Less so then you'd think.

When you check Obama's box on the ballot you arent' really voting for Obama.  You are voting for the delegates chosen undemocratically by Obama's party who are expected (but not bound) to vote for Obama.

Technically they could decide to vote for Romney or Newt or whatever, and the people would have no legal recourse.

Furthermore note all the Presidents who have won despite losing the popular vote.   Hayes,  Harrison and Bush.

Or hell the really fun one John Quincy Adams.  He became president even though he lost the popular vote AND the electoral vote!   (It was a 4 way race, if nobody gets the number of electoral votes needed the house of representatives voets for the president.  If there ever is a viable third party again, boy are people gonna complain.)

It's done this way because technically the President and Vice President aren't actually the leaders of the people, but the leaders of the independent states of the Union.

I am not talking about whether or not Obama has absolute power in the US. I am talking about how the Head of State is selected in the US, which is in fact by the democratic process. Absolute Power is not necessary for one to be head of state.

In fact, the head of state in most nations in the western half of Europe do not have any real power at all; or even much to any influence at all in the government.

I think when they say "Republic" they actuall mean Oligarchy/Plutocracy?

That would make sense and is to some extent right for all Western Democracies.

All forms of government are good on paper, until corruption settles in.

well using such logic, Majority govts in parliamentary systems are far more dictatorial (well in Canada). Also they use the First Past the Post electoral system, so a party can win a majority of seats with less than 40% support.

The President does not control congress, but a Prime Minister does in a majority govt situation (a Parliament).

A PM has control over executive power and control over legislative power as he also leads his party in a house.
He also has control of the judiciary as he can appoint people without the consent of parliament.

Part of what iw as asking about in the original post is that, if a system merely consists of electing representatives, who are supposed to do things without input from the public, outside of getting elected (argument for "Republic not Democracy") then the system would be prone to the body of Representatives acting dictatorial in nature, and then trying to rally for support during elections.  While what you said would seem to be true theoretically, what seems to happen in practice is that Parlimentary systems tend to have more functioning political parties, which then force coalition building, and parties supporting different agendas, depending on what the agenda is.  What you see in the United States is a system that is two party all the way through, without there really being too many options.  What has happened is that, because of this, increasingly people are increasingly registering independent (non-party affiliated) and totally eliminating themselves from the political process outside of picking on of the two major candidates.  The ignoring of primaries and supporting a particular candidate weakens the political process and causes it increasingly to be one of two products with large ad campaigns campaigning for support, backed with a "You MUST vote" campaign, and an increase in "lesser of two evils" votes.

Uh, I don't know how you got that from what I wrote.  What i wrote about was EXACTLY how the head of state is selected.

In reality people do not vote for the President.  They vote for voters selected by the party of the president expected to vote for the president.

If they really wanted to, Obama could score a 90% win in California, and their delegates could just as eaisly vote for his republican opponent if they wanted to.

None of this changes the fact that Obama is head of the US State because he is the leader of the democratically elected party - it is irrelevent if his party members decide to oppose him in parliament.

Essentially:

Democracy is a process - most Monarchies in Europe use the democratic process too; this is because the parliament is a separate branch.

A Republic is a type of nation state where no Monarch is present and heads of state are generally temporary - and typically uses the process of democracy to select a temporary head of state.

Monarchies is a type of nation state where a Monarch is present as head of state and it is usually a position held for life - typically the position of Monarch is inherited.

oh god a freakin coporation is not a person.  wth.  lets try this if the head of a corporation is guilty of a crime that whole corporation should go to jail from ceo to janitor.  lets start with newscorp.

see how stupid that frame of thought sound

I don't quite understand your analogy here... You're saying that if the head of a corporation is guilty, the whole corporation should go to jail... But the head is the guilty one. If you look at it as Kasz has said, as an association of people and not a single entity, then that statement is completely absurd. If the head is guilty, the head should be punished according to the law. I do not see how that would or should extend to the entire corporation, and I don't think that is the argument that Kasz is making.