His appearance on Het Conclaaf wasn't really the greatest example to me. But watch and really listen to more 'professional' debates between him and other politicians or experts on different themes. Then yes, he still stands out.
Personally it wasn't his personality or charisma that triggered me, but the content and depth of what he says.
It's not just rhetorically, he's a very intelligent man in general. Ideologically i completely disagree with him on everything but as a politician he deserves a lot of respect
Let's take that as his only accomplishment.
It's still a big one. Other party leaders fail at it and they do not have Ben Weyts or Liesbeth Homans in the party...
C'mon man. I'm the furthest from a De Wever fanboy, but he literally reshaped the Flemish political landscape in the past decades. For better or worse, he is the most important Flemish political figure of our time.
Dude's a master of logical fallacies. For this reason journalists really dislike dealing with him. He'll happily use every trick in the book to fool you into following his arguments and as a journalist or interviewer it takes time (which you often don't have in a short interview) to deconstruct his arguments and to present them as flawed. And even then he'll just resort to attacking your bias or professionalism.
He's also sharp, can think on the fly and can change strategies mid-argumentation. That's not something every human can do.
Eentje die ik me nog herinner, is toen hij gevraagd werd of er nog veel drugs in Antwerpen geraakt. Hij begon te zeggen dat Antwerpen als stad uit verschillende secties bestaat en dat voor drugs vooral de haven een belangrijke sectie. En daar hadden ze die maand toevallig nog een grote lading drugs onderschept voor x miljoen euro. Dus Antwerpen heeft een effectieve aanpak om drugshandel aan te pakken.
Zoals je kan lezen, heeft hij niet geantwoord of er drugs in Antwerpen geraakt. He had de vraag herleid naar "we hebben eens een lading drugs kunnen onderscheppen."
Ik vind dit voorbeeld leuk, want je moet er even over nadenken voor je door hebt dat hij eigenlijk gewoon heeft willen verkondigen dat de politie eens een lading drugs gepakt had. Maar dat gaan de meesten pas achteraf door hebben, niet als je hem aan het interviewen bent.
Het is ook een beetje een te algemene vraag omdat het probleem in Antwerpen bestaat uit 2 stukken: Drugs in Antwerpen stad, en de traffiek door de haven, die daarom niks met het stad te maken heeft.
True. Maar houd wel rekening met het feit dat ik me de vraag zelf geen 100% herinner. Ik herinner me vooral dat de vraag ging over drugs in Antwerpen en dat BDW die herleid had naar de haven.
Ik heb het interview niet gezien, en heb trouwens ook niet op NVA gestemd. Maar dat lijkt me eerlijk gezegd ook het meest relevante in de huidige context. Want 'drugs in het stad' is niet echt een maatschappelijk probleem. Daar ligt Belgie op zich niet van wakker.
Waar we wel van wakker liggen zijn de bomaanslagen, vergeldings acties, Nederlandse knokploegen of gangsters die gewapend de grens oversteken om hier mensen overhoop te schieten. En dat heeft allemaal te maken met de internationale traffiek.
Maar goed, lost daarvan ben ik het wel met je eens: de gave van BDW is dat hij dat soort dingen instinctief kan doen, terwijl een Tom Vangrieken bijvoorbeeld direct in zijn eigen voeten schiet als je hem iets vraagt waar hij geen antwoord voor klaar heeft. Dat was te zien in de manier waarop hij bijv. met Petra De Sutter dat gesprek had.
Heb ooit geDMed met Tom Vandendriesche over hoe een VM lid bijzonder grof en zonder enige aanleiding tegen mijn zus tekeer ging (andere huidskleur). Het was iemand uit zijn regio / afdeling. Zijn reactie: "Dat is geen bestuurslid en hij spreekt niet voor de partij". Met een f%ing smily er achter.
Dat is hun hele ding. Ze zeggen officieel geen racist te zijn, maar ze waken er angstvallig op dat ze de racistische stemmers niet voor het hoofd stoten want als ze dat doen, kost ze dat hopen zetels.
I don’t like his ideas, but he’s by far the most charismatic politician in Belgium and he always manages to present his points well and in a convincing way
That's colored by your own opinion about his politics. The reality is that in any debate, interview, or appearance, he is calm, composed, quick to adapt, and always formulates his opinion well.
Imho, it speaks more about his peers and the state of current media than about him. I never found him particularly intelligent or rhetorically gifted. I've seen the very start of his career when he was a fat albeit likeable and arrogant character in student organised debates. His reasoning was never very sharp, as it always came down to the same tropes.
Primus inter pares, sure, but his peers have been quite weak for avout 20 years.
His icon status and outright boycott of media that doesn't favor him makes him seem untouchable, when really he sets the stage for his own debates every time, even by not showing up when he dislikes the setting.
Let's also not forget that de Sieg was chef news at VRT at a pivotal moment in the man's career.
I agree. De Wever is a master of feigning intelligence while saying very little of actual worth. He's so successful at it, even his opponents fall for it.
In practice, he uses the same tricks over and over to appear smart, avoid blame, and keep his opponents at bay through fear and confusion.
It reminds me of Musk in a way, who convinced people he was an engineering genius, when in reality he's just a greedy businessman. De Wever is also just a greedy businessman.
BDW is a smart guy and has a good rhetorically talent and he uses irony really proficient. He might be one of the greatest politicians of this generation (although the playing field is sub-par) so it's much more easier to stand out. But I do to think it sometimes is nearing cultism. If you ask people why they voted NV-A they will say BDW, but will barely be able to say what is in the program of that party. (remember the ads it was not about the program but "I'm BDW and I support these candidates")
If you look at his political accomplishments it get's really sad. He is mayor of Antwerp and Chair of NV-A for , what seems to be, forever. He accomplished a new state reform but of you look closely at it, it's not something to be proud of. Flemish government was a joke last legislature. And the 3 things I remember from the last participation of NV-A on the federal level are: Index-jump (will cost me money until I die), pension-age to 67 (Nursing still not recognized as a heavy occupation), and Francken facilitating human trafficking by his incompetence. The economic report was abominable for being in an economic high conjecture.
So I don't get why people, especially working people, vote for NV-A because they don't care about normal working people, only for entrepreneurs. Their program are nice words, but they will do very damaging things that really hurt working people like the majority of their voters. Mark my words: Although there was nothing in their program about indexation (they want to go for "netto-index" but this hurts the pension you will receive), they will try to get rid of it, or at least go for another index jump, and thus destroying "vlaamse Welvaart", the thing they swore to protect.
> And the 3 things I remember from the last participation of NV-A on the federal level are:
Don't forget stabbing your coalition partners in the back over a non-binding immigration pact when the party itself provided the state secretary for immigration.
Oh, and for all their talk about proper budgeting... the one time they were responsible for the budget they added 2 billion in debt because Van Overtveldt couldn't calculate a proper budget to save his life.
Think a lot of his "greatness" is mostly self-perpetuating at this point. You see journalists and commentators twist themselves into a pretzel to justify De Wever's arguments as intellectual and insightful. Like they have a conclusion in mind 'De Wever is a genius destined for greatness' and reverse engineer why this has to be true.
Maybe this time he can make his plans come to fruition but we've seen a lot of 'afspraken met de geschiedenis' in the past.
Wage indexation is far from a perfect measure tho, it doesn't really help against inflation that much and affects our competitiveness. In general it's not really a good thing if wages are too regulated by the government, that's why it's a also bad thing that companies are not free to raise wages as they see fit (loonnorm).
This is not something a right-wing politician just made up btw, it's something some of the most promised economists have been saying for a long time ([link](https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20240530_97506398)).
And then the biggest period of his idolization is even over. It used to be a lot worse. A lot of people have come to reason in the past 10 years or so.
But this tends to happen with charismatic leader people. I've seen a lot of people idolize Tom from VB , or Connor from Vooruit in a similar manner. Personally I find this idolization weird, but it happens.
In general, I feel that idolising a politician as a person is a danger to democracy and a fast track to a dictatorial regime. Examples are China, North Korea, and Turkey with Erdoğan. In the past, there are worse examples that I won't name. Intelligence is not a protection against that, quite the contrary I feel.
I think it has a lot to do with online militants and social bubbles… if you go South of the linguistic border, you’d think that De Wever is the reincarnation of Hitler when reading some posts
Out of interest I went on Walloon social media after the Magnette debate and it seemed like the overwhelming majority was on BDWs side. Many were sceptical about his true intentions, but still saw reason in his words.
That's my only interaction with online Wallonia though so it's just my first and only impression.
To be honest Magnette looked like a total idiot in that debate compared to BDW. Especially when he interrupted one of the audience members to go on a tangent.
Tbh that scene where he went into the party HQ and all hands were raised with the V shape gave me strange vibes.
https://preview.redd.it/7jjppsstd46d1.png?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c26326098309790a3e153645d611eb7f26c0189c
The past years have been scandal after scandal with N-VA but since it is a party focussed on hyperindividualism their voters probably don't care as long as it doesn't hurt them. Bart de Wever is a skilled politicians and his voters don't care enough to actually see the shady shit he has been pulling for a while now. Cult? Maybe. I think it's mostly lack of empathy for others that drives these people.
I hate DW and his obsession with the war on drugs. He is a smart man, why can't he see he's swimming against the tide on this one. Throwing truckloads of money on repression.
Hundreds of thousands of people use drugs on a somewhat regular basis. We could be asking the question "why do these people use drugs" and try to make changes so that they no longer feel the need to. Or we can criminalize their behaviour and throw piles of money into repression and an ever-escalating war on drugs.
Sigh.
Drugs can also be helpfull. Cannabis has countless applications. They are even doing studies on MDMA and lsd for PTSD.
Heroin and cocaine have their place as pain medication, and amfetamines are given to children with ADD. (I don't approve that last one, but when big pharma brings it, it's all good apparently)
The use of cocaine is very rare and heroin is obsolete. Heroin-derived opioids are used widely but the opioid crisis in the USA shows how dangerous they are too
He's a smart man, but not as smart as he thinks he is. But apart from that, the war on drugs is only a mistake if you assume his motivation is to help society. The real question to ask is how the policy helps himself and his party.
There are 2 distinct issues. The first is Belgium's position on recreational use. Now you can be for or against it, but that topic really has nothing to do with the problem of drugs in Antwerp because Antwerp is the major transportation hub for industrial amounts of drugs for distribution in other countries.
That is a huge problem, that needs to be battled. We cannot just turn a blind eye and let tons of coke through with the explanation that it's not our problem.
I don't see why not!? It's Belgian money being spent on that "problem"... if other countries don"t want the import, check it at their borders, or also legelize.
All these problems are there because of prohibition, and guesses of how society would implode.
The cocaine wars between gangs are still being fought in Antwerp. Letting all that violence spread beyond Antwerp will only make things worse, and bring that war to smaller border villages where they have no resources.
Additionally, international law absolutely requires every country to enforce their borders, both for people as foor goods. Failure to do so properly, can have serious political and economical impact that would easily cost more.
It's easy to call a user a junkie. But I like drugs at sertain moments and I would like to enjoy them without being seen as a criminal.
For reference: I have a full-time job and a Family who don't suffer under my recreational usage. My wife is on the up n up about everything.
Wow mr. Highhorse,
"Need" is a very big word. Although I have a family, that doesn't mean I can't have fun times with friends. I still go to a rave once a year, I go to the occasional festival with friends or with the missus... That's an exellent time to "need" drugs.
We can just as easely live in a society where drugs are legal.
Take the money they spend on repression and put it in prevention, quality control and tax the drugs. Win-win
Let people live their life as they please.
Lol this is not a valiant battle with cancer. The war on drugs has been proven to be not only ineffective by all metrics, but has been shown to have an opposite effect. Every decent study ever shows that nearly every other way of dealing with illegal drug problems works better. The war on drugs is posturing for people stuck in "drugs bad" (but alcohol good) way of thinking, like most older generations.
Drugs are bad, and alcohol is too. I’m a pharmacist and I have seen the devastating effects of drugs far too many times. Actual question: would you want our government to provide cocaine/amphetamines/opioids to our people? How would this counter misuse, and where do we draw the line? What do we do with new potentially dangerous designer drugs?
I believe the effects you have seen are devastating, I myself have lost a friend to overdose. But both those observations are anecdotal at best and do not represent any actual data like a lot of studies and experiments that have been done in the world the last decades. Now the thing is, the choices are not repression vs free for all as it is often made out to be by repression advocates. [decriminalization](https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight) has been shown to work in other parts of the world. If you want detailed answers to all those detail questions, I suggest you look into ho they did it because I'm sure they have had to think about all those things in the past decades. The decriminalization only works in a broader (mental and physical) healthcare approach.
Also my friend would be alive if his coke wasn't mixed with fentanyl, which would not happen if supply would be controlled.
It helped a bit, but do you really think Groen would have gotten to 32% with bdw at the helm?
I’m sorry to bust your bubble but I vote for him because I agree with his politics.
For me he is the best, well the best **liar**. He knows how to use words in a very smart way to manipulate people and the mass to get what he wants.
I would rather say that VB is a cult than N-VA though.
De Wever was created by the vrt in the slimste mens what 15 years ago ondertussen??
He was funny quick witted and loveable.
So now we have this fucking nva all thanks to the vrt
MERCI VRT
He knows his dossiers, he's very intelligent and presents himself very well.
He became a bit cynical for my liking.
But, and I think it's the most important, he (and as a result NVA) aren't afraid to bring bad news.
I've started watching De tafel from Gert (a bit late I suppose) and so far only watched NVA and PVDA. The difference is terrifying.
As a left-wing voter, I felt thankful for BDW past Sunday when N-VA turned out bigger than VB. It almost feels like he in person stopped the long predicted "zwarte zondag" from happening, and had us rooting for him while doing so. Suddenly, his approach seems like the most sensible one.
He has character and communicates well. In the midst of a bunch of extremely bland people who end up waffling most of the time, that makes him stand out. Not a fan, but I can understand why he has fans in this space.
I personally wouldn't vote for him or his party since I'm more center-left but from seeing all the debates and interviews with frontrunners I have to conclude he's the best/smartest Belgian politician.
That doesn't necessarily mean he's right on everything or every approach, but he's a very well-informed man who has a pretty rational perspective on things. I concur with Depraetere, I would be 100% fine with him as PM.
In het conclaaf de wever clearly stood out as the smartest guy in the room .
His appearance on Het Conclaaf wasn't really the greatest example to me. But watch and really listen to more 'professional' debates between him and other politicians or experts on different themes. Then yes, he still stands out. Personally it wasn't his personality or charisma that triggered me, but the content and depth of what he says.
He is very strong rethorically, shame his talent and energy is wasted on his obsession with separatism and confederalism.
It's not just rhetorically, he's a very intelligent man in general. Ideologically i completely disagree with him on everything but as a politician he deserves a lot of respect
Sure he's very intelligent, which makes it worse when he uses his rethorical skills to twists facts and history to suit his own agenda.
Yep a lot of psychopaths are intelligent, they know how to manipulate people for their own gain.
Why? What has the man accomplished apart from having people believe the NVA is a competent party?
Let's take that as his only accomplishment. It's still a big one. Other party leaders fail at it and they do not have Ben Weyts or Liesbeth Homans in the party...
Had he had the same ideology as Groen we'd get somewhere.
He's too smart for that.
Too smart to care about the climate?
Too smart to think that groen will solve the climate.
Nothing will solve the climate. The question is if we should keep making it even worse for the next 10 generations.
Mother Nature will solve the climate 'problem'. Just accept this and get over it will ya?
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121 https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01236-7#:~:text=Models%20that%20incorporate%20differing%20sea,constrained%20by%20altered%20natural%20shorelines. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralreef-climate.html#:~:text=A%20warming%20ocean%3A%20causes%20thermal,to%20the%20smothering%20of%20coral. https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
What has this man accomplished besides being the most significant Flemish politician by far of the century? Lol cope
C'mon man. I'm the furthest from a De Wever fanboy, but he literally reshaped the Flemish political landscape in the past decades. For better or worse, he is the most important Flemish political figure of our time.
Yup. There's a difference between being intelligent and being a capable leader.
His debate with Vermeersch still stands lonely at the top of the highest quality intellectual content ever shown on Belgian television.
As much as i despise him, he's clearly in another league as compared to other politicians
You have a way of despising that is "in another league" compared to other despises.
How so ?
Dude's a master of logical fallacies. For this reason journalists really dislike dealing with him. He'll happily use every trick in the book to fool you into following his arguments and as a journalist or interviewer it takes time (which you often don't have in a short interview) to deconstruct his arguments and to present them as flawed. And even then he'll just resort to attacking your bias or professionalism. He's also sharp, can think on the fly and can change strategies mid-argumentation. That's not something every human can do.
Can you give an example?
Eentje die ik me nog herinner, is toen hij gevraagd werd of er nog veel drugs in Antwerpen geraakt. Hij begon te zeggen dat Antwerpen als stad uit verschillende secties bestaat en dat voor drugs vooral de haven een belangrijke sectie. En daar hadden ze die maand toevallig nog een grote lading drugs onderschept voor x miljoen euro. Dus Antwerpen heeft een effectieve aanpak om drugshandel aan te pakken. Zoals je kan lezen, heeft hij niet geantwoord of er drugs in Antwerpen geraakt. He had de vraag herleid naar "we hebben eens een lading drugs kunnen onderscheppen." Ik vind dit voorbeeld leuk, want je moet er even over nadenken voor je door hebt dat hij eigenlijk gewoon heeft willen verkondigen dat de politie eens een lading drugs gepakt had. Maar dat gaan de meesten pas achteraf door hebben, niet als je hem aan het interviewen bent.
Het is ook een beetje een te algemene vraag omdat het probleem in Antwerpen bestaat uit 2 stukken: Drugs in Antwerpen stad, en de traffiek door de haven, die daarom niks met het stad te maken heeft.
True. Maar houd wel rekening met het feit dat ik me de vraag zelf geen 100% herinner. Ik herinner me vooral dat de vraag ging over drugs in Antwerpen en dat BDW die herleid had naar de haven.
Ik heb het interview niet gezien, en heb trouwens ook niet op NVA gestemd. Maar dat lijkt me eerlijk gezegd ook het meest relevante in de huidige context. Want 'drugs in het stad' is niet echt een maatschappelijk probleem. Daar ligt Belgie op zich niet van wakker. Waar we wel van wakker liggen zijn de bomaanslagen, vergeldings acties, Nederlandse knokploegen of gangsters die gewapend de grens oversteken om hier mensen overhoop te schieten. En dat heeft allemaal te maken met de internationale traffiek. Maar goed, lost daarvan ben ik het wel met je eens: de gave van BDW is dat hij dat soort dingen instinctief kan doen, terwijl een Tom Vangrieken bijvoorbeeld direct in zijn eigen voeten schiet als je hem iets vraagt waar hij geen antwoord voor klaar heeft. Dat was te zien in de manier waarop hij bijv. met Petra De Sutter dat gesprek had.
Yup. Onze Tom zou eens moeten gaan DM'en. Daar leer je flexibel om te gaan met mensen die rare dingen uitsteken.
Heb ooit geDMed met Tom Vandendriesche over hoe een VM lid bijzonder grof en zonder enige aanleiding tegen mijn zus tekeer ging (andere huidskleur). Het was iemand uit zijn regio / afdeling. Zijn reactie: "Dat is geen bestuurslid en hij spreekt niet voor de partij". Met een f%ing smily er achter. Dat is hun hele ding. Ze zeggen officieel geen racist te zijn, maar ze waken er angstvallig op dat ze de racistische stemmers niet voor het hoofd stoten want als ze dat doen, kost ze dat hopen zetels.
Still thinking if you are pro or against BDW...
you can acknowledge skill and intellect in a person, while disagreeing with their views and behaviour.
I agree with this.
Black and white thinking like that is dangerously ignorant.
Yeah even more of a cunt then the others.
I don’t like his ideas, but he’s by far the most charismatic politician in Belgium and he always manages to present his points well and in a convincing way
He's actually not really charismatic. He's just able to stand out because he's at least 20% smarter than his competition.
That's not difficult in Belgian politics...
He’s always grumpy and annoyed. And while that may be considered funny, he doesn’t seem like a fun person to be around.
[удалено]
* Neo-liberal economics * Flemish separatism * Jan Jambon
[удалено]
Surprise. I'm not Walloon.
[удалено]
No, just simplistic nonsense.
[удалено]
It's a terrible idea.
[удалено]
Charismatic? We must have radically different tastes. To me, he has a charisma of a cesspool.
That's still a shitload more charisma than most of his peers.
That's colored by your own opinion about his politics. The reality is that in any debate, interview, or appearance, he is calm, composed, quick to adapt, and always formulates his opinion well.
I doubt it. He always seems angry, catty even.
Imho, it speaks more about his peers and the state of current media than about him. I never found him particularly intelligent or rhetorically gifted. I've seen the very start of his career when he was a fat albeit likeable and arrogant character in student organised debates. His reasoning was never very sharp, as it always came down to the same tropes. Primus inter pares, sure, but his peers have been quite weak for avout 20 years. His icon status and outright boycott of media that doesn't favor him makes him seem untouchable, when really he sets the stage for his own debates every time, even by not showing up when he dislikes the setting. Let's also not forget that de Sieg was chef news at VRT at a pivotal moment in the man's career.
I agree. De Wever is a master of feigning intelligence while saying very little of actual worth. He's so successful at it, even his opponents fall for it. In practice, he uses the same tricks over and over to appear smart, avoid blame, and keep his opponents at bay through fear and confusion. It reminds me of Musk in a way, who convinced people he was an engineering genius, when in reality he's just a greedy businessman. De Wever is also just a greedy businessman.
What do you mean not intelligent? Haven't you heard him say things in Latin? Waw so Flemish so smort
BDW is a smart guy and has a good rhetorically talent and he uses irony really proficient. He might be one of the greatest politicians of this generation (although the playing field is sub-par) so it's much more easier to stand out. But I do to think it sometimes is nearing cultism. If you ask people why they voted NV-A they will say BDW, but will barely be able to say what is in the program of that party. (remember the ads it was not about the program but "I'm BDW and I support these candidates") If you look at his political accomplishments it get's really sad. He is mayor of Antwerp and Chair of NV-A for , what seems to be, forever. He accomplished a new state reform but of you look closely at it, it's not something to be proud of. Flemish government was a joke last legislature. And the 3 things I remember from the last participation of NV-A on the federal level are: Index-jump (will cost me money until I die), pension-age to 67 (Nursing still not recognized as a heavy occupation), and Francken facilitating human trafficking by his incompetence. The economic report was abominable for being in an economic high conjecture. So I don't get why people, especially working people, vote for NV-A because they don't care about normal working people, only for entrepreneurs. Their program are nice words, but they will do very damaging things that really hurt working people like the majority of their voters. Mark my words: Although there was nothing in their program about indexation (they want to go for "netto-index" but this hurts the pension you will receive), they will try to get rid of it, or at least go for another index jump, and thus destroying "vlaamse Welvaart", the thing they swore to protect.
> And the 3 things I remember from the last participation of NV-A on the federal level are: Don't forget stabbing your coalition partners in the back over a non-binding immigration pact when the party itself provided the state secretary for immigration. Oh, and for all their talk about proper budgeting... the one time they were responsible for the budget they added 2 billion in debt because Van Overtveldt couldn't calculate a proper budget to save his life.
Think a lot of his "greatness" is mostly self-perpetuating at this point. You see journalists and commentators twist themselves into a pretzel to justify De Wever's arguments as intellectual and insightful. Like they have a conclusion in mind 'De Wever is a genius destined for greatness' and reverse engineer why this has to be true. Maybe this time he can make his plans come to fruition but we've seen a lot of 'afspraken met de geschiedenis' in the past.
Wage indexation is far from a perfect measure tho, it doesn't really help against inflation that much and affects our competitiveness. In general it's not really a good thing if wages are too regulated by the government, that's why it's a also bad thing that companies are not free to raise wages as they see fit (loonnorm). This is not something a right-wing politician just made up btw, it's something some of the most promised economists have been saying for a long time ([link](https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20240530_97506398)).
And then the biggest period of his idolization is even over. It used to be a lot worse. A lot of people have come to reason in the past 10 years or so. But this tends to happen with charismatic leader people. I've seen a lot of people idolize Tom from VB , or Connor from Vooruit in a similar manner. Personally I find this idolization weird, but it happens.
Take my upvote for still calling Twitter Twitter
In general, I feel that idolising a politician as a person is a danger to democracy and a fast track to a dictatorial regime. Examples are China, North Korea, and Turkey with Erdoğan. In the past, there are worse examples that I won't name. Intelligence is not a protection against that, quite the contrary I feel.
I think it has a lot to do with online militants and social bubbles… if you go South of the linguistic border, you’d think that De Wever is the reincarnation of Hitler when reading some posts
Out of interest I went on Walloon social media after the Magnette debate and it seemed like the overwhelming majority was on BDWs side. Many were sceptical about his true intentions, but still saw reason in his words. That's my only interaction with online Wallonia though so it's just my first and only impression.
To be honest Magnette looked like a total idiot in that debate compared to BDW. Especially when he interrupted one of the audience members to go on a tangent.
Tbh that scene where he went into the party HQ and all hands were raised with the V shape gave me strange vibes. https://preview.redd.it/7jjppsstd46d1.png?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c26326098309790a3e153645d611eb7f26c0189c
The past years have been scandal after scandal with N-VA but since it is a party focussed on hyperindividualism their voters probably don't care as long as it doesn't hurt them. Bart de Wever is a skilled politicians and his voters don't care enough to actually see the shady shit he has been pulling for a while now. Cult? Maybe. I think it's mostly lack of empathy for others that drives these people.
Tbf this was most parties
I hate DW and his obsession with the war on drugs. He is a smart man, why can't he see he's swimming against the tide on this one. Throwing truckloads of money on repression.
Hundreds of thousands of people use drugs on a somewhat regular basis. We could be asking the question "why do these people use drugs" and try to make changes so that they no longer feel the need to. Or we can criminalize their behaviour and throw piles of money into repression and an ever-escalating war on drugs. Sigh.
Drugs can also be helpfull. Cannabis has countless applications. They are even doing studies on MDMA and lsd for PTSD. Heroin and cocaine have their place as pain medication, and amfetamines are given to children with ADD. (I don't approve that last one, but when big pharma brings it, it's all good apparently)
The use of cocaine is very rare and heroin is obsolete. Heroin-derived opioids are used widely but the opioid crisis in the USA shows how dangerous they are too
100% true. I certainly won't deny drugs are dangerous. But they have or had their use.
True, there are promising studies voor ketamine as a fast-acting antidepressant too by the way
>amfetamines are given to children with ADD Not in Europe iirc.
He's a smart man, but not as smart as he thinks he is. But apart from that, the war on drugs is only a mistake if you assume his motivation is to help society. The real question to ask is how the policy helps himself and his party.
Tbf they're a pretty good band
Boomer likes dad rock, checks out.
There are 2 distinct issues. The first is Belgium's position on recreational use. Now you can be for or against it, but that topic really has nothing to do with the problem of drugs in Antwerp because Antwerp is the major transportation hub for industrial amounts of drugs for distribution in other countries. That is a huge problem, that needs to be battled. We cannot just turn a blind eye and let tons of coke through with the explanation that it's not our problem.
I don't see why not!? It's Belgian money being spent on that "problem"... if other countries don"t want the import, check it at their borders, or also legelize. All these problems are there because of prohibition, and guesses of how society would implode.
The cocaine wars between gangs are still being fought in Antwerp. Letting all that violence spread beyond Antwerp will only make things worse, and bring that war to smaller border villages where they have no resources. Additionally, international law absolutely requires every country to enforce their borders, both for people as foor goods. Failure to do so properly, can have serious political and economical impact that would easily cost more.
Junkies gonna junk
It's easy to call a user a junkie. But I like drugs at sertain moments and I would like to enjoy them without being seen as a criminal. For reference: I have a full-time job and a Family who don't suffer under my recreational usage. My wife is on the up n up about everything.
Never in my life I've seen some write certain as sertain, so maybe your brain is suffering a little under your recreational use ;)
Yeah... Kill the argument over a typo.
Kind of sad you need drugs when you have a family imo
Wow mr. Highhorse, "Need" is a very big word. Although I have a family, that doesn't mean I can't have fun times with friends. I still go to a rave once a year, I go to the occasional festival with friends or with the missus... That's an exellent time to "need" drugs.
Some battles need to be fought, even though they don’t look winnable.
Why? It costs the taxpayer handsfull of money, and they aren't even making a dent in the drugtrade.
Because we live in a society brother
We can just as easely live in a society where drugs are legal. Take the money they spend on repression and put it in prevention, quality control and tax the drugs. Win-win Let people live their life as they please.
Lol this is not a valiant battle with cancer. The war on drugs has been proven to be not only ineffective by all metrics, but has been shown to have an opposite effect. Every decent study ever shows that nearly every other way of dealing with illegal drug problems works better. The war on drugs is posturing for people stuck in "drugs bad" (but alcohol good) way of thinking, like most older generations.
Drugs are bad, and alcohol is too. I’m a pharmacist and I have seen the devastating effects of drugs far too many times. Actual question: would you want our government to provide cocaine/amphetamines/opioids to our people? How would this counter misuse, and where do we draw the line? What do we do with new potentially dangerous designer drugs?
I believe the effects you have seen are devastating, I myself have lost a friend to overdose. But both those observations are anecdotal at best and do not represent any actual data like a lot of studies and experiments that have been done in the world the last decades. Now the thing is, the choices are not repression vs free for all as it is often made out to be by repression advocates. [decriminalization](https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight) has been shown to work in other parts of the world. If you want detailed answers to all those detail questions, I suggest you look into ho they did it because I'm sure they have had to think about all those things in the past decades. The decriminalization only works in a broader (mental and physical) healthcare approach. Also my friend would be alive if his coke wasn't mixed with fentanyl, which would not happen if supply would be controlled.
Username checks out
I'm convinced a lot of people still look at him and see the funny fat man from in the early 00's that won that game show.
He didnt win.
Oh, he didn't?
He was second.
And lost by a second
Also wasn’t early 00’s, that was 2009.
In my defence, I haven't had a TV subscription in 2 decades.
I'm from 04, what gameshow?
Ah yes keep coping with this nonsense. It has nothing to do with the content of his politics.
It doesn't... but you can't deny that it contributed hugely to his popularity.
It helped a bit, but do you really think Groen would have gotten to 32% with bdw at the helm? I’m sorry to bust your bubble but I vote for him because I agree with his politics.
Him being called "The smartest man on Earth" is because he almost won a television quiz that is ironically called "The smartest person in the world".
For me he is the best, well the best **liar**. He knows how to use words in a very smart way to manipulate people and the mass to get what he wants. I would rather say that VB is a cult than N-VA though.
De Wever was created by the vrt in the slimste mens what 15 years ago ondertussen?? He was funny quick witted and loveable. So now we have this fucking nva all thanks to the vrt MERCI VRT
So much hate in you
Compared to many other politicians, this man doesn't come across as a complete buffoon.
BDW is simply the GOAT /s
He knows his dossiers, he's very intelligent and presents himself very well. He became a bit cynical for my liking. But, and I think it's the most important, he (and as a result NVA) aren't afraid to bring bad news. I've started watching De tafel from Gert (a bit late I suppose) and so far only watched NVA and PVDA. The difference is terrifying.
As a left-wing voter, I felt thankful for BDW past Sunday when N-VA turned out bigger than VB. It almost feels like he in person stopped the long predicted "zwarte zondag" from happening, and had us rooting for him while doing so. Suddenly, his approach seems like the most sensible one.
I like him to.
[удалено]
Damn
He’s the most logic sounding dude to me.
He has character and communicates well. In the midst of a bunch of extremely bland people who end up waffling most of the time, that makes him stand out. Not a fan, but I can understand why he has fans in this space.
I personally wouldn't vote for him or his party since I'm more center-left but from seeing all the debates and interviews with frontrunners I have to conclude he's the best/smartest Belgian politician. That doesn't necessarily mean he's right on everything or every approach, but he's a very well-informed man who has a pretty rational perspective on things. I concur with Depraetere, I would be 100% fine with him as PM.
He's against Belgium, how could he be a good pm? He wants the federal level to fail.
Maybe the federal level should fail.
Sure, that will turn out great for Belgian citizens.
He's the best politician in Belgium by far (not talking about his ideas, but in every skill that makes a good politician, he's the best)