Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
Answer: Development as an excuse for imperialism.
Explanation:
Proponents of imperialism sought to justify their imperialist aspirations. Developed and powerful countries have always carried out imperialism over those who have not reached that development stage. Imperialism has always aimed to enrich itself at the expense of others. Yet to defend their aspirations, the imperialists have always pointed out that their main aim is to contribute to these underdeveloped countries' development. The construction of the infrastructure was a cover for that. Still, the real goal of constructing the infrastructure was to make it easier to transport exploited raw materials from third countries.
<span>a. The Buddha opposed the caste system</span>
I think it was the 14th amendment. Let me double check.
It is located in northern europe
