Were are a Democracy. However...

A republic being "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president" is only one sense of the multiple senses of what the word republic means. There are other dimensions, or senses, of the word. The sense that you are ignoring or distorting is "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." The word democracy means "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." The "directly or indirectly" part logically makes republic a subset of democracy, which you deny. For someone who complains about the limitations of a dictionary, you are the one ironically limiting all the semantic dimensions that make up the words republic and democracy. You also ignored that Merriam-Webster also expanded upon the definition of republic in a multi-paragraph article:

One of the most commonly encountered questions about the word democracy has nothing to do with its spelling or pronunciation, and isn’t even directly related to the meaning of the word itself. That question is “is the United States a democracy or a republic?” The answer to this, as with so many other questions about meaning, may be phrased as some form of “it depends.”

Some people assert that a country calling itself a democracy must be engaged in direct (or pure) democracy, in which the people of a state or region vote directly for policies, rather than elect representatives who make choices on their behalf. People who follow this line of reasoning hold that the United States is more properly described as a republic, using the following definition of that word: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."

However, both democracy and republic have more than a single meaning, and one of the definitions we provide for democracy closely resembles the definition of republic given above: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."​

So if someone asks you if the United States is a democracy or a republic, you may safely answer the question with either “both” or “it depends.”​

Note the part which states "both democracy and republic have more than a single meaning." Again, it's ironic that you bring up the limitations of a dictionary entry, yet you are the one ironically limiting the definition of what a republic is, by hyperfocusing on the first sense of the word.

 

That's a proper definition of the word. If you are trying to say that it is so broad that there are many variations, I already said that: the are Democratic Republics and there are Totalitarian Republics. So there are definitely variants. But they are NOT automatically a "subset" of Democracy.

When our country was founded, they INVENTED the concept of "President". It was the substitute of "Monarch".

No. I'm not ignoring it. Already told you that this is true in the U.S. as it is in North Korea. Just that in North Korea "the body of citizens entitled to vote " is way less. And that the "law" according to which they govern allows for a dictator.

It's as if you believed that where it says "according to the laws", this means "the laws of the United States". It does not! It means the laws of whatever country decided they were going to be a Republic and not a Monarchy.

Exactly. In a totalitarian regime it's NOT vested on the people or exercised by them directly or indirectly throush a system or representation. In NK it's vested on the one Party that is legal. Therefore, it's NOT a democracy. But it IS a Republic.

I don't know what you are trying to say using the word "subset". It's a term usually associated with math to mean "a part of a larger group of related things.: Sounds to me that would mean that ONLY Republics CAN be Democracies. I have shown that is not true. They are related and they BOTH have subsets, but neither is the subset of the other. But if you are using some other definition of "subset", then maybe we are in agreement. I just think "subset" is not the proper word but I wouldn't bother too much on semantics.

So, bottom line. If "subset" means anything different than what I state above, tell us what it means to you. I have no problem if you are using the word to mean something different than the majority of people would understand. But I think you would be confusing, rather than clarifying...

It's irrelevant whether they have a single meaning or not. What is relevant is that one is NOT a subset (the way in which most English-speakers would use the word) of the other.

 

So...we're saying that the U.S. is a republic, as the OP said?

 

That will be answered over the next year or so.
If there are any convicted with the effort to end our democratic process.

 

There are a lot more types and variations on democracy that those two and it can be more than simple sub-sets. For example, the "body of citizens entitled to vote" in a republic isn't necessarily "the people" in a democracy (by design or in effect). You can have a republic where only a small group of people get to vote (e.g. hereditary nobles, land-owning men, appointed electors etc.) which most people today wouldn't recognise as a democracy.

I agree. Maybe without context, the word republic is a little more vague than you're giving it credit for.

Not "hyperfocusing", just acknowledging because you're entirely dismissing it. You only want to ever focus on one aspect of the term while I'm saying all aspects of the term can be relevant in different contexts.

Republicanism and democracy are political concepts. A republic and a democracy are types of nation or government. "American (x)" refers to the former, "America is a (x)" refers to the latter. Quirks of the English language meaning both forms of the word "democracy" are the same is a major part of the confusion here.

If that is how those historians and the White House referred to that discussion, changing it would be false reporting. You could clarify what they actually discussed if you feel it was misnamed, but I suspect their concerns were related to some citizens loosing their right to have their vote recognised rather than America becoming some different form of democracy, and so "threat to democracy" would be at least as accurate as "threat to republicanism". Arguably more significantly, that is more likely how people reading the article would interpret it.

 

Well, by that measure, your writing isn't very good. But the good news is that....

Brevity should not be a rationalization to avoid necessary nuance. If that weren't true, there would be no paper, book, or essay, written beyond a short paragraph. Therefore history, and the context of mankind, is far too dynamic, complex, and thus nuanced to be pestered by a pithy aphorism written by a specialist in iambic pentameter and a master of coined phrases, poetry and fictional characters and well-structured plots. Shakespeare, himself, was not 'brief', particularly. Just read the soliloquy to Hamlet. I swear, I roll my eyes everytime someone cites that particular aphorism to justify avoiding nuance.

It's not about how long or short an essay is, it's about not being redundant or verbose, and one can write an entire book without being redundant or verbose. Read Kissinger's 'White House Years' and tell me he should be 'brief'.

And, you are correct, America is a democracy, but a democracy of a certain type, a representative democracy (given the House of Representatives). The term isn't particularly a legal one, it's more descriptive, more poetic, but it is correct. It has numerous meanings used in varying contexts, from parochial to it's broadest sense. And, in the broadest sense of the term, America is a democracy.

 

It's more likely that citizens will rise up against government and strike back against the woke anti-democratic leftist. We're already seeing signs of that with Trump's rising popularity. When all else fails to prevent Trump from defeating the government swamp will leftists resort to assasination?

 

Or a Democracy or a Socialist or a Communist.......................................a Republic which not one mention of Democracy. They didn't say "guaranties to each State anything but a Monarchy". It then goes on to design our REPUBLIC and the federal system of these United States. Why do you think we weren't founded as the United People of America?

 

Not likely.
MAGA are losers. Overall.

 

Right up until they win.

 

That hasn't been happening since 2018

 

Keep watching.

 

Since you make so many incorrect statements in every post you deliver, it's too overwhelming to debate each point. Therefore, for you, I am just going to pick one of the points that you've made, and I'll debate you on that, and see where it goes from there.

Let's start with this--your definition of "Democracy [sic]":

I brought this up before, and you just ignored it, but I am going to bring this up again. This definition of democracy precludes pure democracy, which is "democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives." Since your definition of democracy being a "a form of government in which the decisions are made by the people and their elected representatives," which logically precludes pure democracy, are you saying that pure democracy is not a form of democracy? If not, explain how your definition of democracy logically includes pure democracy.

By the way, hint, hint: your definition of "Democracy [sic]" is the definition of a republic: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."

 

This is an ironic rebuttal, as you are taking my argument out of context. That is to say, you are removing the nuance of my argument, oversimplifying it, the very thing you are supposedly arguing against. How so? You're arguing with half of my argument. In the first part of my OP, I state:

But you conveniently ignored that, only responding to the second part, about brevity. But I never said brevity at the sacrifice of necessary nuance. That is a strawman that you decided to build just to metaphorically beat the crap out of. That, my friend, is a sign of a weak arguer.

 

The research I mention in my sig is specially true on this topic in which, not only have performed the usual online research, but personally consulted with professionals in Political Science. I opened a thread about it a while back. I later shared my OP with one of those professionals who made a couple of corrections, so now I am 100% confident.

How in the world does ".. decisions are made by the people and their elected representatives" PRECLUE "decisions are made by the people"

In ANY case, the point is moot given that there is no such thing as "pure democracy" in ANY country. NOT in the sense in which you appear to interpret it in which ALL decisions are taken directly by the people.

But I'm not interested in discussing dictionary definitions of "Democracy".

You're so desperately trying to change the subject that you haven't noticed that I agree with everything of substance you have said (the above is not of substance) EXCEPT your claim that "republic is a subset of democracy".

I highlight the above because that's the ONLY point I'm making. If republic were a subset of democracy, then ALL republics would be democracies. And REALITY says that's not true. Anybody can see that Republics like North Korea, China, Venezuela... are NOT democracies under ANY definition. Your attempts to turn this into a "War of Dictionaries" is a clear refusal on your part to defend YOUR point.

Now, you could argue that they are "lying". That they only use "Republic" in the name to fool people.

You said before...

Ok... THAT is the important point.

Don't bother responding to ANYTHING else I have said. Only respond to THIS. If you can respond to it, then the discussion is concluded and your point is made. If you can't, then it's also concluded but MY point is made.

Pay attention:

Let's use North Korea as an example. Show us ANY sense of "Republic" from a reputable source that is NOT met by North Korea.

If North Korea is not a Republic, your claim that " republic is a subset of democracy" is proven false UNLESS you believe that North Korea is a Democracy. And, if you do, then this discussion serves no purpose.

 

You have apparently spent a great deal of time researching this, while I simply rememeber what I was taught in school.

We are a Democratically Elected Constitutional Republic.

What is the problem?

 

You need to read the WHOLE post to find out what the problem is.

Not only are we a Democratic Constitutional Republic. We were the FIRST Democratic Constitutional Republic, as the term is used today. We invented that! All Democratic Constitutional Republics that came after us simply copied us, tweaking the concept to fit their particular reality.

 

Per your original post, I've seen nobody offer any counter against your observation that the U.S. is *not* a direct democracy.

 

Which exactly the point expressed in the OP. I don't see anyone in this thready being able to argue otherwise.

 

I dont need to read the whole post.

I have seen you prattling on in regards to this subject in countless threads over the last several years. There is nothing all that complicated about this. We are a Democratically elected constitutional Republic.

Some people shorten this to call it just a Democracy, but that can legitimately be argued to be misleading/incomplete because there is such a thing as a true Democracy, and we are clearly not a true Democracy where every issue would be voted on by the populous. Some people would call it just a Republic, but that too is inadequate/incomplete because it is theoretically possible for a Republic to not be voted in Democratically. Both of those abbreviations are inadequate/incomplete to some extent. They dont need to be inadequate for rational people that can understand these slight clarifications without the need for them to be expressly spelled out, but for someone like yourself that wants to be ultra anal retentive, just leave it at a Democratically elected Constitutional Republic. There is nothing else of value to say on the subject.

My god....just move on. The board is tired of seeing your incessant (years long) whining about this irrelevant subject. Everybody knows our system of governance and there is no value whatsoever in getting anal about how to title it.

 

Democracy in name only. We the people don't control the government, special interests do. We the people are crash test dummies for the WHO and Pharma, roll up your sleeves folks, and submit to our rulers.

 

Then don't ask...

Or course we're not. Because no such thing exists... It's naïve to believe that this is even a useful argument for ... anything....

 

My god....just move on. The board is tired of seeing your incessant (years long) whining about this irrelevant subject. Everybody knows our system of governance and there is no value whatsoever in getting anal about how to title it.

 

You think too highly of yourself. You can skip any threads you are "tired" of through a process called "don't read them!"

I didn't open this thread. Another poster did. They opened it making accurate points with only ONE mistake. So I corrected it.

 

Something tells me that person opened this thread specifically because of you. I coul be wrong, but history would indicate that this is overwhelmingly likely to be the case. I have watched you push this nonsense for literally years now.