different to what Wilders and his supporters regularly do (which includes death threats, racist comments, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.).


And once again, the large majority of Dutch people (a minimum of about 80%) vote for political parties that have completely opposite views to Wilders his views.
 
Well, Geert Wilders has said:

“The Moroccan violence is pure racism because the victims of their violence are almost never people of Moroccan descent or Muslims".

Which is a lie because:

1. there is no registration of religion of victims or of the country they came from/parents came from
2. the PVV on it's on website says that domestic violence due to honor crimes is an issue among Muslims
3. there is a study that finds that Muslims are more often victims of crimes than non Muslims (mostly due to the location they live in, big cities and poor neighborhoods).

And even if it were true that Muslims where less often the victim of crime and violence (which is nonsense), that still does not mean that Moroccans commit crimes for racist reasons as Geert Wilders claims.


Wilders also claimed that when the Netherlands leaves the EU, we would be better off by billions of dollars even though the report Wilders uses at first had a warning (conveniently left out of the final draft that Wilders paid for) that if the Netherlands would leave the EU there is a serious chance of a credit crisis with banks toppling and the need for the government to bail out the banks and financial sector.

And then we are not talking about the distortions and the false things he proclaims (like a Tsunami of Islamism).

Last week he tweeted a video of a riot/fight at an asylum seeker center that he said happened on December second 2016. Now sure, there was a fight in that asylum seeker center but that happened over a year ago during the time when thousands and thousands where shuffled around in temporary housings but as said that fight he proclaimed happened last week was more than a year old and the asylum seeker center where he claimed this violence took place was closed months ago so it can hardly have been the scene of a violence riot a few weeks ago.

Also Wilders is a liar because the things he says in the political arena and the best example is that he ran on a program of never agreeing to raising the pension age (that at the time was 65) but as soon as he was part of the government he supported he traded that "never allowing the pension age to be raised" in a heart beat.

Now you've directly answered a direct question from this poster, watch what happens when you ask a direct question back. Don't hold your breath waiting for an honest and direct answer back. I wouldn't bother doing his research for him in future by answering any more of his questions again.
 
1. I am saying his party has racist ideas

2. he has been convicted of promoting discrimination and group insult.

3. he can call out any group he wants by honest criticism, he however is not allowed to promote discrimination and insulting groups of people on racist/religious grounds.

4. I am stating Wilders is racist based on his previous and currents statements, ideas and criminal record, something that is quite different from claiming an entire group of 300,000 people as racist criminals based on the fact that a small minority of these Moroccan or second generation Moroccans have committed crimes. He is generalizing over hundreds of thousands of people, I am not. Two very different accusations IMHO.

5. Nobody is hiding facts, but it is a fact that Wilders and a lot of his supporters make up things (usually lies or fake statistics) to suit their needs (demonizing people of Muslim descent).

6. Wilders is no demon, he is however a racist piece of crap that must be fought but telling the truth and not giving in to hatred and intolerance. I may disagree with Wilders and his supporters but I do not hate them (I may not have a high opinion about them but I do not hate them) which is something very different to what Wilders and his supporters regularly do (which includes death threats, racist comments, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.).


And once again, the large majority of Dutch people (a minimum of about 80%) vote for political parties that have completely opposite views to Wilders his views.

The hatred and intolerance come from Islam. It looks like you refuse to accept that. That 80% is a pretty high estimate, you should check on that. Minds are changing.
 
~................. And once again, the large majority of Dutch people (a minimum of about 80%) vote for political parties that have completely opposite views to Wilders his views.
But that majority (be it 80, 70 or 90 pct) is pretty much split in its voting behavior in that it will not vote for PVV, but rather vote in such a manner that any government forming will involve a strenuous process of forming difficult coalitions as well as "toleration" of whoever gets into the "high seat".

Not sure if any or all of the other parties have categorically rejected any PVV participation in a future government, from what I hear though the VVD has not fully excluded such a possibility.

But it may well be that I'm not up to date.
 
...
And once again, the large majority of Dutch people (a minimum of about 80%) vote for political parties that have completely opposite views to Wilders his views.
But Wilders' party has been the highest in the Polls for most of the year. Only a small blip out I believe.

January 15, 2016
Populist Wilders Says EU Is Finished as He Leads Dutch Polls
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...lders-says-eu-finished-netherlands-must-leave

July 4, 2016
Poll: Geert Wilders would lead Dutch Party for Freedom to 50% more seats than nearest rival
Blog: Poll: Geert Wilders would lead Dutch Party for Freedom to 50% more seats than nearest rival

December 12, 2016
Geert Wilders increases after discrimination conviction
Wilders' PVV party is now the Most Popular in the Netherlands, Poll shows.
Netherlands: Support for Dutch anti-immigrant politician Geert Wilders increases after discrimination conviction

"..According to a poll conducted by the Maurice de Honde institute, the PVV is now the most popular party in the Netherlands and would win 36 of 150 parliamentary seats if elections were held today, making it the Largest group...."​
 
Last edited:
The hatred and intolerance come from Islam. It looks like you refuse to accept that. That 80% is a pretty high estimate, you should check on that. Minds are changing.

Sorry, but that is not right, intolerance and hatred comes from both sides, I accept that whereas people who support people like Wilders want to ignore the beam in their own eyes.

And that 80% is pretty spot on, maybe you should do your math, if a political party gets about 30 seats that means 1/5 of the electoral (20%) and the other 80% are voting for parties who totally or almost totally disagree with Wilders (the true silent majority because the only people you hear shouting in public are Wilders and his followers.
 
But that majority (be it 80, 70 or 90 pct) is pretty much split in its voting behavior in that it will not vote for PVV, but rather vote in such a manner that any government forming will involve a strenuous process of forming difficult coalitions as well as "toleration" of whoever gets into the "high seat".

Not sure if any or all of the other parties have categorically rejected any PVV participation in a future government, from what I hear though the VVD has not fully excluded such a possibility.

But it may well be that I'm not up to date.

It will be difficult, I agree but usually political parties will choose unity and what is best for the country when people have to form a coalition government.
 
But Wilders' party has been the highest in the Polls for most of the year. Only a small blip out I believe.

January 15, 2016
Populist Wilders Says EU Is Finished as He Leads Dutch Polls
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...lders-says-eu-finished-netherlands-must-leave

July 4, 2016
Poll: Geert Wilders would lead Dutch Party for Freedom to 50% more seats than nearest rival
Blog: Poll: Geert Wilders would lead Dutch Party for Freedom to 50% more seats than nearest rival

December 12, 2016
Geert Wilders increases after discrimination conviction
Wilders' PVV party is now the Most Popular in the Netherlands, Poll shows.
Netherlands: Support for Dutch anti-immigrant politician Geert Wilders increases after discrimination conviction

"..According to a poll conducted by the Maurice de Honde institute, the PVV is now the most popular party in the Netherlands and would win 36 of 150 parliamentary seats if elections were held today, making it the Largest group...."​

So he is the biggest party? So what? that leaves 115 to 120 seats who totally disagree with him, parties who think Wilders is a piece of scum.
 
Sorry, but that is not right, intolerance and hatred comes from both sides, I accept that whereas people who support people like Wilders want to ignore the beam in their own eyes.

And that 80% is pretty spot on, maybe you should do your math, if a political party gets about 30 seats that means 1/5 of the electoral (20%) and the other 80% are voting for parties who totally or almost totally disagree with Wilders (the true silent majority because the only people you hear shouting in public are Wilders and his followers.

You should ask yourself why immigrants hate their hosts, and if so why are they there? It is a fact they do not want to stay in their country to make them livable. So they decide to ruin your culture and are supposed to be loved? Human nature is not one of your strong points.
 
The hatred and intolerance come from Islam. It looks like you refuse to accept that. That 80% is a pretty high estimate, you should check on that. Minds are changing.

Some fix on Islam as a receptacle for their racist hate and intolerance. Such as Wilders and his fans.
 
Some fix on Islam as a receptacle for their racist hate and intolerance. Such as Wilders and his fans.

The Western world is a receptacle for Islams hate and intolerance. Nothing you can say changes Islams agenda. As it is for Muhammad and his fans.
 
You should ask yourself why immigrants hate their hosts, and if so why are they there? It is a fact they do not want to stay in their country to make them livable. So they decide to ruin your culture and are supposed to be loved? Human nature is not one of your strong points.

They hate their roots because they are conflicted in many ways. They do not belong to the Turkish/Moroccan/original societies because by the standards of these countries they are hopelessly Westernized and feel out of place. They do not belong fully to the Dutch society because in that society, even if they speak perfect Dutch, where born in the Netherlands, have successful careers and don't even visit the mosque on every Friday (just like Dutch people don't visit church every Sunday), even if they are totally and utterly integrated they will still be seen as filthy Mocro's (Moroccan) or filthy Turks by a part of Dutch society.

It is not easy being the child of an immigrant in a country that in the past did not force or encourage immigrants from Morocco or Turkey to learn Dutch because it was seen that they were going to be move back to their countries as soon as the work was going to end.

And most of them want to stay here.

And as a Dutch person I know full well that they did not ruin our culture. And you don't know anything about me or my country so you have no knowledge about my human nature. I know that most people are well willing and it is always a minority who spoil it for the rest.
 
The Western world is a receptacle for Islams hate and intolerance. Nothing you can say changes Islams agenda. As it is for Muhammad and his fans.

The Western world is not a receptacle, they invited/flew/boated them in by the millions to do the jobs the lazy and well to do Dutch and other European citizens where unwilling to do.

Years and years these people did the most horrible menial jobs (cleaning, dirty factory jobs, refuse collection) for which no or virtually no Dutch people (and I think it will be like that in most EU countries with a lot of immigrants) could be found to do those jobs.

And what Islam agenda? That they care about their own issues too? Newsflash!!!!! They live in Europe too and just like any other minority they care about their rights and try to get their gripes and wishes on the political agenda. This has nothing to do with Muhammed or his followers, that has to do with human nature.
 
The Western world is not a receptacle, they invited/flew/boated them in by the millions to do the jobs the lazy and well to do Dutch and other European citizens where unwilling to do.

Years and years these people did the most horrible menial jobs (cleaning, dirty factory jobs, refuse collection) for which no or virtually no Dutch people (and I think it will be like that in most EU countries with a lot of immigrants) could be found to do those jobs.
Those jobs were not "horrible" and Muslims were not the only ones doing them. Besides you forget that we also let their wives and kids join them, and that we freely educated their children and treated their parents, and offered them citizenship.

We did many things that were not in our interest and that we did for sheer humanist reasons.
 
Those jobs were not "horrible" and Muslims were not the only ones doing them. Besides you forget that we also let their wives and kids join them, and that we freely educated their children and treated their parents, and offered them citizenship.

We did many things that were not in our interest and that we did for sheer humanist reasons.

Really? So in your country there were loads of French willing to sweep the streets and clean the toilets during the time when jobs where so plenty that we needed to have immigrants move over to Europe to fill those positions?

Even now in the economic bad times people need to be lured over to the Netherlands because Dutch people refuse to harvest crops most of the time. Dutch people are unmotivated and lazy when they get sent over to pick cucumbers or pick strawberries, etc. etc. etc. Still people feel themselves too "well educated" or "not desperate enough to do hard menial work" even if they have no real employment opportunities.

And we do not freely educate their children, immigrants pay taxes for their children to be educated and all other services people in our countries get.

Sadly people seem to think immigrants are costing us loads of money without looking at the economic contributions they made (and I am talking about the first generation of immigrants that came in during the economic prosperous times).
 
Some fix on Islam as a receptacle for their racist hate and intolerance. Such as Wilders and his fans.

Islam is not a 'race'. To suggest that any criticism of this unpleasant creed is 'racist' is entirely mistaken. Islam is an absolutist world view, philosophy, religion and political programme. It is inimical to Western standards of democracy, justice and equality. It is outstandingly intolerant - to suggest that absolute intolerance must be tolerated is to stand reason on its head.

There are indeed moderate Muslims but there is no such thing as moderate Islam.
 
~..................... to stand reason on its head.
then perhaps you can explain how the following statement
There are indeed moderate Muslims but there is no such thing as moderate Islam.
is NOT standing logic on its head.

Obviously a Muslim is an adherent to Islam and since, in your words, there is no such thing as a moderate Islam, how can ANY Muslim be moderate?

To see it from the opposite angle, if indeed there ARE moderate Muslims, where does that leave your claim that there's no such thing as moderate Islam?

As to your claim that tolerance of absolute intolerance has been suggested by anyone as being a must, perhaps you can cite examples? Rather than simply provide such a distorting claim without any substantiation whatsoever.

Finally racist slur does not require any race to be involved. One may (and will) well argue over Jews (for example) constituting a race at all, nevertheless if you want to claim that anti-semitism is (was) not racist, you'd be demonstrating extreme ignorance of history.
 
then perhaps you can explain how the following statementis NOT standing logic on its head.

Obviously a Muslim is an adherent to Islam and since, in your words, there is no such thing as a moderate Islam, how can ANY Muslim be moderate?

To see it from the opposite angle, if indeed there ARE moderate Muslims, where does that leave your claim that there's no such thing as moderate Islam?

As to your claim that tolerance of absolute intolerance has been suggested by anyone as being a must, perhaps you can cite examples? Rather than simply provide such a distorting claim without any substantiation whatsoever.

Finally racist slur does not require any race to be involved. One may (and will) well argue over Jews (for example) constituting a race at all, nevertheless if you want to claim that anti-semitism is (was) not racist, you'd be demonstrating extreme ignorance of history.

No churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. No Christians or Jews with any political power. Bibles outlawed. Any damage or harm to persons in host countries for not upholding Islamic standards.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocratic monarchy in which Sunni Islam is the official state religion based on firm Sharia law and non-Muslims are not allowed to hold Saudi citizenship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia
 
Obviously a Muslim is an adherent to Islam and since, in your words, there is no such thing as a moderate Islam, how can ANY Muslim be moderate?
Because many believers do not significantly care about their religion and live as they personally fit rather than trying to rationally stick to dogmas written in what is obviously a horrible text for another age.

The good Muslims are the Muslims who do not care about the Koran and Muhammad. They used to amount to two thirds of Muslims, now it is one third, tomorrow it will probably be even less. Radicalism is advancing at the beat of Mars' trumpet.
 
Back
Top Bottom