Seems like they come and go, especially the most extreme and vocal ones. A new bunch pops up and disappears into thin air only to be followed by a new generation.

What’s the deal?

They've probably gone to where they can respond with the same vitriol they receive, and not get in trouble.

CitizenJustin wrote:

Seems like they come and go, especially the most extreme and vocal ones. A new bunch pops up and disappears into thin air only to be followed by a new generation.

What’s the deal?

They have to meet up and work through their persecution complex, or sometimes through up and complain about not being able to bully unopposed.
And have to make up the next conspiracy theory, they worked through most, so i guess by now that has become a pretty laborious task.
The decent ones will just fall silent and hope everybody else forgets they ever where pro-Trump.
Others are too busy making new user accounts to push the same agenda with the same arguments, hoping no one notices the same stuff coming from the same person.
Some died a hero´s death after losing their healtinsurance.

best regards
Thomas

I still love him. He has changed the world like no other president in recent times and after his 8 years, the world will be different and there will be no going back to the status before he rose to power. If you ever wanted your own country to stop depending on the USA, he is a gift that keeps on giving.

seahawk wrote:

I still love him. He has changed the world like no other president in recent times and after his 8 years, the world will be different and there will be no going back to the status before he rose to power. If you ever wanted your own country to stop depending on the USA, he is a gift that keeps on giving.

That's for sure. He really is a gift to other countries looking to be global leaders.

I must say as a European I see benefits in his policy too. Because he shows that Europe must think of Europe first. And that pissing off Russia or China in support of the USA is a bad idea, as you might become a foe of the USA after an election, something which was unthinkable before Trump.

CitizenJustin wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I still love him. He has changed the world like no other president in recent times and after his 8 years, the world will be different and there will be no going back to the status before he rose to power. If you ever wanted your own country to stop depending on the USA, he is a gift that keeps on giving.

It might be better for you, but what about other people. That’s the problem with Trump fans. They could give two shits about how other lives will be affected by legislation.

Fyi when Seahawk makes "pro-trump" statements, read between the lines. He's a German who is perplexed by how we collectively shot ourselves in the foot. I mean, I think most Europeans are perplexed, but some are reacting with concern, some with outrage, and some are amused. I'd say he's mostly amused with a dash of discomfort with how human societies keep repeating history like we do.

Jouhou wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I still love him. He has changed the world like no other president in recent times and after his 8 years, the world will be different and there will be no going back to the status before he rose to power. If you ever wanted your own country to stop depending on the USA, he is a gift that keeps on giving.

It might be better for you, but what about other people. That’s the problem with Trump fans. They could give two shits about how other lives will be affected by legislation.

Fyi when Seahawk makes "pro-trump" statements, read between the lines. He's a German who is perplexed by how we collectively shot ourselves in the foot. I mean, I think most Europeans are perplexed, but some are reacting with concern, some with outrage, and some are amused. I'd say he's mostly amused with a dash of discomfort with how human societies keep repeating history like we do.

Well, it is kind of consoling to see that even the most right wing crazies in Saxony are still more open minded than the Trump supporters in the Bible belt.

And yes, it is also amusing to see Trump talk about supporting right wing movements in Europe and then see the new Italian government consider cutting their F-35 purchase as one of the first measures after gaining power.

CitizenJustin wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I still love him. He has changed the world like no other president in recent times and after his 8 years, the world will be different and there will be no going back to the status before he rose to power. If you ever wanted your own country to stop depending on the USA, he is a gift that keeps on giving.

It might be better for you, but what about other people. That’s the problem with Trump fans. They could give two shits about how other lives will be affected by legislation.

Not to be pedantic, but I believe they couldN'T give two shits. Just like how people couldN'T care less about whatever foolery Trump is up to this week.

seahawk wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I still love him. He has changed the world like no other president in recent times and after his 8 years, the world will be different and there will be no going back to the status before he rose to power. If you ever wanted your own country to stop depending on the USA, he is a gift that keeps on giving.

It might be better for you, but what about other people. That’s the problem with Trump fans. They could give two shits about how other lives will be affected by legislation.

I think you missed the point. I am "loving" him, because he shows that you can not bet on America always electing a reasonable, responsible, trustworthy and intelligent president nor that the US government system would always control the impact, in case the president would be a little less capable. That is not a compliment, but a necessary realisation for all other countries, as it shows that you can not risk putting all your eggs in one basket, because your ally might turn into a bully.

The US has always been a bully that is happy to turn on it's allies in a heartbeat if you don't agree. The US is only a friend when it suits and fits their agenda ... Their agenda primarely being money and their own interests first and foremost. Nothing new on that front.

After 9/11 I Guess some of us thought that the US would see the importance of even stronger alliances and friendships, instead we got a US that has continuesly for the last 17 years removed itself from multinational and multi beneficial organistaions like the UN and NATO to stand more and more alone. It has continued to support terrorism around the world, including Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 hijackers came from and has continued with the same foreign policy as before, not understanding that that is exactly what the 9/11 terrorists wanted when they hit their targets that day: A US that is weak financially and that spends all their mmoeny on endless wars, weak on moral standing around the world and less Security and freedom if any left.

Sadest thing is that most Americans don't seem to understand this .

Regardless if one agrees on your assessment of the USA in the past, it still was debatable, with Trump it is now plainly obvious for all to see. That is a huge difference imho.

Mortyman wrote:

seahawk wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

It might be better for you, but what about other people. That’s the problem with Trump fans. They could give two shits about how other lives will be affected by legislation.

I think you missed the point. I am "loving" him, because he shows that you can not bet on America always electing a reasonable, responsible, trustworthy and intelligent president nor that the US government system would always control the impact, in case the president would be a little less capable. That is not a compliment, but a necessary realisation for all other countries, as it shows that you can not risk putting all your eggs in one basket, because your ally might turn into a bully.

The US has always been a bully that is happy to turn on it's allies in a heartbeat if you don't agree. The US is only a friend when it suits and fits their agenda ... Their agenda primarely being money and their own interests first and foremost. Nothing new on that front.

After 9/11 I Guess some of us thought that the US would see the importance of even stronger alliances and friendships, instead we got a US that has continuesly for the last 17 years removed itself from multinational and multi beneficial organistaions like the UN and NATO to stand more and more alone. It has continued to support terrorism around the world, including Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 hijackers came from and has continued with the same foreign policy as before, not understanding that that is exactly what the 9/11 terrorists wanted when they hit their targets that day: A US that is weak financially and that spends all their mmoeny on endless wars, weak on moral standing around the world and less Security and freedom if any left.

Sadest thing is that most Americans don't seem to understand this .

You don't seem to be acknowledging regional differences in American worldviews. Our individual states are the size of European countries. So look at a map of how the us voted in 2016 before you assume the whole country didn't value their allies.

Jouhou wrote:

So look at a map of how the us voted in 2016 before you assume the whole country didn't value their allies.

There are many problems with that argument, but the biggest one is that none of those maps reflect the extent of how populated a region is. Take a look at the bright red counties in Nebraska and Kansas, for example. Just exactly how many people live in those counties when compared to the pale red/blue counties? A (hypothetical) county with a voting population of 100 out of which 90 vote for Trump would make the county uber red, yet at the same time it's not placed into perspective against other counties.

Many people use the second map you depicted as a means to defend the electoral college. But had you had a couple more pale blue counties (or bluer counties) in MI, PA, and WI, the election would have been completely reversed, and the same map (sans the flipped counties) would have given us a Clinton presidency.

So no...the maps are highly misleading. The only thing they show is that a Wisconsinite's vote had more weight than, say, a Washingtonian's vote.

I don't believe I've gone anywhere? Perhaps you're just upset that the vocal trolls are gone and you're left with the more reasonable and intelligent Trump supporters? I jest of course, the trolls are easy to rile up. Perhaps the mods banned VT?

seahawk wrote:

I must say as a European I see benefits in his policy too. Because he shows that Europe must think of Europe first. And that pissing off Russia or China in support of the USA is a bad idea, as you might become a foe of the USA after an election, something which was unthinkable before Trump.

Now you in Europe are slowly coming to realization that you need to regain your sovereignty, willingness and ability to care for yourself. And not depend on who comes to power where.

anrec80 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I must say as a European I see benefits in his policy too. Because he shows that Europe must think of Europe first. And that pissing off Russia or China in support of the USA is a bad idea, as you might become a foe of the USA after an election, something which was unthinkable before Trump.

Now you in Europe are slowly coming to realization that you need to regain your sovereignty, willingness and ability to care for yourself. And not depend on who comes to power where.

Yeah, that’s been Europe’s problem in a nutshell all along ...

einsteinboricua wrote:

the maps are highly misleading. The only thing they show is that a Wisconsinite's vote had more weight than, say, a Washingtonian's vote.

As intended, because otherwise you'd have candidates campaigning in only the most populous states, and the people of Wisconsin would forever be subjected to the whims of their countrymen in those other states. The founding fathers were smarter than you think, and the system works, despite what you may think when it doesn't work out for your preferred candidate.

You think the GOP likes spotting the Democrats 55 EVs every election just because CA is locked down?

EA CO AS wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

the maps are highly misleading. The only thing they show is that a Wisconsinite's vote had more weight than, say, a Washingtonian's vote.

As intended, because otherwise you'd have candidates campaigning in only the most populous states, and the people of Wisconsin would forever be subjected to the whims of their countrymen in those other states. The founding fathers were smarter than you think, and the system works, despite what you may think when it doesn't work out for your preferred candidate.

You think the GOP likes spotting the Democrats 55 EVs every election just because CA is locked down?

Instead the people who do most of the working, earning, and producing in the country are subject to the whims of voters who live in rural West Virginia because the founding fathers had to compromise with people who wanted to maintain slavery - which is what the Electoral College was set up to do.

And this compromise with White Supremacists has been disastrous for the country over the last 18 years, in which the popular, rational, pragmatic choice has twice been set aside by the Electoral College for people who have run our country straight off a cliff in both cases - into deadly, costly wars and economic calamity by the last one; and now into White Supremacist Mock Dictatorship and potential social collapse by a Russian Stooge.

cargolex wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

the maps are highly misleading. The only thing they show is that a Wisconsinite's vote had more weight than, say, a Washingtonian's vote.

As intended, because otherwise you'd have candidates campaigning in only the most populous states, and the people of Wisconsin would forever be subjected to the whims of their countrymen in those other states. The founding fathers were smarter than you think, and the system works, despite what you may think when it doesn't work out for your preferred candidate.

You think the GOP likes spotting the Democrats 55 EVs every election just because CA is locked down?

Instead the people who do most of the working, earning, and producing in the country are subject to the whims of voters who live in rural West Virginia because the founding fathers had to compromise with people who wanted to maintain slavery - which is what the Electoral College was set up to do.

And this compromise with White Supremacists has been disastrous for the country over the last 18 years, in which the popular, rational, pragmatic choice has twice been set aside by the Electoral College for people who have run our country straight off a cliff in both cases - into deadly, costly wars and economic calamity by the last one; and now into White Supremacist Mock Dictatorship and potential social collapse by a Russian Stooge.

Are you trying to say that the people of West Virginia deserve less of a fair shake than the folks of California and New York?

As for the OP, all you have to do is read some of the vitriol coming out of some folks on this board. Personally, I am a fan of being called a racist, homophobic ammosexual because I disagree with xyz issues.

EA CO AS wrote:

As intended, because otherwise you'd have candidates campaigning in only the most populous states, and the people of Wisconsin would forever be subjected to the whims of their countrymen in those other states. The founding fathers were smarter than you think, and the system works, despite what you may think when it doesn't work out for your preferred candidate.

We can debate the merits on another thread, but again, read what I said: just a couple more blue(er) counties in three states (while keeping everything the same) would have given us a Clinton presidency. In fact, the original system set up made the second place finisher the vice president instead, which would actually be a better path forward due to the compromise that has to happen.

EA CO AS wrote:

You think the GOP likes spotting the Democrats 55 EVs every election just because CA is locked down?

Probably not, but you do realize that to counter CA's 55 votes it means the following states would have to vote their way: WY, AK, ND, SD, MT, NE, UT, ID, WV, AR, MS, and KY (1 state matched by 12). Which means that the votes that determine the presidency fall on just a few states. All these 12 states just countered CA, so why do I care for their vote? I want a swing state like PA and OH to help me get over 270...I'm actually wondering if a potential red state could ever flip blue (like IN did and ND almost did) if a Democrat actually stopped to campaign in the state. ND's 3 votes, for example, will be a drop in the bucket, but still an interesting experiment nonetheless, especially since Republicans don't even visit the state either.

LittleSprocket wrote:

Are you trying to say that the people of West Virginia deserve less of a fair shake than the folks of California and New York?

Do you understand the meaning of the word "fair"? (Hint: It doesn't mean giving your "side" an advantage.)

LittleSprocket wrote:

Are you trying to say that the people of West Virginia deserve less of a fair shake than the folks of California and New York?

At present, the vastly larger number of people who live in California and New York actually are getting less of a fair shake than those West Virginians. To the detriment of the entire country and possibly entire world.

cargolex wrote:

LittleSprocket wrote:

Are you trying to say that the people of West Virginia deserve less of a fair shake than the folks of California and New York?

At present, the vastly larger number of people who live in California and New York actually are getting less of a fair shake than those West Virginians. To the detriment of the entire country and possibly entire world.

Although the Electoral College doesn’t help, years of surgical Republican gerrymandering has ensured the word “fair” doesn’t have a seat at the table of American politics.

I’m sure LittleSprocket, the absolutely upright, apolitical, straightforward, learned, and self-made guy that he is, agrees.

cargolex wrote:

LittleSprocket wrote:

Are you trying to say that the people of West Virginia deserve less of a fair shake than the folks of California and New York?

At present, the vastly larger number of people who live in California and New York actually are getting less of a fair shake than those West Virginians. To the detriment of the entire country and possibly entire world.

You’re essentially arguing that the World Series is unfair because it’s based on games won instead of total of runs scored.

cargolex wrote:

LittleSprocket wrote:

Are you trying to say that the people of West Virginia deserve less of a fair shake than the folks of California and New York?

At present, the vastly larger number of people who live in California and New York actually are getting less of a fair shake than those West Virginians. To the detriment of the entire country and possibly entire world.

But... but... but... doesn't the constitution say everyone is equal in front of the law? Doesn't that make the EC system unconstitutional, because clearly in some states you are more equal than in others?

EA CO AS wrote:

As intended

The founding fathers intended most of the US states to be sparsely populated and economically underperforming? Interesting, where can I read about that?

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

doesn't the constitution say everyone is equal in front of the law? Doesn't that make the EC system unconstitutional, because clearly in some states you are more equal than in others?

It's perfectly constitutional; everyone is equal under the law, and they have the equal freedom to live in whichever state they choose. People in CA who feel they're under-represented can move to AK, for example.

I suppose you'd also argue that the U.S. Senate is unconstitutional because people in ND get the same number of senators as the people of NY?

einsteinboricua wrote:

just a couple more blue(er) counties in three states (while keeping everything the same) would have given us a Clinton presidency.

Gosh, maybe she should have campaigned there?

EA CO AS wrote:

I suppose you'd also argue that the U.S. Senate is unconstitutional because people in ND get the same number of senators as the people of NY?

yup.. maybe our supreme court can invite yours over and teach them what equal under the law means, since they obviously don´t understand.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

I suppose you'd also argue that the U.S. Senate is unconstitutional because people in ND get the same number of senators as the people of NY?

yup.. maybe our supreme court can invite yours over and teach them what equal under the law means, since they obviously don´t understand.

You're advocating mob rule, not equality.

tommy1808 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

I suppose you'd also argue that the U.S. Senate is unconstitutional because people in ND get the same number of senators as the people of NY?

yup.. maybe our supreme court can invite yours over and teach them what equal under the law means, since they obviously don´t understand.

best regards
Thomas

Perfectly legal as the congress is made made from the Senate and the House of Representatives. Otherwise you should be going to the German supreme court and complain that Bremen has 50% of the seats of North-Rhine Westphalia in the Bundesrat but only 3,8% of the population.

tommy1808 wrote:

cargolex wrote:

LittleSprocket wrote:

Are you trying to say that the people of West Virginia deserve less of a fair shake than the folks of California and New York?

At present, the vastly larger number of people who live in California and New York actually are getting less of a fair shake than those West Virginians. To the detriment of the entire country and possibly entire world.

But... but... but... doesn't the constitution say everyone is equal in front of the law? Doesn't that make the EC system unconstitutional, because clearly in some states you are more equal than in others?

EA CO AS wrote:

As intended

The founding fathers intended most of the US states to be sparsely populated and economically underperforming? Interesting, where can I read about that?

Best regards
Thomas

The founding fathers thought we were only going to have 13 states... Perhaps only the original 13 should have electoral college votes.

Brilliant!

EA CO AS wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

just a couple more blue(er) counties in three states (while keeping everything the same) would have given us a Clinton presidency.

Gosh, maybe she should have campaigned there?

She probably would have had she known that the Russians handed their strategy to the Trump campaign.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

just a couple more blue(er) counties in three states (while keeping everything the same) would have given us a Clinton presidency.

Gosh, maybe she should have campaigned there?

She probably would have had she known that the Russians handed their strategy to the Trump campaign been able to walk under her own power and not caused others to question her health

There, fixed that for you.

Jouhou wrote:

The founding fathers thought we were only going to have 13 states...

Check your facts; the Admission to the Union clause of the Constitution says otherwise.

EA CO AS wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Gosh, maybe she should have campaigned there?

She probably would have had she known that the Russians handed their strategy to the Trump campaign been able to walk under her own power and not caused others to question her health

There, fixed that for you.

I don't think that's why anyone voted for president KFC over her.

EA CO AS wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

The founding fathers thought we were only going to have 13 states...

Check your facts; the Admission to the Union clause of the Constitution says otherwise.

Sarcasm.

Because I don't feel like writing an essay on the purpose of the electoral college outlined in the federalist papers on my Amazon fire. The purpose is not what the Khmer Rubes say. It's similar... but the problem they were trying to avoid had to do with the slow speed of information exchange. Not even the postal service existed yet.

EA CO AS wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Gosh, maybe she should have campaigned there?

She probably would have had she known that the Russians handed their strategy to the Trump campaign been able to walk under her own power and not caused others to question her health

There, fixed that for you.

Indulging in denial is not fixing.
And what awesome argument considering Mr. "I have to dictate my Physician to write a positive letter about my health and order the White Hause medical staff to lie about my weight" Trump .....

best regards
Thomas

Your daily reminder that the United States Government is not a democracy but a republic with member states. Until the amendment allowing direct election of senators happened this was more obvious. I prefer to think of the United States as a bunch smaller countries bound together by common interest to form a more perfect union.

tommy1808 wrote:

But... but... but... doesn't the constitution say everyone is equal in front of the law? Doesn't that make the EC system unconstitutional, because clearly in some states you are more equal than in others?

Of course the electoral college framework is constitutional. Why? Because it is in the constitution. It's really that simple.

trpmb6 wrote:

Your daily reminder that the United States Government is not a democracy but a republic with member states. Until the amendment allowing direct election of senators happened this was more obvious. I prefer to think of the United States as a bunch smaller countries bound together by common interest to form a more perfect union.

Except that the federal government has taken on WAAAAY more power than the founder's ever envisioned.

I would have thought that statement to be a fairly generally accepted statement, not requiring any evidence to support.

Donald Trump was not my first choice in the presidential race, there is much about him I would wish to be different, but in the overall analysis, for a lot of very good reasons, he was a profoundly better choice than Secretary Clinton.

It has been said, "never wrestle with a pig in the mud-the pig likes it."

When I have tried to engage in productive discussion with some of Mr. Trump's more vocal detractors, the conversation rarely gets to any truly specific policy points; instead, there is the oft-repeated, and utterly meaningless, mantra that he is a "… racist, homophobic misogynist," in a way that sounds a lot more like an advertising slogan than anything of substance. When I ask those promoting the labels to provide reasonable examples to support the claims, they virtually always cite third-person, politically-motivated accusations with minimal substance.

Also, of course, there has been a concerted effort to squelch opposing viewpoints by attacking the person expressing the viewpoint, rather than the substance of the viewpoint itself. It is intellectual terrorism, and it has become the new normal.

For all these reasons, and more, I generally don't engage in political discussion (other than on the local level) very much at all, and a lot of our best and brightest (on both sides of the issues) are taking a similar course. It cannot possibly be good for the country, in the long-term.

Another reason why I find a good number of people who tend to be supportive of the president are not so much engaged in open-forum discussions is that, with the dramatic improvement in business conditions which has ensued and the time since the President's election, many of them are too busy running their businesses and trying to find more people to hire (at substantially-higher wages) to waste of time in meaningless political discussions, discussions in which the other participants have no interest in actually listening, actually considering or providing factual analysis.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

They've probably gone to where they can respond with the same vitriol they receive, and not get in trouble.

Like the Daily Stormer

trpmb6 wrote:

I would have thought that statement to be a fairly generally accepted statement, not requiring any evidence to support.

Now there’s a surprise.

trpmb6 wrote:

Your daily reminder that the United States Government is not a democracy but a republic with member states.

This line is extremely troubling, and it gets thrown around way too often. A republic is a form of democracy with a President at its helm rather than, say, a monarch. The United States is a Democracy, as are The French Republic, The Republic of Finland, The Federal Republic of Germany, The Hellenic Republic, etc., etc. In fact, in Greek, the word for Democracy and Republic is exactly the same. In a broader sense, this idea that the US is a republic and not a democracy is a very dangerous notion to spread because it acclimatizes people to the idea that we are a not a democratic nation, which is untrue.

Trump fans? Do you mean the oxy-addled human-possum hybrids who watch eighty hours of Fox News a week as GOP media consultant Rick Wilson calls them?

OA412 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Your daily reminder that the United States Government is not a democracy but a republic with member states.

This line is extremely troubling, and it gets thrown around way too often. A republic is a form of democracy with a President at its helm rather than, say, a monarch. The United States is a Democracy, as are The French Republic, The Republic of Finland, The Federal Republic of Germany, The Hellenic Republic, etc., etc. In fact, in Greek, the word for Democracy and Republic is exactly the same. In a broader sense, this idea that the US is a republic and not a democracy is a very dangerous notion to spread because it acclimatizes people to the idea that we are a not a democratic nation, which is untrue.

I suppose you would prefer terms like constitutional republic or representative republic? We aren't a democracy. Not in the traditional Athenian direct democracy model. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... d83b59ee73

trpmb6 wrote:

OA412 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Your daily reminder that the United States Government is not a democracy but a republic with member states.

This line is extremely troubling, and it gets thrown around way too often. A republic is a form of democracy with a President at its helm rather than, say, a monarch. The United States is a Democracy, as are The French Republic, The Republic of Finland, The Federal Republic of Germany, The Hellenic Republic, etc., etc. In fact, in Greek, the word for Democracy and Republic is exactly the same. In a broader sense, this idea that the US is a republic and not a democracy is a very dangerous notion to spread because it acclimatizes people to the idea that we are a not a democratic nation, which is untrue.

I suppose you would prefer terms like constitutional republic or representative republic? We aren't a democracy. Not in the traditional Athenian direct democracy model. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... d83b59ee73

The opinion piece you cited is not at all supportive of your contention.

"But there is no basis for saying that the United States is somehow 'not a democracy, but a republic.' 'Democracy' and 'republic' aren’t just words that a speaker can arbitrarily define to mean something (e.g., defining democracy as 'a form of government in which all laws are made directly by the people'). They are terms that have been given meaning by English speakers more broadly. And both today and in the Framing era, 'democracy' has been generally understood to include representative democracy as well as direct democracy."

Fair enough. I prefer the term republic. Democracy to me means Athens and that isnt what we have. I'll leave it at yhat.

trpmb6 wrote:

Fair enough. I prefer the term republic. Democracy to me means Athens and that isnt what we have. I'll leave it at yhat.

While you can generally use words any way you define it, don´t you think it would be a little hard to use words against their meaning and having to define them?

Something along the lines of "The US is a republic, not a democracy, and i mean democracy only in the very narrow sense of the early Greek democracy, not how we use to word today?"

With just about 30% of the adult population being allowed to vote, most people wouldn´t even consider ancient democracy democracy.

But then again, with all the attempts to keep people from voting, or to make their vote irrelevant by gerrymandering, in the old Athens way one may very well say "The US is a democracy, not a republic".

best regards
Thomas