Any law that you see that you think “Wow, no way they can enforce that! That would get EVERYBODY in trouble” is a law that is intended to be selectively enforced against unwanted people
Yes because I know what they mean because I have heard them explain the problem. You guys on the other hand dont know what they believe because you dont know anything about them.
If something is against “national interest” and your president is trying to become an autocrat, that means they can essentially pick and choose what national interest is. This should be setting off alarm bells in EVERYONE’S head as an obvious grab for power.
I’m not american, so I don’t have direct skin in the game, but everyone on both sides of the political spectrum who don’t self identify as fascist should be against this.
If you don’t interpret this as something extremely dangerous, you need to have a sit down and really think about the implications.
So the issue is that this is not what they are referring to. What they are talking about is when the FBI (and CIA) get involved in politics or directly sway things in direction that is outside of what the FBI is for.
In Hungary, state institutions like the police of the tax bureau only target people and companies outside of Fidesz’es interest group. That’s what they want to adapt, so every company will fall in line with Project 2025.
Why would it be bad to terminate investigations that are unlawful or contrary to national interests?
Because “contarary to national interests” means “any investigation that targets friends of mine”
At first I naively thought “why is that a bad thing?”, but then realized who exactly decides what these “national interests” are?
Definitely using some “weasel words” in their policy to get away with some shady shit.
Any law that you see that you think “Wow, no way they can enforce that! That would get EVERYBODY in trouble” is a law that is intended to be selectively enforced against unwanted people
That could be how you would mean it, but that is not how I interpret it or how they intended it.
You’re new to planet earth, it seems.
If you believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
You guys literally just claim things without any evidence… You guys have lost to plot
How ironic…
You, just a few comments ago:
If you’re so sure of their intent then where is your evidence?
You’re doing the exact same thing you accused the other commenter of; you literally just claimed something without any evidence.
Yes because I know what they mean because I have heard them explain the problem. You guys on the other hand dont know what they believe because you dont know anything about them.
If something is against “national interest” and your president is trying to become an autocrat, that means they can essentially pick and choose what national interest is. This should be setting off alarm bells in EVERYONE’S head as an obvious grab for power.
I’m not american, so I don’t have direct skin in the game, but everyone on both sides of the political spectrum who don’t self identify as fascist should be against this.
If you don’t interpret this as something extremely dangerous, you need to have a sit down and really think about the implications.
So the issue is that this is not what they are referring to. What they are talking about is when the FBI (and CIA) get involved in politics or directly sway things in direction that is outside of what the FBI is for.
This is literally why the FBI & CIA exist.
They exist for personal gain of organizations inside of the US to use to their sole benefit?
In Hungary, state institutions like the police of the tax bureau only target people and companies outside of Fidesz’es interest group. That’s what they want to adapt, so every company will fall in line with Project 2025.
You are just making up their intentions based on nothing.
The Heritage Foundation not only helped Orbán into power, but also learned a lot from their playbook.
How did the Heritage Foundation significantly help Orban?
Here’s an article on the Heritage Foundation’s website explaining why they want to help him:
https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/why-the-us-must-befriend-hungarys-populist-leader
You are just assuming their intentions based on nothing. Why is your assumption more valid than anyone else?