Answer:
the survival of Israel and completion of the Middle East peace process,. • access to ... movements as a result of ethnic conflict or leadership change in Su- dan also ... 16Handbook of International Economic Statistics, 1995, Directorate of Intelligence, ... It is likely that the two most powerful forces on the Middle Eastern political
Explanation:
In the Europe of 1800's, the beliefs displayed in this question could be labeled as follows:
Conservative: The government should be led by a monarch with legitimacy from God; the government should mantain stability through a social class system. The explanation is that, those who call themselfs conservatives do so because they are in favor to keep things the way they are, manteining the status quo; the type of government that ruled Europe in 1800 was the monarchy, and they believed that stability could be reached by a social class system, the royal family and the plebeians.
Liberal: People should be able to work their way up the social ladder; the government should emphasize citizens' rights as listed in a constitution. Liberals, in general, believe and praise freedom for all people, and often the government's intervention in society is questioned; some say that the government's role should be smaller, intervening only in crucial questions, like the assurance of rights, while others believe that the government should have a central power figure.
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.
I don’t understand your question, can you go into more detail please
There should be peace in the county and their should be support
