While I appreciate your attempt at a coherent argument I fear you fail to address anything raised by the OP and rather (once again) start off with whataboutism in your very first sentence and jumping to the defense of Hungary as a whole instead of addressing the actual issue.
You also conveniently fail to notice (here is that misleading again I spoke about) that there never was a question about the legality of the law passed, the premise of the OP was to point out it's implication. It's actually in the very first sentence of the OP: "The Hungarian
parliament has just approved a new
bill that allows the Prime-Minister to govern the country by issuing decrees." You must have read that far given your complaint about 'spicing up', what made you ignore it?
And do I really have to repeat my observation about making silly assumptions based on misconceptions?: "...makes sense to view Hungary-bashing as something to do with pro-EU groups lamenting.."
So I guess your answer is a resounding 'No' to my question 'You do have an argument supporting him having sweeping, if not absolute, powers, don't you?
Did I mention that posting in the same spirit that you complain about in others' posts is utterly ridiculous? Like complaining about 'spicing up' versus 'lunatic dreams of "united states of Europe"' by yourself? Using phrases like that as clubs in an attempt to beat others into submission is usually a last resort once you run out of arguments, but then you don't really have an argument to start with so I presume it's more a case of 'instead', not 'last resort'.