Hatred poured like a tidal wave — no one was left without a response!
Over the past six years, left-wing politicians have actively contributed to pushing Budapest into a near-bankrupt financial situation — bonuses for friends, cover-ups, and everything except allocating resources to what actually mattered.
I would send a message to Richárd Barabás: perhaps instead of “Humanists,” your party should be called “Humorists.” Because leaving a 0-percent party only to found another 0-percent party — and then not even run in the elections with it — well, that truly requires a sense of humor.
The Tisza supporters lie again and again. Most recently, they claimed to have collected 250,000 signatures, while official data clearly showed they had gathered only 110,000. An unbelievably embarrassing exposure.
Only Fidesz is capable of winning on April 12 as a stable and level-headed party, and of preserving peace in Hungary. Fidesz is the safe choice.
To the representative from Keszthely, I would say this: over the past six years, you were also active participants in bringing the capital into the financial situation it is in today. Raskovics, Tibor, Gály, Zoltán — the list of names could go on — people who cost Budapest residents nearly one billion forints in bonuses and various payouts. The reality is that you, from the left, actively contributed to the capital municipality ending up in the financial condition it remains in to this day. After six years in a governing coalition, raising this issue now is downright shameless.
As for Representative Borabás, I would only add that perhaps it should have been considered to run under the name “Humorists” instead of “Humanists,” as even the Two-Tailed Dog Party suggested. To leave a zero-percent party in order to launch another zero-percent party that then does not even run in the elections — I think one truly needs a certain sense of humor to understand what exactly happened there.
Madam faction leader Bújdosó: had you not started by boasting about how successful your signature collection was, I might have been elegant enough not to bring this up. But since you did: let me remind you that over the weekend you made a blatant false claim when you spoke of collecting 250,000 signatures. It is extremely awkward and uncomfortable that in reality you only managed to collect 110,000 recommendation slips — a number that could be officially requested and verified. It was a spectacularly embarrassing exposure. Over the weekend, we collected nearly twice as many signatures as you did.
The truth is, if you had not brought up that figure yourself, we would not be discussing it now. You could have quietly kept it to yourself.
1️⃣ Enemy Image + Emotional Escalation – “Tsunami of Hate”
📌 Technique:
- Strong metaphor (“tsunami of hate”)
- Claiming moral superiority (“no one was left unanswered”)
- Adopting a victim position
🎯 Goal:
To shift the debate from a professional/policy domain into a moral one:
“We respond to hate — they spread hate.”
💥 Effect:
The opponent is framed not as a political rival, but as a destructive, emotionally driven actor.
2️⃣ Financial Collapse Narrative – “Near-Bankrupt Budapest”
📌 Technique:
- Absolutist claim (“near-bankruptcy situation”)
- Corruption trope (“bonuses for friends”)
- Concrete but unverifiable name-dropping
🎯 Goal:
To frame the opposition as incompetent and fiscally irresponsible managers.
💥 Effect:
Voters do not evaluate budget details — they form a moral judgment:
“They squandered the money.”
3️⃣ Mockery and Ridicule – “Humorists Instead of Humanists”
📌 Technique:
- Name parody
- Ironic reframing
- Associating them with a joke-party image (reference to the Two-Tailed Dog Party)
🎯 Goal:
To portray the opponent as unserious.
💥 Effect:
The legitimacy of political competition is weakened:
“They are not even a real alternative.”
4️⃣ Percentage-Based Delegitimization – “0% Party”
📌 Technique:
- Reducing them to zero
- Suggesting political invisibility
- Exaggerating lack of electoral relevance
🎯 Goal:
To make the opponent appear insignificant.
💥 Effect:
Voters may gravitate toward the perceived winner (bandwagon effect).
5️⃣ Dramatizing the “Exposure” – 250,000 vs. 110,000 Signatures
📌 Technique:
- Contrasting specific numbers
- Moral labeling (“they blatantly lied”)
- Emphasizing the twofold difference
🎯 Goal:
To construct a credibility crisis.
💥 Effect:
The debate shifts from policy issues to accusations of dishonesty.
6️⃣ Stability Promise + Peace Framing
📌 Technique:
- Self-positioning as a “stable, calm party”
- “Fidesz is the safe choice”
- Introducing a peace frame
🎯 Goal:
To create a security vs. chaos dichotomy.
💥 Effect:
Voters decide on an emotional basis:
“Better choose stability.”
📌 Overall Picture – What Narrative Is Being Built?
The speech rests on three core pillars:
- An incompetent and unserious opposition
- A political rival caught lying
- A stable governing party that guarantees peace
This is a classic combination of negative campaigning + positive self-framing:
Opponent → chaos, dishonesty, financial irresponsibility
Own side → stability, composure, peace