How does a protest in Venezuela prove that it’s a dictatorship?

It doesn’t. Who claimed it did?

Chavez is trying to change the Venezuelan constitution in order to concentrate political power into the hands of one office holder. That’s what makes Chavez a dictator.

Do our large unsuccessful protests prove that we live in one here?

For the most part, protests in America are a joke, and the people who participate in them are just bozos looking for an excuse to engage in property destruction. That just proves that the standard uniform for progressives should include not only a ski mask, a che t-shirt and a kaffiyeh, but also big, red, floppy clown shoes.

I predict a victory for Hugo. Probably about 99%. I think that is the same margin the Soviet Premier used to win by, too.

A celebrated progressive once said “Power resides not in he who votes but in he who counts the votes.”

My point was, if you can lay off the hyperbole and insults, that this site goes overboard in saying that Venezuela is a violent dictatorship, and a violent dictatorship usually wouldn’t allow a “massive” demonstration. Just the opposite.

China allowed mass demonstrations too, right up until they rolled in the tanks. The fact that Chavez hasn’t yet done so doesn’t necessarily reflect his tolerance, as much as his unwillingness to push a confrontation before he finishes legitimizing himself, after which he will be free to take whatever retaliatory action he might choose.

Venezuela is a democracy in name only. Chavez’s actions in Venezuela’s parliment are transparent attempts to look democratic as he tries to transform his authority into an autocracy. The USSR was not a democracy, and masses of people protested there. Did that make the USSR not a tyrannical regime?

There are also massive protests in Iran. Would you consider Iran a democracy? How about China? Governments cannot prevent mass protests unless they are willing to eliminate all the protestors. There just are not enough military and police forces large enough to control that type of situation, without massive bloodshed. It doesn’t matter if it’s a democracy or dictatorship.

In the United States, we have “election” cycles where those people who participate in the massive protests to which you allude, have the opportunity to vote their conscience. If their POV fails to produce “their” desired results, that means their POV is in the minority. That is democracy.

In Hugo Chavez’s democracy, if he doesn’t like the results of the election, he fixes the election, or declares it “invalid.” That, is not democracy, it is depotism.

You are not under the impression that here in the US, that public demonstrations dictate policy, are you? If that was the case, why do we have elections?

Summing up my post as “America is THE dictatorship” is yes, hyperbole. And saying you’re amazed by my clarity of thought is yes, a sarcastic insult.

My point was, if you can lay off the hyperbole and insults, that this site goes overboard in saying that Venezuela is a violent dictatorship, and a violent dictatorship usually wouldn’t allow a “massive” demonstration. Just the opposite.

My second point was that the demonstrations here have been even larger, and have had little to no effect on govt policy. Would you call that a dictatorship?

If you’re not making the point that Chavez is the “good guy” in all this, then you need to find a better way of explaining your point of view.

Did I misunderstand your insinuation that “we” conservatives are being hypocritical of an “elected” democracy? If so, what was your point?