Answer:
This statement is True
Explanation:
Many members of the Democrats would go on to become members of the Liberal Republic party. Liberal Republicans were of the notion that the President and his administration at the time were corrupt. These Liberal Republicans were of the notion that the Reconstruction goals of stopping slavery and also destroying Confederate nationalism had been achieved already. This brought about the unity of Liberal Republicans and democrats in a bid to ensure that America does the right thing on every angle.
Regarding the suitability or not of bipartisanship in democracy, there are conflicting opinions. There are those who think that it is positive because it helps the political and general stability of a nation, while others believe that it supposes an unhealthy diminution of opinions represented in the agencies of power, and that there is no real opposition that fosters corruption.
In general, the bipartisanship leaves aside the opinions of people who do not identify with any of the parties. therefore their opinions, are not represented.
Answer:
competitive exclusion.
Explanation:
When species from the same biological community explore very similar ecological niches, competition among them for less available resources in the environment is instituted. It is common, for example, that plant species whose roots use the same portion of the soil compete for water, minerals and other resources.
Knowing this, Russian biologist Georgyi Frantsevich Gause formulated the Gause principle, or competitive exclusion principle, the theory that ecological niches are unique to each species, and for two or more of them to coexist in the same habitat, it is necessary that their niches have different and sufficient characteristics.
Gause proposed this theory based on several observations that led him to conclude that if two or more species explore exactly the same ecological niche, the competition established between them is so sharp that coexistence becomes impossible. This can cause a loss in species diversity, and that is exactly what Robert Paine observed in his studies.
Answer:
1. The benefit is that is passes the general message in a surreal manner, the intended message is passed but with a little sense of wit and humor which would create a soft landing on the readers mind without taking away the seriousness of the message passed.
2. Michael risks losing the attention of a few sentimental sect i.e, poor people that feel the joke was not necessary and that shots were taken at them. Not everyone is humorous.
3. The message would still be effective regardless only that, the humor embedded won;t be present and readers that love such would feel what was written was too serious lol.
4. 'The wounded eagle glided as fast as a kite in a storm', this implied that the manner with which the eagle was gliding down, it look as though it was a kite basking in the euphoria of the wind. In a serious tone, it can go like this; 'The wounded eagle quickly sought a resting place'.
Second example is ' Chelsea broke the bones of Manchester United like she was the grim reaper'. With a serious tone; 'Chelsea won Manchester United squarely'
5. Changing the tone made the argument more serious and focused on the intending point.
6. Not necessarily, it all depends on the reader but these days, authors try to spice up stories with a little bit of humor to ensure the attention of their readers stays intact and to also eliminate any chance of boredom.
Answer:
I personally think that passing a constitutional amendment is hard, yet possible. And it should change to reflect ideas of society and the general public.
Explanation:
The amendment has to be approved by 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the State, which can be extremely hard to gain approval of. Therefore that is why I believe that it should change.
