So why aren't we taking down stop signs.

in a much different form; Republic to Principate, Principate to Late Antiquity. On the other hand, the final death knell to the Roman Empire was the onset of the plague during Justinian's sixth century reconquest.

We live in interesting times; we'll either hang in this together (and get through this)... or we will all hang seperately.

I really do.

We had a good ride.

When I consider our military budget and misdeeds, and watching as Trump and Republicans have defunded most of the good things while instituting really BAD global things, I think we are not a good thing for ourselves or other nations.

Solutions? I don't know, more power to states or let states create regional nations.

This isn't my field of expertise.

The U.S. has had a series of "crises" after breaking with the British Empire. While not exhaustive, here's my list: Articles of Confederation, the Civil War, Panic of 1873 (1876 election/Jim Crow/Separate but Equal), the Great Depression/WW II, Vietnam War/Civil Rights, 9/11. After each of these "crises" the U.S. emerged as a changed entity.

If we weather this crisis together, we are going to be a changed country. If not, we like Rome will generally cease to exist, though like Rome it may take awhile for people to realize that we are irreparably broken and our descendants (or at least some of them) will yearn for the days when we were united as one nation.

whose political reforms extended the viability of the Empire for another 200 years?

While he "shared" power with his juniors, he was as autocratic or even more so than his predecessors. With his acclimation, the Emperor became even more removed from the people. He was seen as some form of living divinity, not a mere mortal. Even with Constantine, a nominally Christian emperor, this treatment remained the same if not even more so. The emperor was rarely seen in public, those granted audiences with the Emperor were expect to prostrate themselves on the ground and follow very strict protocol. Justinian was the epitome of the late empire. He almost never left his capital and relied almost totally on his lieutenants to carry out his wishes and tell him what was going on outside the palace. He, unlike many of the last Roman emperors, was able to find very capable generals and court ministers and keep them from rebelling.

I would think if Trump is reelected, he'd be more like Diocletian and we'd be nearing tyranny. I hope that's not the case. My biggest problem with the Democratic Party is they still haven't figured out how to deal with people like Trump, and there are a lot of them. How do you handle that one kid at recess who constantly takes the kick ball and boots it onto the neighbors fenced yard or into a big patch of poison ivy (when there are no recess monitors or adults who'll stop it or worse they think its funny)?

Diocletian was indeed a despot, and his reign marked the end of any semblance of the old Roman republic. My reference to Diocletian was to credit him with affectively ending the third century crisis (splitting the empire in half, East and West, with one “Augustus“ ruling each half and a formal successor in the form of a “Caesar”. These reforms extended the life of the Western Roman Empire for another two centuries).

I was trying to ask, “Who will extend the life of America?”

I would agree with you that right-ring, extremist, totalitarian conservative government would most closely match match post-Diocletian Rome.

By the way, I am fascinated when thinking about how Byzantium (the “Eastern Roman Empire“) lasted until 1453, when the Ottoman Turks finally broke through the walls of Constantinople (modern day Istanbul). A mere 40 years later Columbus set out to sail “the ocean blue”.

There was no seat of government like Rome before it rose to prominence, and it has had no equal since it’s eventual fall.

Rome was no exception. What you see in their ruins and writings are a measure of their wealth, and wealth comes from trade. Roman coins are found as far away as India and China reflecting a nearly world-wide reach which would only be surpassed after Europe began it's colonial conquests shortly after the last remnants of the Byzantine Empire were absorbed by the Ottoman Turks; and truth be told the Byzantines started a rapid decline when the Venetians basically took over the trade of the empire.

Expanding on the trade argument, the western part of the Empire was always the poorer side. Longer borders with the Barbarian tribes in the north meant there was a need for a large army and that army had much longer lines of defense to manage straining the empire's finances. In the east, defense lines were shorter, the Sassanids while equal to Rome in stature were often more reasonable to deal with (less likely to invade the empire on short notice). The trade routes to China and India passed through the eastern half, enriching local tax revenue. Justinian's reconquest and building projects (Hagia Sophia) were mainly due to his uncle's predecessor Anastasius' good finances.

In the west, barbarian invasions taxed the financial system by ruining the lands which the empire raised its tax revenue and pulling more people into the army and away from crop/rent production. Unlike the east, there was no stronghold similar to Constantinople, which could hold out almost indefinitely and act as a choke point for any barbarian invasions from the north.

The whole situation in the west became very tenuous when the Vandals reached north Africa, the source of the west's grain in addition to significant land rent revenues. The Vandal King Gaiseric took advantage of intrigues in the court of the young Valentinian III to seize these important western provinces. Gaiseric held northern Africa through several attempts at reconquest; Attila's invasion interrupting an attempt under Aetius, an invasion fleet assembled by the Emperor Majorian was burned and the emperor deposed and finally the destruction of the joint east-west fleet lead by the eastern general Basiliscus. Add in the sack of Rome in 455 and the Vandals were probably the single largest drain of western resources and revenue. By contrast the eastern granary of Egypt was undisturbed and the rich provinces of the Levant continued to pay taxes into the eastern coffers.

Justinian would reconquer north Africa from Gaiseric's Vandal descendants and bring hope of a reestablished Roman Empire in the west. A renewed war with the Sassanids, exhausted treasury/high taxes and finally the appearance of the plague doomed these efforts and in the end ruined what was left of the western Roman Empire and Barbarian kingdoms making way for the early Medieval period as Europe would sink into the Dark Ages (and become an economic backwater). Byzantium would survive but the long mostly stable reign of Justinian would quickly give way to a chaotic transition and renewed war with a rejuvenated Sassanid Empire. The Byzantines would rally and defeat them but the effort would leave both the Byzantines and remnant Sassanid rulers exhausted of both men and revenue just as the backwater tribes of Arabia under the banner of the recently deceased prophet of Islam Muhammad appeared. They would quickly destroy the Sassanids then in turn defeat the Byzantines removing first the rich peaceful provinces of the Levant, before taking Egypt then working their way west to Carthage, western North Africa and eventually southern Hispania.

Idiots.

Try living in India where Modi is allowing police to publicly humiliate people who leave their houses. Or the Philippines where Duterte has ordered police to shoot people in the streets if they leave their house. That is some fucking tyranny.