Bush won more Electoral College votes
Answer:
c
Explanation:
thats what other ppl say, otherwise its d
Explanation:
In 1651, Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature – that is, our natural condition outside the authority of a political state – is ‘solitary, poore, nasty brutish, and short.’ Just over a century later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau countered that human nature is essentially good, and that we could have lived peaceful and happy lives well before the development of anything like the modern state. At first glance, then, Hobbes and Rousseau represent opposing poles in answer to one of the age-old questions of human nature: are we naturally good or evil? In fact, their actual positions are both more complicated and interesting than this stark dichotomy suggests. But why, if at all, should we even think about human nature in these terms, and what can returning to this philosophical debate tell us about how to evaluate the political world we inhabit today?
The question of whether humans are inherently good or evil might seem like a throwback to theological controversies about Original Sin, perhaps one that serious philosophers should leave aside. After all, humans are complex creatures capable of both good and evil. To come down unequivocally on one side of this debate might seem rather naïve, the mark of someone who has failed to grasp the messy reality of the human condition. Maybe so. But what Hobbes and Rousseau saw very clearly is that our judgements about the societies in which we live are greatly shaped by underlying visions of human nature and the political possibilities that these visions entail.
The Voting Rights Act would be the event that best fills the space indicated in the sequence leading to the rise of the civil rights movement. In addition, the bill was then signed by former President Lyndon Johnson in which its primary aim is to eliminate the barriers that hinders the African American citizens to vote.
<span>Cataracts (the white water rapids of the Nile) prevented potential invasions using the River Nile--but they also kept Egyptians from getting very far. The cataracts harmed the Egyptians because it held back ships that tried to move though the River Nile.</span>
