<span>To divide we the people to weaken us, set us against each other with blame games and propaganda. Party loyalty blinders keep us from watching too closely what our own party representatives are doing against our own interests.
Like professional wrestlers they appear to be bitter rivals in public but are the best of friends behind closed doors. They have led us to think that only someone from their parties can win an election. If we vote for a third party candidate we have "thrown our vote away" on someone who stands no chance of winning and let that "evil other party" candidate win. We feel compelled to vote for the "lesser" of the two evils being offered.
Consider this: Both parties of the Senate said that the TARP bill lacked oversight to protect the taxpayer's money (concerning the original 3 page one passed by the House of Representatives). They claimed they were going to add protection and oversight to it. Then behind closed doors they added 137 pages of earmark spending and NO oversight or protection. Bush signed it and they closed the 110 Session of Congress knowing that they had an automatic pay raise in place. Both parties were involved so no evil other party blame games could be played.
Instead they faked outrage when the AIG bonus news came out and blamed the Management for not following rules which they had failed to put into the TARP bill in the first place. Watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6KRXnYgu...</span>
Answer:
FDR was the first, and last, president to win more than two consecutive presidential elections and his exclusive four terms were in part a consequence of timing. His election for a third term took place as the United States remained in the throes of the Great Depression and World War II had just begun. While multiple presidents had sought third terms before, the instability of the times allowed FDR to make a strong case for stability.
Eventually U.S. lawmakers pushed back, arguing that term limits were necessary to keep abuse of power in check. Two years after FDR’s death, Congress passed the 22nd Amendment, limiting presidents to two terms. Then amendment was then ratified in 1951.
At the time of FDR’s third presidential run, however, “There was nothing but precedent standing in his way,” says Perry. “But, still, precedent, especially as it relates to the presidency, can be pretty powerful.”es and you have foreign policy with the outbreak of World War II in 1939,” says Barbara Perry, professor and director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. “And then you have his own political viability—he had won the 1936 election with more than two-thirds of the popular vote.
B. Richard Nixon
He was president during that time so that’s the only logical answer
The answer is; borrowing cultural forms and practices from elsewhere always involve borrowing with modification. People never adopt blindly but always adapt what they borrow for local purposes. Putting this another way, people rarely accepted ideas, practices, or objects from somewhere else without indigenising them.
<em>Please do tell me if I am wrong. Hope this helped! :)</em>
Answer:
He can avoid going into debt
Explanation:
when John spends less than he makes, it doesn't reduce the tax he pays, neither does it make him earn more money. spending less also does not mean he'd be able to pay for all the goods he wants. it can only help him to stay with budget and make him avoid borrowing to make ends meet.
