Your choice of words implies a level of involvement within or from the government of Hungary. Rest assured, I just like arguing and need better hobbies.
As much involvement as a political supporter can have anyway. After all, I'm also a random person, and can't really speak for any of the institutions or entities whose actions I'm arguing for.
I can just pick a bone, when there's something incongruous about some of the arguments and values used.
I noticed that you failed to finish this sentence, and I won't finish it for you.
It seems you did, and wrongly at that.
I did not to remove the votes or veto, for Hungary and in fact the issue with Hungary messing with collective defense is more or less solved now. Their rot and what it does to their country is in the end their issue to solve (although the EU and it's member states can choose to not aid that).
The EU is allowed to defend itself, it's democracy and union is more at risk if a Trojan horse for Russia is active. Plus, the US used to once trump "sovereignty" prior to starting at trade war against the EU and tried to meddle in internal politics that failed because the EU stood together, and Germany in particular did not negotiate separately (Despite some in the American Right taunting they would). Considering their ties to Hungary, is the democracy concern in good faith? I don't think so, maybe the American Right should have told their buddy in Hungary to stop if they're so concerned.
And yet, you fail to provide sources for any of this.
You get to complain about my long comments or you get to be bored through links. It can't be both, especially since many of the links get ignored afterwards.
Plus, the judicial issue should have been in the read-through on the constitution that you said you did. I'm pretty sure I also did beforehand for the media control as well.
You know what, here's for ballots . Here's for the malpractice
A paywalled opinion piece. Here's a free version of the relevant article linked within.
Okay, there we go, a non-paywalled article, thank you.
I'd have to argue against you on the economy front since his examples of Turkey, Russia and China are actually having severe economic issues partly as a result of their own autocratic management. It aged poorly, we are living in the post-populist period where these experiments with "other systems" blew up in the face of those involved. Including Hungary.
These arguments you used are familiar to me, because Hungary's defenders used to excuse it with the same importance of a devil's advocate and the actual faults that did exist in the West and current "World Order". However, we can't keep using 2016 arguments.
Than the war in ukraine happened, and there continued to be news like: Hungary's Orban congratulates Russia's Putin on re-election .It's to the point that even the far-right of other nations distanced themselves, I wonder if there's a limit to rationalization here?
Not true; they've both been decreasing in democracy-ness since 2006.
Alright, we're now using the indexes. I assume this is the Economist? I'm using OurWorldinData here.
Results are slightly different there, to compare there is a brief jump for Ukraine (0.41 Central to 0.53) before the war brings it down again. Hungary is at 0,85 for a long-time with a heavy slide starting from 2009 to now 0.45 (both central estimates). Germany had 0.9 central since 1990, although it started decreasing even after Merkel left, but it hasn't gotten better in 2022 as it remains to 0.87 central (although the influence she had could be to blame, she was in power too long).
I think they're in-line with my arguments, but one could compare other indexes to see which is more reliable, but at least that's a sight better than making it up.
You conflate "banned books" in the sense of books that are illegal to possess, and "banned books" in the sense of being subject to controversy that renders access more difficult for some.
No, I'm also adding the threatened prison time for Teachers & Librarians (and one could be grateful that I'm limiting it to books, and not all measures in the states that are alright meddling in the lives of LGBT people, or people in general). Once that line was crossed into government, it wasn't just busybody moral guardians.
It's a quibbling distinction when it becomes functionally the same for those without means for the US. There are no same extent of the issues of content and censorship in Germany, and for the banned book the US even uses the same national excuse, as you just said.
Currently, it seems to stand as a defensive alliance without a clear threat to be defensive against. Russia
Which is why I'm nowhere near as outraged against the American Right as I and others could be. For now it's simply an embrassement, and indictment of political dysfunction as well as a question of who's side they're on. A show of hypocrisy considering prior rhetoric from them.
For now, threat is long-term, how to prevent another invasion decades from now, how to help Ukraine and thinking on which Trojan horses could have been worse if Ukraine was weaker or Russia was more competent.
The raw number of parties matters less than other factors.
It certainly does matter when the US has two parties, and there's so many Americans even around here saying they have to compromise part of their ideology. At least the Democrats can still do some work.
The BSW also has 10 seats in the Bunderstag, that's representation, what are you talking about? Some of the parties there were also founded very recently. You're using the nebulous argument of the "establishment" and we know how that led to a situation in the US where every single election (including something as small as a Michigan Chair. )
At least when Merkel was out, she's out. Power transferred and public discussion had to change with the time. No time-loop.
I'll do you one better: no matter the result, there will be violence.
Considering how there's threats of violence if the American Right lose, and there's threats on a "purge" if they get into power, I'm not surprised.
That's the staple of banana republics, you know, no possibility of peaceful transference of power. Why would anyone want that, no matter if they're left or right wing? Why would anyone want to emulate that?