Thread by @KurtHackbarth

1. In another attempt to disqualify Mexico's referendum on prosecuting crimes of prior administrations, the Right's new coordinated talking point is that the question is "too complicated."

True to form, @TheEconomist incorporates this in another of its amusing anti-#AMLO rants.

2. The original, crystal-clear question submitted by the president was modified by the Supreme Court, a question the magazine's hacks only mention in passing after mockingly leading you to believe the "absurdist" wording was written by AMLO. Here's the original text:

3. "Do you agree or not that the competent authorities, in accordance with the law and applicable procedures, investigate and, as appropriate, sanction the alleged commission of crimes by former presidents [names] before, during, and after their respective administrations?"

4. Whatever the final wording, it's abundantly clear that a "Yes" in the referendum is to proceed with investigations, and a "No" is to drop them. I've not met one person who's at all confused on this point.

But of course, the argument isn't meant to be good-faith...

5. ...but is simply a disingenuous attempt to disqualify the referendum as such. And dangerous, as it basically concedes that the Supreme Court, by modifying the wording of future referenda, can effectively nullify them before anyone has cast a single vote.

6. Had magazines like The Economist fully reported on the spectacular crimes of these administrations, it'd be a different story. But not only did it turn a blind eye to most of them, it even cheered them on.

P.S. As a bonus, the magazine continues to spread the lie that AMLO "lost his majority" in the midterms. The truth is that MORENA had a majority in the last Congress thanks to its allied parties, as it will in this one. But there are no ethics here, just bluster and fakery.