Opinion of saying the US is "a republic, not a democracy"

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is not only one of the dumbest and nitpickingest semantical distinctions ever, it's also basically a false dichotomy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You're entirely right.

[ElectionsGuy]

It's both (although you can argue otherwise for democracy), so its false and horrible.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Libertarian Sage gone wronger than usual.

[Vosem]

Even if it wasn't already really dumb, it would still be an amazingly nitpicky distinction. Horrible phrase.

[RedSLC]

The epitome of stupidity. Unfortunately, it's fairly common to hear this kind of thing in Utah.

[Del Tachi]

The epitome of stupidity. Unfortunately, it's fairly common to hear this kind of thing in Utah.

Unfortunately, it's fairly common to hear this kind of thing from red avatars living in blue states. 

[Franzl]

A good indicator of stupidity

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It's just plain stupid, because republic is technically a representative and indirect form of democracy.  I know James Madison and others would categorize it separately (by "democracy" they mean direct democracy), but I think the differences are pretty minimal other than that.

[AggregateDemand]

Makes my blood boil

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Technically a republic is any government whose leaders are not either monarchs or religious figures, meaning that the term encompasses everything from the United States to France to North Korea to Nazi Germany.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

republic is technically a representative and indirect form of democracy.

No it's not because the world no longer (to the limited extent that it ever did) operates according to navel-gazing Enlightenment political philosophy. The term you're looking for is, well, representative democracy. Snowstalker's definition is correct. (The rulers of North Korea are, of course, de facto both monarchs and religious figures, but they would never admit that.)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Misses the entire freaking point.

[politicallefty]

HS. Obviously, the two are not mutually exclusive.

[SWE]

Morons

[Mechaman]

Misses the entire freaking point.

[Torie]

I have never quite understood when that comment is being made, just where it is going. If the US is but a republic, and not a democracy, that means what exactly, when it comes to the current reality of fashioning public policy in the public square at the present time. Does anyone know? If so, please enlighten me. Thanks!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The argument is usually that democracy is just mob rule and that the US has a Constitution and precedent that should be used to handle lawmaking nnot just public support.

But then what country in the world is a democracy? It's a pointless Sage talking point.

[Torie]

The argument is usually that democracy is just mob rule and that the US has a Constitution and precedent that should be used to handle lawmaking nnot just public support.

But then what country in the world is a democracy? It's a pointless Sage talking point.

Well in theory, a democracy is presumably subject to the rule of law as well. And surely it would be impracticable to run matters out of town hall meetings where everyone who shows up votes, as is still perhaps done in a few small New England villages. So yes, the whole thing in practical terms is indeed quite pointless - typically offered up by those who don't have a lot else to offer when it comes to fashioning wise public policy. JMO.

[Mechaman]

The argument is usually that democracy is just mob rule and that the US has a Constitution and precedent that should be used to handle lawmaking nnot just public support.

But then what country in the world is a democracy? It's a pointless Sage talking point.

Yes, it seems like it's a talking point that is quickly brought up (like the idea that democracy advocates think judges should be elected) by certain types of people whenever topics like voter id laws, reforming the electoral college, and basically anything to do with liberalizing election processes.  Some people will even bring it up when talking about the direct election of US Senators.  Basically, it's a talking point parroted by people who don't like the continued democratization of the American electoral process.

[Torie]

So a republican republic  is where there is vote suppression in the republic, and a democratic republic is where there is not? 

[Mechaman]

So a republican republic  is where there is vote suppression in the republic, and a democratic republic is where there is not? 

I don't know dude, but it seems like a lot of people like to tote the line "voting is a privilege, not a right" to justify advocating for measures that would reduce voting, not encourage it.

[RedSLC]

The epitome of stupidity. Unfortunately, it's fairly common to hear this kind of thing in Utah.

Unfortunately, it's fairly common to hear this kind of thing from red avatars living in blue states. 

Doesn't matter. It's still an incredibly stupid talking point.

[Mordecai]

Basically the answer to a question no-one asked and used to show-off because they don't know anything else worth talking about. Really is curious that the people who proudly make that distinction are the ones who are also most likely to hate the federal government and talk fondly of secession.