This is a production of Channel 11 and Channel
22. You were in a meeting with Gustavo Petro
earlier today. Did you come to any agreement
on counter -narcotic efforts? Yeah, we did. We
worked on it, and we got along very well. He
and I weren't exactly the best of friends, but
I wasn't insulted because I never met him. I
didn't know him at all. And we got along very
well, and we are. We're working on that. We're
working on some other things, too, including
sanctions. No, we had a very good meeting. I
thought it was terrific. You know, it was great.
I, myself, or I'm sure he will provide to all
of you directly on True Social. But I spoke with
the president before the meeting. He was in a
very positive headspace. He was looking forward
to sitting down with President Petro to have
a conversation. So we will all see how that went
together. Well, it came out with an optimistic
and positive air. What do I feel about what I
saw and what I felt? Confusion around the reality
that happens, for example, in problems like drug
trafficking, like energy. Different lines, undoubtedly,
of seeing the problem, some aggressive. other
more possibly buildable among all of us. We grab
on to that. What unites us, what separates us.
We can be very different, civilizatorily speaking,
historically speaking, but what unites us is
freedom. And that's where the conversation started.
You can make a pact for freedom, you can make
a pact for life. Vida y libertad hoy van juntas
y sobre eso es que nos podemos juntar. Pues esa
va la conversación. Hola, ¿qué tal? Muy buenas
noches, bienvenidas y bienvenidos a Maciasare,
la barra de análisis de los medios públicos.
Como ustedes ya lo saben, este es un espacio
que es una coproducción del Canal 11 y del Canal
22, y hoy toca el turno al análisis y la narrativa.
Yo soy Daniela Barragán, soy periodista en SinEmbargo
.mx, y le quiero dar la bienvenida a mis compañeras
y compañeros que les vamos a acompañar este miércoles.
Le doy la bienvenida a Pedro Miguel, periodista
y escritor, quien se incorpora ya de fijo a esta
mesa de los miércoles en Macionsare. Pedro, muy
buenas noches. Dani, buenas noches, muchas gracias.
Good night, everyone. Let's get started. Today,
as you already heard, we are going to talk about
this meeting that the president of Colombia and
the president of the United States had yesterday.
se reunieron en Washington. Bueno, ando sin antes
avisarles que para nuestra segunda parte del
programa vamos a hablar, para que se queden,
sobre la creación del Frente Amplio Democrático
que busca combatir la reforma electoral que todavía
no se presenta por parte del Ejecutivo, pero
vamos a arrancar con el tema de esta reunión
que tuvo lugar el día de ayer en Washington.
Esta reunión buscaba cerrar o aminorar esta tensión
que también viene desde la llegada de Donald
Trump en este segundo periodo de su gobierno.
El presidente Donald Trump, como en muchos otros
países, había amenazado a Colombia y el presidente
de ese país, Gustavo Petro, había optado por
responder en distintas ocasiones. No en el tono
grosero de Trump, pero sí... with a challenging
tone on many occasions. So this meeting sought
to lessen that tension that we saw during all
these months. The balance they gave was that
it was a pleasant meeting and that they took
a good impression of each other. But there is
a whole context in the case of the relationship
between the United States and Colombia. After
the tension that there was between the United
States and Venezuela, the problems with Colombia...
Even a month ago, on January 3rd, when the kidnapping
of President Maduro took place, the attack on
Venezuela, in that press conference, Trump himself
points out that he follows Colombia. He tells
Petro to take care of himself because... They
know that he manufactures cocaine, he is called
a sick man, he launches himself directly against
Petro, to whom they even took away his visa in
New York because he participated in a protest
against the genocide in Gaza. They take away
his visa, but after various meetings on Twitter
by both presidents... President Petro announced
this meeting, which also sought to diminish everything
that was being generated in Colombia on the part
of a right wing that reminds us a bit of the
one we have in our country, which was asking
its president to respect Washington, to not make
them angry. But now, with this reception and
the balance, it seems that the right wing is
not playing. ¿Cómo arrancamos? ¿Estas reuniones
son garantía de que Trump se va a calmar? ¿Qué
asegura esta reunión para Colombia? Pedro, adelante.
Antes que nada, a mí me sorprendió mucho la temeridad
de Gustavo Petro de ir a visitar a un secuestrador
a su casa, porque te la juegas. Es decir, el
tipo secuestró a un presidente latinoamericano.
Yo creo que no había ninguna garantía de que
lo dejara salir de la Casa Blanca o del sótano
o de la cárcel. De veras, lo digo en serio. Por
otra parte, en términos de viraje político, me
parece que ha empezado a entenderse que aunque
Donald Trump sea un criminal, un delincuente,
un tipo que rompe toda la legalidad internacional
y local de su país, You have to talk to him for
a very simple reason, because he's an armed criminal.
And with an armed criminal, it's better to talk.
And I think that's what the president, Claudia
Sheinbaum, understood from the very beginning.
I think it was more difficult for President Petro
to understand him, and he was there like this,
watching who was more gossipy. Y en algún momento
entendió, y lo ha entendido la presidenta en
funciones de Venezuela, Dalsy Rodríguez. Entonces,
creo que empieza a haber un entendimiento de
que tienes que hablar con este ser. ¿Hay alguna
garantía de que eso va a resolver los problemas?
No, no hay ninguna garantía. Pero sí se puede
ir... kicking the bucket, as it is said vulgarly,
and you can go like letting time pass, because
in addition Trump is getting worn out at a tremendous
speed and very accelerated, and well, let it
pass from here to November, which are the midterm
elections, and in the worst case, his full presidency.
I think that these are always opportunities to
analyze how they hold power. characters like
Trump, who are also, as we have said other times
here at this table, absolutely unpredictable.
But that unpredictability is also part of their
way of dominating, or of exercising a certain
domain. It caught my attention, considering that...
that Trump uses this kind of meetings to humiliate
his visitors. Let's assume he didn't kidnap them,
but a good humiliation could have been taken.
A handshake, you know, like the things he usually
does. What Zelensky does to him. Exactly, what
he has done to other senators. However, this
was a closed door. So that's already like a...
It's already breaking a pattern. I think that
Trump and his advisers have already told him,
as they have told Milley, that he has to lower
the tone of aggressiveness a bit, but that does
not mean that he is more conciliatory. He is
simply looking for other, let's say, softer or
softer ways to dominate and to exercise what
he considers his authority. in Latin America.
It is also very significant that exactly a month
later, on January 3, Maduro is kidnapped. On
February 3, he meets with the one who was going
to be the next. It seems to me that we must always
be attentive and cautious about these modes.
I also thought, for example, because we don't
have an image of President Sheinbaum in the oval
room. How good! I mean, so far, the truth is,
how good. I think that's what I do. Because I
think I would use it. You don't know how you're
going to use it. You don't know what image you're
going to end up giving. Also, I think it's fine.
I mean, that the president doesn't get in that
place at this moment, it seems to me that so
far it has been a lucky move. Well, I want to
see the matter from both sides. At first, in
a situation so tense in the region, with so much
escalation, with the kidnapping of Maduro, every
negotiation that leads to a distance is good.
In that, I agree with Pedro. What do you do with
an empire that is behaving like a psychopath?
Well, you try to de -escalate. In English, you
try to talk them down. It's less ideological
than other members of his team, like Marco Rubio,
the Secretary of State, or his advisor, Stephen
Miller. They really are the ideologists. Trump
is a businessman, a failed and criminal businessman,
but he goes a lot with this vibe of personal
encounter, even if he's a socialist, even if
he's a petro -socialist. So there's something
that can be won with a personal encounter, sometimes
in a less expected way. On the other side of
the coin, it could lend itself to Trump's game.
As you say, Violeta, he's trying to manipulate
the matter in another way. And this could be
this, that, look... Yo puedo secuestrar a un
jefe de estado y a las pocas semanas llega el
jefe de estado del país a un lado como si fuera
nada. Es decir, prestarse al juego de normalizar
este Trump, de secuestrar a alguien y luego como
si todo, como si nada. Y entonces tiende a crear
un poco un asunto unipersonal. Petro con Trump
o Scheinbaum con Trump. Cuando lo que hace falta
es una respuesta regional como si esbozó. in
the letter we saw from Mexico, Brazil, Chile,
Colombia, Spain, Uruguay, after the kidnapping
of Maduro. Because this is about unipersonalizing
things between personalities. The issue now is
regional and, in fact, worldwide. And well, here
the point is that... In the end, these pressures
that Donald Trump exerts do have an effect in
the countries, that is, it becomes unipersonal
because what you have to start seeing is for
your country, that is, to take your country forward
first and then think about the region. Here,
what I would like to highlight is that we again
see the drug trafficking factor only as a pretext.
a pretext to pressurize the countries. He did
it first with Canada and with Mexico, let's not
forget it, he was the first to threaten with
the aranceles, reaching the government, and also
in the Mexican case in particular, he establishes
this criterion that the Mexican cartels are terrorists
and then he will act. He does that on January
20. But then he extends this same accusation.
is what leads to the kidnapping of President
Nicolás Maduro with an accusation that later
falls on them because there is no cartel of the
suns and they themselves recognize it in that
trial. With Gustavo Petro it's the same thing.
The accusation you told us at the beginning of
the program, Dani, has to do with that. He even
said, I know you're a drug trafficker. That's
the initial accusation. And that's it. It's just
a pretext. Because in the end we realize that
in reality Donald Trump doesn't intend to end
the opioid crisis in his country. That's not
what bothers him. And also important, not to
stop seeing who are the real ones responsible
for this opioid crisis that in reality have not
had any consequence beyond these multimillionaire
fines, which are these manufacturers or these
pharmaceutical companies. Johnson & Johnson,
Purdupharma, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Allergan.
These are the real ones responsible for the opioid
crisis and that's what it's for. to pressure
the countries again. And indeed, we didn't know
if Petro was really going to get out of there
well. It went well, that's good, that's good
for the Colombian people. It's not the same with
the Venezuelan people and we can't forget it.
Yes, as we already have those two, those two
models of behaving in front of Trump, Petro's.
which was like the one we used to say, yes, break
with the United States, what we all wanted, respond
to the power, and no, you're not going to bend
us. that at the end of the day ends up exposing
an economy that is very brotherly, that largely
depends on the United States. And the other,
and the other model of negotiation, which is
that of the president, which is, at least I liked
the term fanfare, because they did start to be
very, in that way, both Trump and Petro himself,
and that of the president much calmer, right?
As much as we want to break with the United States,
It's not going to happen. We can't do it that
easily. I mean, it's not like we have the water
up to here because there were problems that were
generated in 2018. No, I mean, it's decades in
which the governments of Mexico surrendered themselves
to the arms of the United States and now we have
to start generating internal growth. Everything
that is being done, the data that has been presented
in the last few days, in the morning, was about
investments and the diagnostics of the plans.
of government are impressive. So Petro, without
wanting to go all the way around, comes to that
strategy of better calming down the spirits.
But I think that now the sensitive issue is completely
on Trump's turf, because, let's say, nothing
is going well for him. There are protests in
Minneapolis. the anger that is finally reaching
other states due to the savagery of its police,
of ICE. There is also the grotesque of Epstein's
files, which is also very surprising to see how
the press in Mexico, by the way, has not treated
it as it should. La popularidad se le está viniendo
abajo. Se exhiben los pretextos que utiliza para
hacer lo que se le ocurre al día. Y solamente
me queda eso, ¿no? De lo que es capaz de hacer
un hombre desesperado cuando se le está cayendo
todo lo de la popularidad. Las encuestas no están
a su favor. Entonces, pues tendría de dos. O
actuar con manotazo o resguardarse, pero ese
no es trompo. Bueno, Trump da manutazos como
forma de resguardarse. Es que esto es importante
verlo. Es decir, hay huidas hacia adelante muy
claras. La crisis de Minneapolis, yo creo que
lo ha colocado en buena medida contra las cuerdas
porque Minneapolis encabeza y sintomatiza los
malestares en contra de la presidencia de Trump
en todo Estados Unidos. Hay un movimiento inédito,
hay un punto de viraje, hay un punto de inflexión
allí, que él tiene que eludir de alguna manera.
Luego viene toda la coprodispersión de los archivos
de Epstein, que hasta donde hemos visto, todo
es nebuloso, confuso, y cualquiera jala para
su lado. Hubo un medio en México que se atrevió
a poner un encabezado de que AMLO estaba involucrado
en los archivos de Epstein, por ejemplo. Es decir,
esto da para cualquier inmundicia. I'd rather
not get involved. But Trump gives a big hand
and he negotiates. He negotiates and gives a
big hand. We must not forget, besides, that he's
a liar, that immediately after the cordial call
with Claudia Sheinbaum... We're going to go to
a break. Forgive me. We're going to go to a break
and we'll be back. We are back and Pedro, we
interrupt you abruptly. But finish, please. I
just wanted to say that after the call with President
Sheinbaum, to whom he praises at that moment
and who says that what luck of the Mexicans to
have a president like that, the next day he releases
a lie to destabilize. to President Sheinbaum.
And she says, she promised me that she was going
to cut oil shipments to Cuba. And President Sheinbaum
says, we never talked about that. But Denise
Tracy says it's true. Violeta. Well, I think
that this open lie strategy of Trump also deserves
an analysis. I think it is also a way of expressing
that he can be against all the rules, even against
the most basic rules of the common sense, which
is that when you talk to another person, assume
that he says, if not the truth, at least what
he thinks is true. And the palmar lies of Trump,
I mean, like when he tells us after the murder
of Rene Goodwood, that she was attacking an officer,
that he had run him over, that he was hospitalized.
Things that people, I really even watched the
video again. How is it possible that it is so
contradictory with the facts? It qualifies it
as domestic terrorism, in fact, the aggression.
And then he throws everything back when he finds
out that his father was a supporter of his. So
I think this movement is actually a management
of the rules of the conversation to your liking.
There are rules that we can break and there are
rules that we will never break. There are certain
conventions that are not practical to everyone
and therefore we always fulfill them. This flagrantness
with which he lies or with which he says things
that did not happen, that is, he knows that the
president is going to listen to what he is saying,
he knows that he is going to deny it in a few
minutes, but it is also a way of saying, well,
I am against all the rules and against all the
conventions, and that is also the way in which
they exercise their power or their desire for
dominion, this type of leaders of extreme rights.
the new moves of the right. Yes, there was a
very important moment for me in the press conference
that Petro gave after the meeting with Trump.
Someone asked him, a month ago it seemed that
Trump was going to bomb Bogotá and now they are
all friends. What happened? How could he have
changed things so quickly? And Petro said, it's
a popular organization, that people go out on
the streets. He also referred to the Gaza issue,
which partially stopped the genocide in Gaza.
But he also made a very important point, that
people should go out on the streets. And although
it doesn't seem like this is important, it is.
Here there was a great march in repudiation of
what happened in Venezuela. There were marches
in various parts. of the world. It is interesting
because I was just in Colombia covering this
Congress of the International Progressist. It
is interesting that there is a lot of energy
with the historical pact now. They have achieved
a very important feat in Colombia, to unite a
whole series of small parties in one figure,
which is the historical pact, which is a great
achievement there. And there is a lot of energy
there. And this does have an effect. That is
to say, Trump knows that he is not only dealing
with Petro, but with the force of the historical
pact behind him. like in Mexico, not only the
president, but the popular mobilization that
supports him. And these things do have an effect,
and we have to emphasize that a lot, because
the elections are coming in Colombia this year,
like in Brazil. And it's not a question of whether
the United States will participate in these elections,
but how. And precisely one of the themes in this
conference was how to create a more robust mechanism
of observation of elections in the whole region,
taking into account that Trump is going to get
into all of them. And that's the issue there.
It's very important. And as they say, even if
it's been a good meeting, the next day Trump
can do another barbarity. For a moment they're
sautéing the president and then five minutes
later he's glorifying. the U .S. war against
Mexico in 1846, saying the most barbaric things
about it. So the personal encounter can be relaxed,
but also with Trump... It's not guaranteed. It's
not guaranteed. I am very concerned that in this
field Trump is winning by dividing the peoples,
or at least the leaders, and that at the same
time they are winning the rights, especially
in the region, in Latin America. So every time
the left is a little more isolated, and in that
sense... I am also very concerned about what
it is doing in parallel with all these pressures.
particularly today that this plan is presented
to generate a block around critical minerals
and oil. I am very concerned because the pressure
comes against Mexico and it comes because of
the lithium that is in Mexico, in the salmueras,
which has already been said through Mexican oil,
also all this that is in Sonora, these reserves.
And all this is given in times when the people
have to see for themselves. There is the whole
Cuba issue in all this. Very terrible, it seems
to me, the vision of many media corporations
attacking the humanitarian aid that Mexico is
giving to Cuba, or that it is trying to give,
through not only oil shipments, but also other
requirements. And all this goes... in a sense
in which Donald Trump is winning, that is, he
is dividing, he is not generating or there are
no conditions to generate a true union that represents
this challenge called the United States in a
moment also of crisis of the empire. And I think
we should be very attentive to what corresponds
to Mexico, but also to the whole region. And
particularly in the case of Mexico, pay attention
to what they call non -harmful measures or subtracting
non -harmful obstacles, because that's where
these issues come from, like those of critical
minerals. That is, to pressure on things that
are strategic for Mexico, that have to do with
its energy sovereignty, with its food sovereignty,
etc. You have to be careful because in effect
Donald Trump has a plan and it's coming out moderately
well. I totally disagree. We have to fight a
little bit, right? Go ahead. Look, my law didn't
win thanks to Trump. It won thanks to the Peronists.
CAST didn't win thanks to Trump. I didn't say
they won thanks to Trump. I said that while he
manages to make this division, the right advances.
Yes, but let's see, this advance of the right
and Trump, I think they are different phenomena.
Bolivia. What's there in Bolivia? An internal
rupture of the mass that ends everything. ¿Qué
hay en Chile? El presidente más inepto en la
historia posiblemente de la galaxia. ¿En Argentina
qué tenemos? Un conflicto peronista y una ineptitud
que lleva a mi ley al poder. Al final no hay
unidad. América Latina no está unida. Eso es
lo que yo dije. No, pero no está unida no por
Trump. No está unida por sus propias razones,
porque el segundo ciclo progresista se agotó
mucho antes de lo que se pensaba. And you say,
Trump has a plan. Having a plan is a proposal
of order. I think what Trump has is a proposal
of disordering the world. When he attacks institutions,
laws, uses, modes, traditions, diplomacy, everything,
against the economy of the United States, what
he's doing is disordering, not ordering. Y creo
que esto no obedece a un plan, creo que esto
obedece a una emergencia. Es decir, él tiene
razón en haber declarado la emergencia nacional.
¿Qué tal Honduras, Pedro? ¿Esto fue nada más
culpa del Partido Libre? No, no, no. En Honduras
hubo una intervención clara y además Honduras
es un estado tremendamente débil y tremendamente
dependiente como los estados centroamericanos.
Ese es un caso, pero Sudamérica es otro. Ecuador
es otro caso, pero es otro caso. Entonces, a
mí me parece que lo que él está expresando, porque
declaró la emergencia nacional. ¿Por qué? Porque
la superpotencia Cuba amenaza al pobre Estados
Unidos con atacarlo, con agredirlo. México interviene
en los asuntos internos de Estados Unidos. Es
decir, estas visiones no se sostienen. Yo creo
que él está en una situación muy desesperada.
Bueno, también para ir terminando con esto, vamos
a pasar con mensajes del público. Creo que es
muy importante esto que mencionan de Cuba. For
all the controversy that was generated because
of the oil, today Mexican oil gives the data.
Only what is sold to Cuba means or represents
0 .1 % of all Pemex. So that this data does not
go unnoticed because it is a great scandal, Mexico
financing communism in Cuba. Cuba pays for that
oil and it is minimal what it represents for
the production of COEX. Even if it were a lot,
Mexico has the right to say what it wants, even
if it were a lot. The point is sovereignty. Exactly.
Let's read, comrades, the messages that we have
from our dear audience. Rebecca Aro writes to
us. Finally, your return. I already missed the
dear and admired Nancy Flores. Gran gusto por
escuchar a Pedro Miguel. Qué grato panel. Felicidades,
Macio Sárez. Ahí está el primer aplauso para
la mesa. Sara Reyes nos dice, buenas noches.
Qué gusto ver esta mesa de análisis en el que
sí se informa con la verdad. Qué gusto ver las
mismas caritas queridas. Muchísimas gracias,
Sara Reyes. Y María Rosa L .E. nos dice, buena
noche a todos. Un gusto volver a verlos y escuchar
su información y análisis. Alejandro Gomez nos
dice, nueva temporada, saludos a los excelentes
panelistas sobre el nuevo Frente Amplio. ¿Les
parece que proponen algo o que están promoviendo
a alguien? Me parece que solo ridiculizan las
luchas sociales. Pues este comentario ya nos
da pie para entrar al siguiente tema, que se
va a poner bastante bueno. Nos escribe también
Mario Eugenio Amador, buenas noches, me da gusto
que estén de regreso. Nosotros también estamos
muy felices de estar de regreso con... Con ustedes
fue una pausa que era necesaria por las fiestas,
pero ya estamos de este lado. Y finalmente Reyes
García nos escribe, felicidades a tan gratos
personajes de la mesa. Muchísimas gracias por
sus comentarios. Los vamos a seguir leyendo.
Vamos a pasar, si les parece, ya que estaban
comentando en el chat sobre esta creación del
Frente Amplio Democrático. Vamos entrando al
tema porque hay mucho de dónde cortar de este
desplegado que se publicó el día de ayer bajo
la consigna de no a la regresión autoritaria,
sí a la democracia, las libertades y los derechos.
Former intellectuals linked to Krause, Aguilar
-Camín and other profiles of that so -called
María Rosa, surely many of you will remember
her. of this civil society in which a very particular
character is hiding, which is Claudia X. González,
they are already announcing a new conformation,
a new group called Frente Amplio Democrático,
and their main objective is to counteract this
electoral reform. And yes, it is about the return
to the political arena of this group, which suffered
a very strong defeat only in 2024. Pero si uno
se mete a la lista de nombres que firman este
desplegado, que son bastantes, pues estos señores,
estas señoras que dicen defender la democracia,
pues han sido protagonistas de fraudes electorales,
se han beneficiado de estos fraudes y hablan
de los riesgos democráticos que traerá esta reforma
que tiene una particularidad todavía, que aún
no la conocemos, todavía no se presenta. No suman
los logotipos del PRI y del PAN, pero están más
que representados con la lista que les voy a
leer. Solamente son algunas firmas. Están Aurelio
Nuño, Francisco Labastida, Emilio Álvarez y Casa,
Edmundo Jacobo, Demetrio Zodi, Claudio X. González,
César Camacho Quirós, Germán Martínez Cázares,
Guadalupe Acosta Naranjo, Hildo Alfonso Guajardo,
Ignacio Morales Lechuga, Jorge Castañeda, Margarita
Zavala. Marco Antonio Baños, Leonardo Valdés
Zurita, Vicente Fox, Rosario Robles, Rubén Aguilar.
Quienes estuvieron y gozaron de los fraudes.
O sea, con esta lista, al ver el nombre de Fox,
recordé esa declaración que este expresidente
hace el 23 de septiembre de 2022, donde dice
que se arrepiente de haber liberado a Andrés
Manuel López Obrador del desafuero. O sea...
A man who attacked democracy, now signing deployments
for democracy. The return, the return of this
whole group. Where do we start? Let's see, I
really admire the persistence of these people.
Because, look, they have been able to sustain
the same berrinche for seven years. I mean, if
you start a berrinche at five years old, y le
sigues como ellos, cumples 12 y sigues en el
mismo berrinche. Porque están emberrinchados
desde que perdieron las prebendas, los privilegios,
las corruptelas, el poder, los sueldos, todo
eso. Esto por un lado. Y por otro lado, me parece
muy sintomático que estén estos personajes del
funcionariado electoral. Mira, algo que caracterizó
al periodo neoliberal es que Las elecciones fueron
convertidas en un sector de la economía. Es decir,
desde la reforma de Zedillo, se le inyecta un
dineral a los partidos políticos, al Instituto
Federal Electoral, entonces IFE, ahora INE, y
surgen toda una serie de empresas, de consultorías,
de agencias de imagen, de despachos de publicidad,
de imprentas, de revistas, de publicaciones,
de encuestadoras, Son un sector económico, el
sector de la industria electoral. Y creo que
ahí hay muchas vinculaciones. Y creo que hay
una defensa de ese sector económico que se va
a ver severamente perjudicado por la reforma
electoral, sea cual sea. Todavía no se presenta,
pero lo que sí sabemos es que tiene un sentido
de decir no se puede tirar tanto dinero en los
procesos electorales. I say it today. What makes
me more curious about these broad fronts is,
first of all, that they always put a broad front
on it, but also it's getting smaller and smaller.
I mean, I don't know what this broad front has
to offer. And you were a linguist. But also...
El uso de estos términos que te regresan así
como a los noventas, dos miles, ¿no? Yo tengo
una lista ahorita, voy a leer algunas. Sí, es
buenísima. Porque ya estoy en la colección ahora,
¿no? Sí, plural. O sea, hay como ciertos valores.
La vez pasada hablábamos de cómo ciertos valores
muy preciados de las sociedades se tienen que
ir también actualizando conforme a otras necesidades
que también surgen, ¿no? Hablábamos en alguna
ocasión del derecho a la... for example, things
that necessarily change with history. In this
case, I am very interested in the use, but the
reiterated use of the word plural, pluralism,
which is one of the, they are terms of transitology,
of the time of Woldenberg, who of course is in
this group, and you can see who made the statement,
right? It's like the smart boy from the living
room that they put him to write, surely. But
this type of terms, another thing that is also
not surprising is the fact that they are sung
in all the parties. Well, how could they not
have already lost the register? I mean, they
don't even have a party, a formal platform with
which to launch their proposals. But well, let's
go to a break and we'll be back if you want.
We'll be back because we're going to extend this
topic. Apenas empezando, quédense aquí en Maciosare.
Sigue el contenido de Canal 11 y Canal 22. Maciosare
Debate público. Se ha planteado una nueva reforma
político -electoral que, lejos de fortalecer
el sistema democrático, poses clear risks of
regression in matters of institutional autonomy,
political pluralism and constitutional balances.
We call for the formation of a broad democratic,
plural, inclusive and national front, integrated
by citizens, social organizations, academic,
legal, political and civil, with the clear and
immediate objective. to prevent a regressive
initiative to prosper in political and electoral
matters at any stage of the legislative process
and to defend the democratic principles that
sustain the public life of the country. What
is constitutional democracy? What does democracy
mean? The power of the people. Taking advantage,
by the way, Lincoln was the one who opposed the
war against Mexico in the United States. Because
of Lincoln is the phrase, democracy is the government
of the people for the people and for the people.
It says, may the old regime not return. And do
you know who signs? The Bastida. Gracias por
continuar con nosotros en esta barra de análisis
de los medios públicos. Estamos hablando sobre
el regreso de los abajo firmantes, esta creación
del Frente Amplio Democrático que va contra una
reforma electoral que todavía no conocemos, pero
de la que ya están alertando. Corto. Let's go.
Well, it's very funny. When I heard this about
a broad, democratic front, I thought of this
old joke about the Holy Roman Empire, which was
neither Holy nor Empire, and much less Roman.
It was Germanic. So you just said, what does
it have to do with democracy? What does it have
to do with a broad front? But this is only the
most recent of a long list of that kind of anodyne
names that sound like ONGs. Everyone sounds like
ONGs because these people come from this world,
the ONGs financed by the United States. That's
their world, right? So we have names like Sí
por México, Sí o Danos a Rescatar Nación, remember
that? Unidos, Sociedad Civil México, México Unido,
Va por México, Frente Cívico, Somos México, etc.
All those names created by public relations companies
that have this stuff of ONG -ism. And this is
notorious on the one hand, and on the other,
just this point that this word of Abajo Firmante
has become a joke, lexically. It tells you a
lot, right? Because it's the idea that they are
going to do politics from their comfortable departments
in Mexico City, signing bills that no one reads.
When you really do politics, you go to the territory,
right? As the president said in those days in
San Quentin, you have to go to the territory.
These people don't want to go to the territory
or really create a real movement. These people
want to stay here, sign deployments as important
people, trusting that their friends in the corporate
media are going to make notes about it. And that's
it. And that's where they're trying to get into
something. And beware, if they're opposing something
even before it exists, the risk is that they're
going to actually burn their cartridge. Because
it's going to give the impression that they're
just opposing because they're opposing. Because
there is still no proposal, there is still no
project. So now it's going to appear like the
old wolf's suit. And then when the project finally
comes out, any subsequent proposal is going to
appear a little serious. Because they were already
opposing each other from before. That's the problem
when you burn your cartridge too early. Well,
it strikes me. a moment of this deployment where
they say that there will no longer be a possibility
of alternation, that is to say that they clearly
give, let's say, or reveal that in the background
they want to continue controlling the electoral
institutions, that is, they say that the legitimacy
and even the autonomy of the INE are going to
be lost because, that is, for them what it represents
is to have the control of that institution in
particular. and from this it is striking that
José Woldenberg, Lorenzo Córdoba, Valdés Zurita,
Luis Carlos Ugalde are involved again. Who are
these characters? First, they are the ones who
headed, since this institute was created, the
IFE and then the INE. have been at the head of
this electoral institution, but they are also
the ones who allowed the great electoral scumbags,
the frauds. In the case of José Waldenberg, who
said, Violeta, the most wise child, I don't know
how you mentioned it, the most intellectual,
I would put it in quotes. In reality, it is this
character who is also enlisted in the National
University, who gives classes in the Faculty
of Political Sciences, and who is actually part
of the right. even if they say that they have
no ideology, they were in the pink tide, they
took off their citizenship mask because they
have also supplanted that value of citizenship,
not only of the civil society organized, which
is the one that is worth for them, those who
should only have the right to vote, because they
are also classists, they are racists, we saw
it perfectly with Lorenzo Córdoba himself, because
in the period of Lorenzo Córdoba, sorry, of José
Waldenberg, what happened was that of friends.
de Fox o del Pemexgate, nunca se sancionó, no
se echó para atrás esa elección que fue súper
cochina, lo mismo pasó después con Luis Carlos
Ugalde, todo el desafuero y luego el fraude electoral,
el haiga sido como haiga sido de Felipe Calderón,
los dados cargados de Vicente Fox, todo lo que
ya sabemos, ¿no? Esta Valdezurita que pues ahorita
no lo recordamos bien, pero también dejó pasar
muchas cochinadas electorales. and, well, don't
tell Lorenzo Cordoba that what he didn't have
enough to do the fraud is that he didn't have
the support of Peña Nieto, because Peña Nieto
had become the clown in the streets. So, let's
see, what they want is to control the institutions
to return to power, and that's why they say that
there won't be space for alternation, because
for them to have alternation, their only way
is electoral fraud. And that is the risk. But
Nancy, they are against the restoration of the
old regimen. This is hilarious. They are the
prophets of an alternation that is the denial
of democracy. Because, let's see, they are the
PRIAN. There are characters of the PRI and the
PAN. And the one who was the vizagra between
the two, who was the IFE and then INE. And the
oligarchy, because Claudio X is the representative
of the oligarchy. And the one who joins them.
El que siempre se encarga de juntarlos, aunque
están juntos desde el 88, desde que Carlos Salinas
y Diego Fernández de Ceballos urden ese pacto
inmundo. Pero lo que tenemos es al PRIAN. But
they say it without ideology. Imagine. Yes, Enrique
Krause also talks about a democracy without adjectives.
But I don't think that's the case. That's why
it's broad, because it goes from PRI to PAN,
which are the protagonists of the alternation,
that they alternated with each other. But that's
not democracy. That's the alternation of oligarchic
mafias. And there is also his permanent defense
of this term of democratic maturity, that we
are in that democratic transition, that we have
to take care of that process that has already
been extended, it is an infinite maturity, that
of our democracy, because also in all that time
that has allowed them to live very well. arguing
that we are always in a democratic transition,
that our young democracy is barely taking its
first steps, they let go of an infinite amount
of crap. Not only were the frauds at the national
level, I mean, the cynicism of Margarita Zavala
to sign a bill in the defense of democracy when
she beat up the Pinos for a cynical electoral
fraud that started in 2005 and that she saw the
light in 2006, but it was such a long fraud,
so documented, and that she still dares to sign
a bill. The truth is that it tells us about a
gigantic cynicism that this panista has. Pero,
o sea, no solamente en su transición democrática
dejaron pasar esos fraudes, o sea, también todos
los fraudes que se han visto a nivel estatal,
a nivel municipal, como todos hemos convivido
con, si quieren llamarlos, microfraudes, o sea,
pero todo quedó como perdonado porque ellos son
los conocedores de la democracia, ellos saben
decir que sí es democrático y que no es democrático
en este proceso, que sí puede quedar todavía
resguardado bajo los brazos del INE, que es lo
que se puede... de salvar, qué es lo que no,
porque están errando en su diagnóstico, están
todavía en su obsesión con López Obrador, como
están diciendo que esta es la reforma, la ley
AMLO maduro, y no se dan cuenta que ni siquiera
ya es un asunto ni un capricho de López Obrador.
An electoral reform is a demand of the people.
The people who were the ones who endured the
fraud of 1988, the ones who endured all the electoral
raccoons in the squares next to their homes,
the ones who endured all these fraud modalities,
that the carousel, that the vote, that send me
a photo, that give me your ID. It's the people
who made the democracy that they still see in
Siernes mature. Pero siguen obsesionados con
López Obrador y por eso su diagnóstico es tan
erróneo que son capaces de sumar a los hijos
de los fraudes a este desplegado. Es precisamente
eso, Dani. Si salieron al territorio... hablar
con la gente, sabría de lo que acabas de decir,
de esta exigencia que viene de la gente, no firmando
desplegados desde la Ciudad de México. Es precisamente
eso de hacer territorio. Es por eso, es para
escuchar la gente del país. Y hay dos exigencias
muy importantes, muy rápidamente. El primero
es el asunto de la partidocracia y el gasto en
partidos, los 8 mil millones. Hay que hacerlo
bien para que este luego no sea suplantado por
fuentes del sector privado que pudieran manipular.
But a party that lives very well with these budgets.
And the other is the result of the plurinominal.
That is, people are against that. It has to do
with representation of minorities. In fact, I
am very happy that, to calm my tacos a little
bit, when we talked about this a few months ago,
I talked about the possibility of keeping the
plurinominal, but that people choose the plurinominal,
that is, by system of list. And it seems that
those are the proposals that are going to be
one of the finalists there. But the point is
this, if they heard this, they would know that
people are tired, first of all, of the partyocracy,
and secondly, they would say, I'm Plurie, what?
But they don't listen and they don't know, and
that's why they're totally out of the debate,
or burning the cartridge in an anticipated way.
We also have to remember to do a little bit of
recent history. I think they are reacting to
a reform that they do not yet know, but that
they already intuit, because in reality this
reform, or maybe they are right to think that
this reform is going to be very similar to the
one presented by López Obrador in 2022. The same
reform that did not get a qualified majority
because they themselves declared, well, these
same ideologists or whatever they have behind
in the parties, they declared a constitutional
moratorium and they refused even to read it.
They rejected it without even having read it.
However, that reform proposal that López Obrador
had sent contained the reduction of the budget
of political parties, the reduction of senators
and deputies, and also the plurinominal lists.
It is the famous reform of Pablo Gómez. That
proposed reform had an acceptance, the INE did
a survey, and it had a majority acceptance, it
had about 87 % of approval that senators should
be reduced, so there was already a popular approval
for that reform, and they refused to even discuss
it, and since at that time there was no qualified
majority, it could not be implemented. Then came
the famous Plan B. The plan B was later thrown
by the Supreme Court for the reasons it has deduced.
And what did that lead us to? Well, to plan C,
which is what we are living right now. In other
words, this political reality that we have now,
which is the most qualified of the governing
coalition in the cameras, which is the vassal
vote that Claudia Sheinbaum obtained in the polls,
that is called plan C. of an electoral reform
that was proposed with which the people were
in agreement and that the legislators decided
not to approve with this same tactic of I'm not
even going to read it, but I'm going to put myself
against it. And here, what Pera says is a bit
like what Kurt was saying, that is, they don't
even have the will to listen to people. because
we have to remember that those who are in Congress
are popular representatives. So, from the beginning
they should have listened to the people and it
is even said that that first reform of López
Obrador was light compared to what we now expect
to be the deep reform of the Mexican state to
guarantee democracy in the future. What also
strikes me about this deployment is how they
return to this image that we are about to lose
our democratic life. Again, we are on the path
of authoritarianism. We can no longer believe
them. It's like what Pedro and the Wolf said.
Well, they run out of ideas. And why do they
run out of ideas? Because they are the same.
And in fact, this is taken from a study, surely,
by which they pay consultants the same as they
did when they built the candidacy of Xochitl
Galvez. Who are the most anti -democratic? It's
them. Remember that when Xochitl Galvez, in the
internals of PRI and PAN, was losing, Well, then
they said, no, better now. They canceled the
process because they are the most anti -democratic.
I mean, what they don't like is what democracy
means. Democracy means power of the people, for
the people, for the people. And that's what they
don't want, because also. re -reveal themselves
as racists, classists, elitists, who do not respect
that will of the people and it is an informed
will. They do not even recognize the revolution
of the consciences that we are living in this
country. They are totally alien to reality and
I think they have already lost this moment and
what will follow is a moment of despair for them,
as they had with the judicial reform. What is
also very symptomatic, sorry to interrupt you,
is how there is no generational exchange in that
group. Exactly. It is not extended to young people.
No, they did not achieve that relief. But what
happened with Generation Z? No, but we're being
tremendously unfair with these fathers and mothers
of the homeland because, let's see, they have
a very clear logic. They are exponents of the
old regime. All of them. Whether it's an ONG
regime, whether it's a party regime, whether
it's an institutional regime. No, it's a corrupt
regime. I mean, the regime of the past is a corrupt,
oligarchic regime. But it's the old regime, in
the expression that it is. Look, there you have
Emilio, what's his name? Álvarez y Casa. Álvarez
y Casa is ONG. Claudio X. González is an entrepreneur.
Lorenzo Córdoba is a civil servant. Over there
is Mundo Jacobo, who came out, they say, with
a DINERAL from INE. No, they don't say that.
They left with INE money. And there are politicians
like Margarita Zavala, like Aurelio Nuño. So
they are, as representatives of that old regime,
they are advocating for freedom, democracy, tolerance,
which characterized that old regime, which they
don't want to return. Es bien coherente si lo
piensan así. Sí, y yo creo que ya tenemos que
ir terminando, amigos. Ese mensaje que dabas,
Nancy, sobre que recuerden que son representantes
populares, creo que también abarca al Partido
Verde y al Partido del Trabajo, que han dado
mensajes como de resistirse un poco a los posibles
cambios. Entonces, creo que parte de las críticas
también caerían sobre los partidos. Claro, ellos
están olvidando que es un mandato popular. este
momento es un mandato popular. Exacto. Pues con
eso cerramos. Muchísimas gracias, Nancy, Kurt,
Violeta, Pedro, a todos ustedes por acompañarnos
con sus mensajes. Nos vemos la siguiente semana
aquí en Maciasare.