The answers that are fully correct regarding 20th century Republican election results are:
- won majorities in the House, Senate and won the Presidency in the middle of the century.
- elected Dwight D. Eisenhower twice.
Both of those correct answers involve Dwight Eisenhower, as it was the case in the 1952 election that Republicans gained control of both houses in Congress for the first time since the Depression era, and also won the presidency. (Note: The Republican lost their Congressional majorities in 1954.) Republicans had also won the presidency and control of both houses of Congress at earlier points in the 20th century, such as the 1900 election which brought Teddy Roosevelt into the presidency. They held that control throughout T.Roosevelt's two terms in the White House. The Democrats took back control of the House of Representatives in the 1910 election (under the Taft presidency), and followng that a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, took over the presidency. The Republicans won back control in 1920 with the election of Warren Harding as president and reassertion of control of both houses of Congress.
Dwight Eisenhower won the presidential elections of 1952 and 1956.
The option about Ronald Reagan is <u>almost</u> correct, because Reagan did win the electoral votes of all but one state (Minnesota) in 1984. However, the win by Richard Nixon in 1972 was an even stronger win for the Republicans. Nixon also won all but one state (Massachusetts) in electoral college voting. But Nixon's margin of victory in the popular vote in 1972 was larger than Reagan's in 1984. Nixon got nearly 61% of the popular vote in 1972, far ahead of the 37.5% his Democratic opponent got. Reagan's share of the popular vote in 1984 was 58.8%, with the Democratic candidate getting 40.6% of all votes.
I think is there could be outbreaks of guerilla warfare and then there was the reparations<span>
</span>
Answer:
The European country that most likely monopolized the Indian cotton trade was Great Britain.
Explanation:
The 19th-century Great Britain was still an imperialist country. At that moment, however, it was prioritizing establishing colonies by means of free trade. It is interesting to notice the irony in the name, since the colonies were usually not free to trade with other partners at all. A colonizer would impose its presence and influence over an area or even a whole nation, forcing it to import its industrialized products and to export their raw materials. This is precisely what Great Britain did to India in the 19th century. India was absorbing textiles that Great Britain no longer had a market in Europe for. Great Britain, on the other hand, would import India's cotton, since India was no longer producing its own textiles.
Answer:
It is likely that Rawls claimed that there is no certainty in the statement that you deserve the wealth that you have and that it was acquired through the exploitation of your own talents. This, therefore, is a doubtful statement and must be carefully evaluated.
Explanation:
John Rawls was not in favor of the idea that individuals who use their talents to generate their income are worthy of all their income. That's because For Rawls, the money these individuals get is not, in fact, generated by the talent they have, but by the demand that society imposes on these talents. Therefore, these individuals owe a debt to the society for which they work. This debt must be paid by taxing their income. This taxation will generate the resources that will pay the society that benefits these individuals.
Answer:
Option B
Explanation:
Being neutral just means being in between in this case not being on either sides of a argument means that you are on the neutral side where you agree with neither side of the argument. If someone or something is being in between two topics it means that person is being "neutral."
Hope this helps.