Answer:
Do it in the paper
Explanation:
Put all the stuff you need like the graphs and the all the other stuff.tell me what it is for
Answer:
Winter Break 2020 was one of the worst and devastating Winter Break I ever experienced.
The American continent was considered a new world to the European Powers which had seen it as a new land since Amerigo Vespucci published his work "Mundus Novus and the Letter to Soderini" between 1503 and 1505 in which he demostrated that what had been considerd the "West Indies" was in fact a continent which became a new land to the European Knowledge. This continent took the name of "America" in honor to Vespucci. Since then it was known as the "new land" because a vast portion of it remained unexplored. As the colonization and exploring of these new lands were extremely dangerous tasks, the European empires which had invested men and resources on it, decided to send pernicious prisioners, sentenced to death, Mentally ill and bankrupt people to explore and colonize these territories with the promise of owning land.
So for empires like Spain, Portugal, Flanders, England, France and Italy acknowledged this continent as the "new world" and the term might had taken as an offense by people in the reigning elite, courtiers, rich merchants and anyone linked with the royalty who might seen in this term an offense by the fact of beign related with this class of people sent to the Americas and the belief that the population of this "new land" was composed by monsters and a large range catalogue of unknown creatures.
Answer:
Explanation:
PRO : (1) Current federal contribution limits have not been adjusted for inflation in more than 20 years. The maximum individual contribution -- set at $1,000 in 1974 -- is worth approximately $300 in 1996 dollars. Candidates need to raise more than 3 times what they did 22 years ago to achieve the same result.
CON : (1) Only a small percentage of citizens can afford to give $1,000 or more to a candidates. Increasing the contribution limit or abolishing it altogethermight magnify the influence that wealthy individuals and groups have over elected officials.
PRO : (2) Studies show that PACs and related organizations prefer to give money to incumbent candidates, not challengers. Raising contribution limits might help challengers raise enough money to get their campaigns off the ground.
CON : (2) Because PACs and wealthy individual contributors favor incumbents, there is no reason to believe that challengers will have an easier time raising money from those same sources if limits are lifted.
PRO : (3) Candidates would spend less time fundraising, and more time meeting citizens and tending to their official duties.
CON : (3) Campaign finance problems would not be resolved by adding more money to the current system or doing nothing at all. We are much more likely to succeed if we build on what works in our current system.
PRO : (4) Given the escalating cost of political communications, especially the cost of TV advertising, candidates need more money than ever to communicate effectively with voters.
CON : (4) People who are wealthy enough to spend lots of money on political activities that are not limited by current campaign finance laws (like soft money, independent expenditures) will continue to do so, making higher limits as easy to evade legally as current limits.