Trump said yesterday that the US will run Venezuela. Didn’t he say the same thing about the Gaza strip last February? I’m not sure how seriously and literally we should take Trump when he says the US will run Venezuela. It’s hilarious how literal the MSM is. We are under no obligation to take people at their word.<\/p>\n
Trump explicitly said the U.S. would “take over” and “own” the Gaza Strip. He called it “oceanfront property” and “incredible real estate,” suggesting the U.S. would “level it,” remove the debris, and rebuild it as a “Riviera of the Middle East.”<\/p>\n
Just like now, the media took it as a literal annexation plan. In reality, it shifted into a vague proposal for international development zones and “safe communities,” and the “U.S. running it” part largely evaporated as the geopolitical reality set in.<\/p>\n
Now we are seeing the exact replay. He is saying the U.S. will “run” Venezuela and “stay until such time as a proper transition can take place.”<\/p>\n
It is the same business-developer language he used for Gaza: treating a sovereign state like a distressed asset in receivership that needs a new management team to “fix the infrastructure” and “get the oil flowing.”<\/p>\n
Trump often uses “we will run it” as a proxy for “we will dictate the terms of the cleanup,” rather than an actual commitment to long-term colonial administration. The media usually misses that his “ownership” language is transactional, not necessarily political.<\/p>\n
Based on the Gaza example, we can probably expect this “US running Venezuela” phase to be far more temporary and hands-off in practice than the headlines imply.<\/p>\n
The media\u2019s “literal-mindedness” isn’t just an annoyance; it is a structural blind spot that prevents them from understanding how he actually communicates.<\/p>\n
There are a few key reasons why the MSM consistently falls into this trap with Trump, especially on issues like Venezuela and Gaza:<\/p>\n
1. The “Literal vs. Serious” Disconnect<\/p>\n
During Trump\u2019s first campaign, journalist Salena Zito famously observed: “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.”<\/p>\n
The Media Lens: When Trump says “US will run Venezuela,” the media parses the verb “run.” They look for State Department white papers, budget allocations for an occupation force, and legal frameworks for annexation. When they don’t find them, they treat the statement as an insane lie or an immediate crisis.<\/p>\n
The Reality: To his base (and usually in his own head), “run” is directional, not operational. It means “we are going to be the boss of the situation,” or “we will dictate the terms.” It is a signal of dominance, not a policy white paper.<\/p>\n
2. The “Fact-Check” Industrial Complex<\/p>\n
Modern journalism is built to catch politicians who lie by omission or use slippery legal language (like Bill Clinton). It is not built for a politician who speaks in “directional hyperbole.”<\/p>\n
The media has a professional obligation to check facts. If a CEO says “we are buying this company,” financial reporters have to treat that as a literal acquisition event.<\/p>\n
They apply this same standard to Trump. They feel that if they don’t report it literally, they are “normalizing” him. So they end up fact-checking a metaphor (“We will own Gaza”) as if it were a real estate closing, which makes them look hysterical when the bulldozers never show up.<\/p>\n
3. “Strategic Ambiguity”<\/p>\n
Trump benefits from this literal interpretation. By saying something extreme like “The US will run Venezuela,” he achieves two things:<\/p>\n
Anchoring: He shifts the window of conversation. Suddenly, “heavy sanctions” or “installing a friendly government” seem moderate compared to “annexation.”<\/p>\n
The Rorschach Test: His supporters hear “America First dominance,” while his critics hear “Imperial Colonialism.” The media runs around trying to pin down the literal meaning, while the emotional message has already landed with the target audience.<\/p>\n
4. The Fear of Under-reacting<\/p>\n
There is also a psychological element. The media was criticized in 2016 for treating Trump as a joke. In over-correction, they now treat every syllable as a binding edict. They are terrified that the one time they dismiss a comment as “just rhetoric” will be the time he actually does it. This leads to a “Boy Who Cried Wolf” dynamic where every statement is treated as a DEFCON 1 emergency.<\/p>\n
“Running Venezuela” almost certainly means controlling the oil flow and the political transition, not changing the flag or the currency.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Trump said yesterday that the US will run Venezuela. Didn’t he say the same thing about the Gaza strip last February? I’m not sure how seriously and literally we should take Trump when he says the US will run Venezuela. … Continue reading