Donald Trump suggested he would enact a similar federalization of law enforcement in major cities including New York, LA and Chicago if they didn’t “self-clean-up” problems of crime and homelessness.
“We’re going to have a tremendous success of what we’re doing,” he said.
“Other cities are hopefully watching this. They’re all watching just like everyone’s watching here, they’re all watching, and maybe they’ll self clean up.”
“We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital,” he posted. “The Criminals, you don’t have to move out. We’re going to put you in jail where you belong.”
It has also been reported that the president is sending in 120 FBI agents on overnight shifts to help local law enforcement battle crime in the district.
Not really true.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government
You could probably argue that the ever elusive “benevolent dictator” would still qualify but tyrannies, which actually has a relatively specific definition that basically means dictatorships, are usually excluded.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/tyranny
Tl;Dr
Republics have some form of representative rule, though how democratic that actually is varies.
Tyrannies are ruled by a single absolute power. Absolute in the political sense means has the power to make (or ignore) laws as they see fit.
No, that is a misrepresentation of the source you provided. Back in the time when (early) modern political science was invented, republic was indeed a catch-all term which did mean that some kind of representative government was involved, because the role of head of state was not heritable, ie. it was not a monarchy. So the role of head of state must necessarily be through some form of representation, usually election (although the group of electors was mostly not very representative of the general populace).
That is why in the 17th and 18th centuries republic was used as a slogan of opposition to monarchy (and oppression in general). Because having a system where the role of head of state wasn’t heritable was the opposite of what was the majority type of political system at the time, regardless of what the rest of the political system of that country was.
But throughout the 19th century and especially 20th century, monarchies lost their majority position, and a host of other political systems appeared. Not least the appearance of representative democracies in the Western world.
At that point republic does symbolically still mean some kind of representation, the republics of Saddam’s Iraq, or China, or even North Korea, still involves voting, even though they are dictatorships in practice. On the other hand several Western democracies are not republics, but constituional monarchies. That is because the juxtaposition of republic/monarchy is virtually meaningless for most countries now, it defines nothing at all about the actual political system of the country.
The US is indeed a republic, because the role of head of state isn’t heritable. But that is all that the term means in connection to the American constitution. Back in the 18th century republic was the term they used, because of the aformentioned reasons, most of the founding fathers did not set out to create a democracy, and the radical democratic faction was also pushed aside when it came to writing a constitution. However through the following centuries, the American political system was slowly changed towards democratic institutions, lastly in 1964 with the Civil Rights act which finally introduced universal suffrage. Of course a lot of the democratic development has since been undermined again, especially this last decade, and of course mostly this last year.
But in modern political scientific terms, the US is a republic and a representative democracy still (even though the constitution is meaningless with the current govermnent), and the most defining part of it is the representative democracy part.
Also you seem to have missed this part in the link you provided:
Or you’re just wrong and don’t want to admit it.