Olleus is right in pointing out that your views are both inconsistent, and illogical. It makes it almost pointless to reply. You've posted a wall of text, yet almost none of it is relevant. I'm going to pick out some of the points I found particularly bemusing though:
Again, this is like saying if you use the "forms" of something, but change the substance, it somehow makes it the same thing. This is ridiculous. England still has a Monarch for example, but the government of England is no longer Monarchical; it is now a democracy, where the Monarch has a symbolic role. The republican forms may have continued in many regards, but the Republic no longer existed in any real way. The whole point of the Republic was to take power from one person, and have checks and balances within the legal system. You have admitted those didn't exist anymore, and that there was no legal means to oppose Augustus. The Senate still existed, and guess what it existed before the Republic too (way back under the Kings), but the actual power is concentrated under one guys hands. That is a change in the fundamental basis of government. It's not "the same" as what was before, it's a new system, something all modern historians of note reognise. You are on an island here.
Here are some other pearls:
This is factually wrong, and I've cited source material to you MULTIPLE TIMES in this and other threads. His Imperium Maius and governorships were renewed in advance of expiration (for 10 years terms or longer), but his tribunican and censor powers were not subject to renewal. They were FOR LIFE. Many Romans had indeed been given long governorships before. Caesar and Pompey are both examples. But no Roman had EVER held either tribunican or censor powers for life, because doing so would have made such a person a politically unassailable force. Tribunes were there for 1 year terms, and when someone tried to run twice in a row there was a good chance of them being assassinated because it was seen as an attack of Republican government. They were also elected, and were 1 of 10 each year. Censors shared a censorship, and the two colleagues had to agree on everything. If one censor died then the joint censorship ended. You could not continue without a colleague, again because it was dangerous to let 1 person have that much power in a Republic. The Senate could also remove them. Augustus powers were for life and could not be removed, and were united in one person. Just those powers alone negate all legal opposition. Then just consider his other powers. Let's imagine a fairy tale world where the Senate isn't worried about opposing Augustus and his loyal armies, etc. If the Senate refused to extend Augustus powers for another 10 years when it came before them 6 months in advance of his powers expiring, what do you think would happen? Augustus can legally remove anyone he likes from the Senate, and appoint any new Senators he chooses, so he can just remake the Senate until it agrees with him (not that he hadn't already done that, I'm just playing along with the imaginary world your claims take place in).
I doubt any Roman Monarch had close to the power Augustus and his stable successors had. If Roman Kings back in the day got big ideas then they could face a rebellion (a real one, not a doomed one). As has been covered, even utterly insane and incompetent emperors didn't get deposed easily if they'd been appointed in a stable period. Imagine a Roman Emperor facing a rebellion because he "raped some woman". Pretty laughable stuff. We don't know that much about the rule of the Kings, but it's very unlikely they had anything like that level of autocracy in practice. The Kings even had to allow people condemned to appeal to a trial process before the Assembly; a marked contrast to how Augustus dealt with people who let him down; exiling them, forcing them to commit suicide, etc, and that's nothing compared to his successors. You continue to talk about what a good ruler he was, as though it's relevant to the issue under discussion. A good dictator is still a dictator.
I literally corrected all this for you pages ago Please go look it up. Caesar was actually aghast at being forced into the dictatorship, and tried to avoid the whole thing. His intentions and plans were very different to Augustus.
Augustus was using republican forms - the basis on which his autocratic management of Rome was accepted.
Here are some other pearls:
much of what you consider permanent is not quite what you imagine. The tribunician powers he held (it was illegal for him to hold the office of Tribune) were not permanent in any absolute sense, but given that he had the right to have those powers renewed, thus it conformed with the traditional view that power was not permanent.
it wasn't about ruling Rome as some kind of monarch as is popularly described.
Julius Caesar was the man who created an absolutionist regime. His dictatorship was perpetual, empowered for life with no demand for any renewal ritual or vote. That was new. Caesar did not require the aggregation of various titles and offices because he held emergency power permanently - he had all the power he needed, though it is notable that although the Senate were unable to act under his regime, he nonetheless sought their advice thus returning the Senate to a much older tradition of advisory body.