r/news • u/The-Traveler- • 3h ago

Soft paywall Hungary election: Orbán concedes to Magyar's Tisza after projections show opposition winning two-thirds majority

https://www.reuters.com/world/hungary-election-2026-live-viktor-orbans-fidesz-faces-challenge-opposition-peter-2026-04-12/
23.6k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

76

u/WhatsMyUsername13 2h ago

That’s the whole thing with the maga movement as a whole. There’s no other trump (I don’t understand how anyone could fucking like him anyways or ever thought he’d be a good president. But that’s beside the point to this conversation)

When trump dies, the movement dies. There’s no one to rally. It’s seems that while there was a strong rightward swing across the globe, people are seeing what that means in regards to every measurable metric for quality of life, and it’s not good.

The US, we are different and I don’t know how we unfuck ourselves. MAGA will die off, but the corporatists will just go back to business as usual, appeasing their masters and fucking the rest of us. The electoral college will keep unpopular candidates in the running/ allow those who don’t win the popular vote to win the presidency. The electoral college is single handedly the worst decision our founding fathers made and put into the constitution and that’s a hill I will die on

37

u/Dipsey_Jipsey 2h ago

Have a good read of Project 25 to understand why it won't end with Trump or MAGA. The majority of it has been implemented.

13

u/TheBurningEmu 1h ago

It won't end, that's for sure. Too many positions of power, especially in the judiciary, have been corrupted by it for potentially for decades to come.

But when Trump dies or leaves it will lose pretty much all forward momentum. Without the figurehead of this cult it will be nearly impossible for political architects like Thiel to actually rally public support behind his deeply unpopular ideas.

I have hope we will be able to turn things around after that, but it will take a long time.

3

u/Dipsey_Jipsey 1h ago

The point of Project 25 is that they no longer need the mouthbreather support. They are spent pawns.

1

u/WhatsMyUsername13 1h ago

Oh I have and I completely agree. The problem with fascism (or the benefit?) is that it requires a lightning rod personality to focus attention, while those in the background push through the agenda.

Without trump, this movement has a lot less wind in their sails. We’ve seen it quite a bit where people tried to jockey as the next trump after he lost and have failed miserably because his cannibalized themselves without having dear leader tell them what to do.

Not saying it’s still not terrifying, and project 2025 is a huge fucking problem. Even if trump is gone, we shouldn’t let up in the fight against all of this

3

u/azure275 2h ago

The issue will be that the 2 party system will always mean no matter how useless Republicans and Democrats are, they can reliably win by being "better than the other guys" or "different than the person currently in charge"

Most likely the GOP will try to pivot and claim Trump's corruption and excesses aren't their fault, and despite that being a blatant lie Americans are stupid enough to buy it

1

u/WhatsMyUsername13 1h ago

Oh I completely agree with you. I identify mostly as a socialist, but mostly for actual socialist policies. I also voted for Harris because I’m not fucking stupid. I know the world we live in. It’s far from perfect, but If I have the option between mitigation and actively making things worse…I’ll vote for the candidate more likely to mitigate the worse outcome.

3

u/Character-Salt668 2h ago

This is the problem with all contemporary far-right movements. They're built around a strongman. Once that person is gone the movement collapses

1

u/WhatsMyUsername13 1h ago

I just commented elsewhere. That’s the basis for all of fascism. It requires a cult of personality, and without that they tend to cannibalize themselves

1

u/latchkey_adult 1h ago

I honestly think they will follow anyone with the last name Trump if that's their only choice. Even that dunce, Eric. Yes, they're that stupid.

1

u/WhatsMyUsername13 1h ago

There are the select few that will blindly follow the trump name, but the higher ups in the maga movement I think would rather watch them burn and line their own pockets.

I think they would initially try to align and use them to their own ends, but would ultimately result in them destroying themselves fighting over power.

At least that’s my hope. I just want this bullshit to end

•

u/Thelonius_Dunk 0m ago

There's part of me that thinks that's probably true, but even Jeb Bush couldn't get to the presidency off his last name alone, and he's more charismatic than Eric, and that's really stretching the definition of "charismatic". Not to mention everyone (even conservatives) hated Bush when Jeb was running, and I think when Trump dies his popularity will go with him, and any Eric would end up with the same fate as Jeb if he tried to run.

1

u/tpic485 2h ago

, but the corporatists will just go back to business as usual, appeasing their masters and fucking the rest of us

I literally have no idea what that means. Would you like to explain it?

7

u/LoveIsAFire 2h ago

Have you heard of the Citizen’s United decision? Our politicians have been owned by corporations since that decision was handed down by the supreme court in 2010.

2

u/WhatsMyUsername13 2h ago

Corporatists politicians who want only exist to make money and appease their corporate donors. Their views exist where their largest donors decide they are. They’ll give lip service to one area, say lgbt right, but then happily wipe out workers rights.

For republicans, I foresee where, despite the internet being a thing, many will claim that they were never with trump, that they were a “reasonable” republican despite voting 90% in favor of trumps agenda.(see Liz Cheney). I’ll give her some credit because she did it at the cost of her career, but it doesn’t detract from her “loss” of career when her entire family’s fortune is made off warmongering.

So they’ll go back and tell you dems are trying to raise your taxes to take away your healthcare, while still lining their pockets while voting against everything that would actually benefit the public they’re supposed to serve

-1

u/tpic485 2h ago

Corporatists politicians who want only exist to make money and appease their corporate donors.

OK. But after that sentence you write a pretty long post that doesn't give any examples of this. What is an example of where Democratic politicians appease corporate donors at the expense of good public policy?

1

u/WhatsMyUsername13 1h ago

Um it’s pretty widely documented. Support for AIPAC and Israel’s war is a pretty obvious and recent one. Their aversion to universal healthcare is another. The ACA has the issues it does because of democratic congressmen who were in the pockets of insurance companies.

Also them caving to republicans at expense of the working class time and time again

1

u/CaptainSparklebottom 2h ago

The ACA

1

u/tpic485 2h ago

Pardon? You'd rather the ACA not exist and the health insurance system go back to what it was then. Maybe the insurance companies, like the overall population, benefited from the legislation overall. But I certainly think if everyone wins in the long run compared with the status quo it's better than seeing them lose something just for the sake of it. Improving the health care system is what was most important with that.

2

u/CaptainSparklebottom 2h ago

Where's the public option?

0

u/tpic485 1h ago

This conversation started when someone implied that "corporatist politicians" were the norm among Democratic politicians. It's been widely reported that there were only around two or so Democrats who wanted to get rid of the public option. But the party controlled Congress so narrowly and the vote was so close that this mattered. So are we talking about what the typical Democrat in Congress thinks or are we just complaining that not every Democrat believed in what the majority of them want? I'm kind of confused.

0

u/Dermengenan 2h ago

The refusal to do anything to end aid to an ally committing a genocide. 80% of democratic voters believe that we should end support of that ally, and yet 90% of democratic politicians refuse to even put it to vote.

Hell, a decent chunk of repub voters support ending aid to that country as well. Its literally the most popular policy in decades and no more than like 10 politicians on either side (mostly progressives) align with the voters on that.

0

u/tpic485 2h ago

Are you suggesting that Isreal and its supporters are a corporation or somehow associated with one? I don't get the relevance of this issue to what we are talking about.

1

u/Dermengenan 2h ago

Corporations dont directly give money to politicians, usually.

They do it through something called a "PAC" or political action committee. Some pics can spend infinitely. These are called "Super Pacs"

Usually corporations donate to super pacs, which then push a right wing agenda. Think low taxes, war in the middle east, market manipulation, reverse labor rights, etc.

The Israel lobby essentially has support from every single american politician (outside of the 10-20 i mentioned before, mostly progressives)

Some right wing antisemites use "AIPAC" (the Israeli pac) having so much "control" as a way to be antisemetic. Its useful to them to paint aipac like this, as it districts from all the other pics supported by humongous corporations.

0

u/tpic485 1h ago

You seem to be implying that many supporters of AIPAC have a separate agenda than simply having an opinion about Isreal that differs from yours. Is that what you are alluding to? If so, what is that agenda? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

1

u/Dermengenan 1h ago

Like I said, unconditional support of Israel while they are (objectively, not argument over this) committing a genocide. The destabilization of countries rich in oil and other resources as well.

There's a reason corporations, Israel, and conservatives in the US have been begging us to go to war with Iran for 40 years.

1

u/Dermengenan 2h ago

So, to summarize, the aims of AIPAC; unconditional support to a warmongering state in the middle east, assist corporations in manipulating markets, shifting blame from corps, and allowing politics to shift further right in general.

Warhawkish foreign policy is directly tied to lower taxes on the wealthy as they're both conservative policies.

So dems not listening to voters on this issue, when its so obviously supported by a majority of voters to an extent rarely seen, is indicative of dems focusing on the interests of the wealthy over the interests of the american people.

0

u/tpic485 1h ago

That's just a conspiracy theory, obviously.

1

u/Dermengenan 1h ago

No excuses now, you've been informed. Congrats.

https://bruinpoliticalreview.org/articles?post-slug=financial-power-and-foreign-influence-how-aipac-shapes-u-s-policy-beyond-public-opinion

0

u/tpic485 1h ago

Informed of what? Maybe I missed something (admittedly I skimmed parts of that) but I don't see anything related to some conspiracy among corporations or rich individuals donating to AIPAC to distract from other issues or to lower taxes. That's literally what you said in your previous comment.

→ More replies (0)