Thanks for that information. Agreed, there are some commonalities with Haudenosaunee government, but I think the founders were probably more schooled in Rome's government. Some links for what they're worth:
https://www.mikeanderson.biz/2008/11/us-government-modelled-after-roman.html
https://www.ushistory.org/civ/6a.asp
http://romangov.weebly.com/rome-vs-us.html

Sometimes..., but never when trading insults.

I have often read that all democracies lead to tyranny. What did Rome's Republic lead to?...Empire and Caesars (i.e., tyranny).

Yes?
...

Why?
...

I couldn't find it.

From https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/03/opinion/afghanistan-war.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

"...terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy force that can be defeated, and it knows no borders. It can be thwarted in certain instances, but it cannot be ended outright."

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/impeach-all-the-presidents/

Wherein:
So here’s my modest proposal for Congress and the American people, if (or more likely when) the former fails to deliver: Impeach the military-industrial complex and the venal corporate arms dealers, the “merchants of death” who profit from worldwide slaughter. Impeach the “revolving door” generals like Jim Mattis who slide seamlessly from the military to the boards of the nation’s largest defense contracting firms. Impeach the militarized police forces and mass incarceration structure that transform impoverished black and brown communities into occupied enemy territory. Impeach yourselves, Congress, for being asleep at the wheel for decades now, for wallowing in tribal stalemate and eschewing your constitutionally mandated duty to declare and oversee this nation’s wars. Impeach the whole damn system of American empire, both at home and abroad.

How can it be an insult to agree (or at least repeat) Trump's own self assessment? See:
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/opinions/president-trump-six-year-old-with-nuclear-weapons-dantonio/index.html
Where Trump is quoted, "When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same. The temperament is not that different."

This was before Trump became President Trump. Perhaps he has made a reassessment since the election.

Again, did you even read what I wrote?
"'I think there's little evidence for these narratives...' I think it's a little silly to present a narrative where President Trump increases tariffs on French wines to increase his wine selling profits."

I didn't start down this career path because I wanted to argue about why President Trump would want to impose a tax on French wine. As I said, "I have no idea why Trump does anything..." I only wanted to point out that President Trump could impose a tax (tariff), since Congress had ceded that authority in certain circumstances. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs#Legality

You are the one who keeps badgering me to give what I think is the reason President Trump would want to impose a tax on French wine.

Let me repeat, I have no idea why "the chosen one" does anything.

maximus wrote, "OK man, you win. I give up. Trump actually levied a tax on French wines so that he could make more money in his own winery..."

Well this is just silly. Do you even read what I write? I wrote, "I think there's little evidence for these narratives..." I think it's a little silly to present a narrative where President Trump increases tariffs on French wines to increase his wine selling profits. The other narratives I presented are even sillier. I thought you would have realized that. That you seem not to have, is further confirmation of Poe's Law.

You, maximus, say, "There is no self interest, it's only Trump putting America first."

I think we have no idea why Trump does anything, just as we have no idea why any other six-year-old boy does anything. We can speculate. He does seem to get a big kick out of winning. But not just winning, he seems to feel cheated in a deal if his opposite feels satisfied, as if the idea of win-win is incomprehensible. So when he takes on the role of America's avatar, America only wins if other countries feel defeat. If another country is satisfied with a trade deal then America must have been cheated - America must have lost.

You keep insisting that I "[was] insulting Trump and we both know it". I don't know it. Could you elaborate? Have I insulted "the chosen one" when I say he is unpredictable, that he seems to like winning?

P.S.: As for taxes, I thought this was interesting:
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/trumps-tax-return-suggests-hes-most-incompetent-billionaire-nation/

Was I insulting President Trump? I thought I was presenting various narratives that might explain the tariff increase on French wine that President Trump proposes. I think there's little evidence for these narratives and suggested release of tax returns might dispel any support for them.

Regarding, "Obama said the constitution was just a piece of paper that kept him from doing what he wanted."
See:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/01/10/watch_live_president_obamas_farewell_address.html
Wherein:
Our Constitution is a remarkable, beautiful gift. But it’s really just a piece of parchment. It has no power on its own. We, the people, give it power – with our participation, and the choices we make. Whether or not we stand up for our freedoms. Whether or not we respect and enforce the rule of law. America is no fragile thing. But the gains of our long journey to freedom are not assured.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm, one is led to wonder where you get your information and how much cross checking you do.

Of course, you are comparing this calumny to the statement about President Trump and the wine tariffs that you claim is false. So are you saying that the things you wrote about the Obamas are also false? If so, why did you repeat them?

Perhaps I am naive to think that even psychopaths can learn to act with civility.
Perhaps I like to string trolls along keeping them distracted until the morning sun turns them to stone.

Whatever.
P.S.: Don't bother to look in Webster for my meaning.

How did the conversation come to this?

So how did a conversation that started with "being robbed of an American future..."

Switch to "[giving] the U.S. to all comers", a standard talking point trying to make us think all our problems are due to an invasion of immigrants taking our jobs. For information countering this, see:
https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/resources-reports/reports/immigration.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwqZPrBRBnEiwAmNJsNuUx9eTZZlZcD2_sQIO9k6l-WMYgRCkbboQ_spn_OMgOK60At-HVYxoC15MQAvD_BwE

Still dwelling on the immigrant invasion with an undertone of some foreigners may be worse than others.

Continues on the immigrant invasion and doubling down on the undertone of some foreigners...

Here I gave some links to information about just what class (debtors, vagabonds, former soldiers, evicted peasants, ... throw-aways) many of the early settlers came from.

Where did this come from? Did byronglimish read or view any of the links? Is byronglimish resorting to ad hominem attacks because he can't think of a valid argument? Is byronglimish playing the "race card"? Surely not.

Giving byronglimish the benefit of doubt, I ask him to explain his logic.

Here byronglimish admits to no logic and continues his ad hominem attacks and brings in the "white privilege jealousy" talking point.

After a spew from others of "white people who hate being white", and "We'll stay white, and proud of it!"

byronglimish ends with this, possibly with ironic intent, but maybe not.

Had byronglimish followed any of the links, he would have known that they had nothing to do with any concept of "white privilege", but rather looked at the travails of poor "white" people in America and how they were/are anything but privileged and possibly not even inside the boundaries of "whiteness".

Responding to:
Now the president, who has a winery, decides to tax imported wine, no self-interest there ONCE AGAIN. How transparent does it have to get before you guys see????

In order to know if the original statement presents a false narrative, we would need more information. For example, we would need to know if Trump wine competes with French wine or if instead it competes with Boone's Farm.

Here's another narrative: President Trump, realizing his buddy Bezos is hurting from the French tax on Amazon, decides to punish the French by taxing their wine, despite the fact it will cost him more when his buddies at his Mar-a-Lago Club order French wine. America (Amazon) First!

And another narrative: President Trump (economic genius he is) realizes the increased profit he can make when his buddies at his Mar-a-Lago Club (who are drowning in extra cash due to the tax cuts he and the Republicans passed) pay a hefty percentage markup on the higher cost of the fine French wine he sells.

Yet another narrative: President Trump, with the extra profits from the fine French wine he sells, can now hire more undocumented workers, who with their stolen Social Security Numbers, will add (and not withdraw) to the Social Security Trust Fund extending its life. America First!

Of course all these narratives could have been avoided had President Trump fully divested his business interests, or at the very least made the workings of his business fully transparent by releasing tax returns, public audits, etc.

Another narrative: President Trump did not fully divested his business interests because his debts overwhelm his assets. Were he to divest, the emperor would be revealed.

To answer your questions:
Do you actually believe that Trump levied a tariff against another country to make a little more money from his winery?
I have no idea why Trump does anything and I'm not certain that he does.

Or that he even could?
Well...wouldn't it be a national security issue if his wine didn't sell?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duty
duty noun
4 : TAX
especially : a tax on imports
--------------------------------
A tax and a tax by another name is still a tax.

maximus wrote:
That's a pretty good trick, Trump levying a tax on anything. Presidents are NOT allowed to levy taxes. That job falls to congress.
---------------------------------------------------
After being reminded that tariffs are taxes, maximus wrote:
Really? I don't recall paying property tariffs, or a sales tariff, or income tariffs...they are taxes on citizens. Tariffs are taxes on trade goods between sovereign states.
---------------------------------------------------

So, are you now admitting that President Trump has levied a tax?