By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Economic confidence has plummeted to a 17-month low, coinciding with rising healthcare costs and the expiration of ACA credits, leading to potential premium hikes for millions. Despite these domestic issues, the Trump Administration has signaled intentions to intervene in Venezuela, raising concerns about priorities and motivations. A majority of Venezuelans and Americans oppose such intervention, particularly due to the perception of a resource grab, specifically oil, rather than genuine concern for the country’s welfare. This diversion tactics, amid economic struggles and other looming crises, raises questions about the administration’s true objectives and the potential consequences for both nations.
Read the original article here
Run Venezuela? They Can’t Even Run The United States. Let’s be frank, the sheer audacity of the suggestion – that certain political figures could “run Venezuela” – is almost comical when you consider their track record. The prevailing sentiment here is one of deep skepticism, and frankly, I can’t say I disagree. The core issue boils down to this: if the people in question seem incapable of addressing fundamental problems within their own country, how can anyone genuinely believe they’re capable of competently governing another?
Run Venezuela? They Can’t Even Run The United States. The evidence, as I see it, is overwhelming. The list of domestic issues cited – affordability, housing, food prices, healthcare, poverty, Social Security, college, and crumbling infrastructure – paints a stark picture of problems left unaddressed, or even exacerbated, under their watch. The feeling is that resources are being mismanaged, priorities are skewed, and the focus is far from the well-being of the average citizen.
Run Venezuela? They Can’t Even Run The United States. The phrase “running a country into the ground” keeps popping up. It’s a darkly humorous, yet deeply serious, observation. It implies a pattern of behavior – of exploiting resources, prioritizing personal gain over public service, and leaving a trail of destruction in their wake. And while the idea of a country being “run” might seem like a straightforward concept, the reality, according to this perspective, is something far more sinister. It seems to imply using political power primarily for personal enrichment, a sort of large-scale grift.
Run Venezuela? They Can’t Even Run The United States. The term “grift” itself is central to understanding the criticism. The notion that the goal isn’t really to “run” Venezuela, but rather to exploit it for financial gain, is a recurring theme. The resources, particularly the oil, become the targets. The well-being of the Venezuelan people is, in this view, a secondary concern, if a concern at all.
Run Venezuela? They Can’t Even Run The United States. It’s pointed out, and understandably so, the lack of any real concrete plan or demonstrable capability to run Venezuela. The idea seems to be predicated on promises, declarations, and pronouncements, rather than practical strategies or tangible results. The overall consensus is that these individuals are experts at destroying things but possess no genuine interest or ability to build anything of lasting value.
Run Venezuela? They Can’t Even Run The United States. The language around this is very charged. Words like “loot,” “robbery,” and “exploit” are used to describe the perceived intent. This harsh vocabulary reflects a deep level of distrust and a belief that any involvement in Venezuela would be driven by self-interest, not by a desire to help the country or its people. The idea is to take what they can, not to give anything back.
Run Venezuela? They Can’t Even Run The United States. There’s a cynicism at play too. The suggestion is made that if the intention is only to extract resources, the plan might be very simple. The idea is essentially that “running Venezuela” means facilitating the extraction of its oil, possibly in coordination with US oil companies. The well-being of Venezuelans themselves seems secondary in this equation. The cynicism extends to wondering if anyone would even be surprised.
Run Venezuela? They Can’t Even Run The United States. Furthermore, the argument is made that this alleged pattern of behavior has already been observed in the United States. This suggests that the same tactics, the same disregard for the public good, and the same focus on personal profit would be applied to Venezuela. The implication is that if these figures are incapable of managing their own domestic affairs, there’s no reason to believe they could manage foreign affairs successfully.
Run Venezuela? They Can’t Even Run The United States. The focus appears to be less on governance and more on personal enrichment. This line of thought leads to a specific prediction, too – the country could potentially be driven into bankruptcy. The suggestion is that whatever resources Venezuela has would ultimately enrich those involved, leaving the country worse off than before.
Run Venezuela? They Can’t Even Run The United States. A very pointed observation is the emphasis on a specific distinction: that it’s “RUIN” and not “Run”. It’s a clever play on words, encapsulating the entire critique. The idea is that their involvement is only ever about destruction, exploitation, and ultimately, self-enrichment, not about genuine governance or improvement. In essence, the phrase implies that they excel at destroying everything they touch.