One of the outcomes was hitler losing its territory and to pay reparations to its allies. Germany and Berlin was divided into four parts (America, British, and the French on the west side while in the east side it was taken by the Soviet Union
Answer:
which country presidents bro
plzz say me
Technically, no, it is false that China has finally halted the spread of the Gobi Desert by planting trees, since although they are currently using this tactic, it has not led to a full "halt".
Writing a sentence for each set of adjectives and nouns will be:
- The brown paper bag was stolen
- We drove on the long hard road yesterday
- She gave her sincere heartfelt thanks at the funeral
- My grandfather has a simple tender hearted kindness
- She got him a light green vase
An adjective is a word that is used to describe a person, or an action.
An adjective can serve as coordinates (joining two or more ideas) or cumulative would give us:
- The long hard road linked us to the next town
- My sincere heartfelt thanks was not enough
From the above sentences, we can see that the adjectives (in bold) helps link or coordinate the two different ideas.
Read more here:
brainly.com/question/18282021
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.
