Q pointed it out, why don't you claim he is making up bullcrap too?
From the dictionary:
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
Democracy
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
I stated we are a constitutional democratic republic. Do you disagree with that characterization?
The problem is you are consistently limited to what you can quickly Google, rather than reading the works directly related to the development of our government and founding of our nation.
Madison clearly dictated in the Federalist Papers the difference between a Democracy and Republic in relation to the American form of government, while at the same time explaining why our form of government is more correctly identified as a Republic with democracy influences, rather than an actual democracy. This is due to the fact that the latter cannot be successful implemented outside of small numbers/groups of citizens constrained to a localized/centralized area, where the citizenry have direct involvement in the management of state affairs. Conversely, a Republic, with it's elected representatives, facilitates the ability for a larger number of citizens to be represented by their chosen representative, without the constraints of direct involvement necessitated in a democracy-based form of government, thereby facilitating participation over a larger area.
In line with what I already stated, the fundamental difference lies not only in representation and the appointment of an executive (the latter which a democracy doesn't have), but also in that the laws created by representatives are constrained by policies or laws that prevent the majority of citizens or their representatives from infringing on recognized rights of all citizens, again often times clarified in a charter or constitution. Under democracies, no such restrictions exist, with both the majority and/or elected representatives of the majority able to pass laws as they see fit, regardless of how it impacts the minority.
If we were a democracy, there would be no need for a constitution nor the necessity to clearly identify protected rights as all that matters is what the majority or the representatives of the majority want.
So as I already stated, the U.S. is a Republic with democratic tendencies in the election of representatives and in the creation of some laws (i.e. when proposed laws are put on a ballot). Just because voting can be considered "democracy in action", it can be used as justification to identify the United States a democracy. The measures, policies and laws voted on and created by democratically elected representatives are constrained by the laws of the United States; more specifically, the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land and supercedes all perspectives and desires of the majority or their representatives, thereby protecting rights FOR ALL.
So no, we don't recognize your CNN word salad talking point of "constitutional democratic republic", as the definition of a Republic already clarifies that its democratic influence lies specifically with the election of representatives by the citizenry.
And if you want to get all butthurt about people calling BS on you and not me, we can drop primary sources for references to justify our claims.