Speculation on my part but maybe this:
One of the two major political parties fulfills its constitutional duties to preserve the constitution and the foundation upon which this nation is constructed.
One of the two major political parties:
-grifts foreign money by selling out this country
-nominates a candidate whose drug attic son operated as a bag man to capitalize on dad's position
-pledge to undo the court system since they are not getting their way, which partially resulted from them dispensing with the judicial filibuster
-conduct a pressure and bribe campaign to funnel dollars provided by the US to foreign countries such as Ukraine back into US officials pockets
-Accuse the other side of the the same criminal activity that your side is actually perpetrating, such as colluding w/ Russia to steal an election
-Sanctioning uprisings and destroying cities in an attempt to harm a rival candidate
-Politicizing a virus 24/7/365 that in medical terms has long since rounded the corner and is being treated successfully in over 99% of cases, after 5 of their party's governors creating nursing home killing fields
-Attempting to undermine a virus vaccine effort that is on an unprecedented time frame to realization
-Sending Congress persons out to lie to cameras by saying the exact opposite of what was just said by sworn participants of their hearings
ie, What the DEMS Do!
Regardless of this or any future elections, the DEMS actions will not be without dramatic costs. My grandfather once told us at Sunday lunch after church, Russia will not bring down America. Moral Decay is what would bring this country down.
The cycle of empires is a concept introduced by John Glubb in the 70s. He's a brit who spent most of his life in the military, much of it in administration in the middle east, so the idea is not the typical garbage that came out during the 70s
He noticed that a surprising number of historical empires lasted for almost exactly 250 years. Their declines had all included an increasing degree of internationalism and metropolitanism in their capital and major cities, a loss of faith in the founding religion and culture values of the empire, and a focus on comfort and fame over triumph and honor. A people lose confidence in their values and stop asserting them, then the nation becomes porous to outsiders and obsessed with money over rightness, then it collapses as a result of too many people acting parasitically and too few building the nation up further.
It anything, collapse or a major depression will not arise from the democrats being a corrupt and traitorous bunch. That's just a symptom of a much deeper problem.
All things die, even empires. 250 years probably bears some relationship to the number of generations between the founding and its fall. However, many Empires have lasted much longer than 250 years. For example, the French Empire, the British Empire, even the Russian Empire.
In some of those cases, such as the Russian and French Empires there were major constitutional and political upheavals. The French Empire even masqueraded as a Republic for a significant period, but it was still an Empire except in name. Same with the Russian Empire. It "fell" but continued as the USSR and even after the fall of the USSR remains somewhat imperialistic, and at least has not fallen as a civilization.
Glubb does specifically note that the number of generations from outbreak to fall is ~10. However, your counterexamples are all wrong, in two senses.
First, the sense in which Glubb means "empire" is effectively inseparable from "continental or global hegemon." Neither France nor Russia has ever had such an empire. Even during the USSR's existence, they controlled half a continent, and not even then in the expansionist, upwardly productive manner of a great empire. Examples of great empires would include Rome, Britain between 1700-1950, the US from about 1800 on, the Ottoman empire, and a handful of others. It's rare to have two great empires concurrently existing, and there are many periods of history where no such empire exists.
Second, they are specifically wrong in that all 3 actually follow the cycle.
The French colonial empire had two eras, spanning ~1530-1800 (270 years), at the end of which their territorial claims were essentially nil and they had a major revolution which killed the previous structure of the nation, and then a second and separate period from 1830 - 1940, whereby their empire was prematurely ended (something which Glubb notes can and does happen to great empires, too). Both eras fit the cycle of empires.
The Russian empire spanned from 1721 to 1917 - about 200 years - after which it underwent complete cultural and governmental upheaval and a major loss of presence on the global stage until the end of the second world war. That's a cycle.
Third, the British empire was a non-competitive global entity during the competing reign of Spain and Portugal during the 1400s, 1500s, and into the 1600s. Britain did not have a competitive imperial claim until the early 1700s, and did not truly begin its period of global hegemony and expansion until it had consolidated power in the 1750s. This empire effectively lasted until the end of the second world war, after which the US has been the clear global hegemon. Another 200-250 year empire.
In the case of the USSR, this both includes a gap of about 30 years, and the cultural destruction of the previous empire. There is nothing that stops a new empire being built upon the ashes of the old - Rome did this, after all - but that is not a single empire. Modern Russia struggles even to retain regional hegemony - calling it an empire is a joke.