We cannot entrust the country to them: people from Tisza who joke in such a disgusting way have no place in public life!
It is outrageous how disgustingly Magyar Péter’s party colleague, Zsolt Judák, spoke during the Tisza campaign tour. This is not how you talk about or describe women and girls! The Tisza candidate, Zsolt Judák, then gave a very weak excuse, saying he is not used to public appearances—but that is no justification.
We cannot entrust the country to such people, especially in times of danger. They would not be able to say no to migration, Ukraine’s accession, or pressure from Brussels, and it is clear they lack any moral sense.
Hungary needs a leader who protects Hungarian interests, who does not give in to blackmail, and who respects both voters and those who disagree with him. That is why Viktor Orbán and Fidesz are the only safe choice.
“The little *** raped the prime minister,” began the disgusting joke of the Tisza candidate, while Magyar Péter was also on stage. Do you think there is still a place in public life for them after this? How? That “little *** raped our beloved prime minister”? Clearly not. Yet there are many people around Magyar Péter who, in my opinion, should have already left public life long ago.
Let us not forget Zsolt Tárkányi, Tisza’s candidate in Debrecen, who was seen in a video making a Nazi salute—something he himself and the party also acknowledged. And then there is this latest incident: this kind of degrading language about women and girls, followed by an extremely awkward excuse that the candidate is not used to speaking in public because he is “just a gardener.”
And these are the people we are supposed to entrust with the country? They would be the ones deciding on Ukraine’s accession to the European Union? They would be the ones protecting Hungary from migration? Absolutely not.
These incompetent individuals simply cannot be trusted with the country in such a risky time. They are dangerous and completely immoral.
🔍 Core Narrative
👉 “The opponent (Tisza) is immoral and incompetent”
👉 “These are dangerous times → we cannot afford mistakes”
👉 “They wouldn’t be able to protect the country (EU, Ukraine, migration)”
👉 “Only Viktor Orbán = safety”
➡️ Classic formula:
moral scandal + incompetence + fear + savior leader
🧠 Influence Techniques
1️⃣ Maximizing moral outrage
Excerpt:
“disgusting”, “this is not how you talk about women”
Technique:
➡️ triggering moral shock
➡️ not debate → immediate rejection
➡️ emotional trigger (protecting women)
Goal:
➡️ make the reader angry
➡️ prevent nuanced thinking
Effect:
➡️ the entire party becomes framed as immoral
2️⃣ One case → total generalization
Technique:
➡️ one person’s statement → “these kinds of people”
➡️ one story → characterization of the entire party
Goal:
➡️ create collective guilt
Effect:
➡️ individual responsibility disappears
➡️ “they are all the same”
3️⃣ Incompetence narrative
Excerpt:
“not used to public speaking” → “not suitable”
Technique:
➡️ one weakness → total incompetence
➡️ individual → national leadership level
Goal:
➡️ “these people couldn’t govern”
Effect:
➡️ distrust
➡️ fear of mistakes
4️⃣ Fear framing (high stakes)
Excerpt:
“in dangerous times”, “Ukraine, migration, Brussels”
Technique:
➡️ elevates the decision to an existential level
➡️ political debate → survival issue
Goal:
➡️ emotional decision-making
➡️ “we cannot take risks”
Effect:
➡️ dramatizes the election
➡️ narrows thinking
5️⃣ Moral delegitimization
Excerpt:
“they have no moral sense”
Technique:
➡️ not just wrong → bad people
➡️ moral exclusion
Goal:
➡️ prevent identification with them
➡️ eliminate possibility of compromise
Effect:
➡️ deepens “us vs. them” divide
6️⃣ Savior leader (solution frame)
Excerpt:
“only Viktor Orbán…”
Technique:
➡️ presenting a single solution
➡️ excluding alternatives
Goal:
➡️ simplify the choice
Effect:
➡️ black-and-white thinking
⚠️ Key distortions
👉 One event = judgment of an entire party
👉 Strong language = emotion instead of evidence
👉 Oversimplification of complex political issues (Ukraine, EU)
👉 Constant emphasis on “danger” → pressure on the audience
🧩 Overall picture
This text does not aim to inform, but to:
➡️ provoke outrage
➡️ generate fear
➡️ build an enemy image
➡️ push toward a specific decision
💬 Short, honest evaluation
👉 If such a statement was indeed made, it is obviously problematic.
👉 But the text does not stop there — it uses it to:
- judge an entire party
- and present a single political choice as “safety”
➡️ This is classic campaign propaganda, not a balanced evaluation.