Something I do not understand : If the USA claims to be pro democracy in general, and claims to be a democratically elected institution in itself, is there any reason why the USA can take a justifiable stand against Global democracy in general in the sense that other democratically elected institutions all over the world have a democratic duty to exercise whatever democratically peaceful influence they can in order to safeguard true democratic governance elsewhere?

Is there any real difference between the USA feeling obliged to exercise influence on democratic processes in Venezuela and Russia feeling obliged to influence democratic processes in the USA?

If so, what are these differences?

Secondly, in both of these instances, are the perceived implementations of cross border influences democratic in nature in each case? Or in neither?

Thirdly, is cross border threats of violence more democratic than cross border propaganda?

Not that I think much of majority vote ruling party type so called 'democratic' models. True democracy is about securing the Common Law rights and privileges of every individual and not about whatever the current vogue in policies it is that a majority can be convinced to believe in at any moment. There are way too many pitfalls in the form of side benefits in rulership as well as other inherent ailments that skew these models away from this ideal.