<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>
It is because the President of the Senate is the Vice-President of the United States, and couldn't hope to be fair-minded if the President is on trial, it is possible that restricted or the other.
<span>The chief justice is just said once in the Constitution. Inquisitively, it is not in Article III, which sets up the Supreme Court. Or maybe, it is in Article I, which puts forward the forces of Congress, however, expresses that the main equity should direct the Senate amid any reprimand trial of the President.</span>
Answer: A) Paternalism
Explanation:
This phenomenon is the effort of a group, organization, and political structures to abolish certain human freedoms under the pretext that it is the best decision at a certain moment. Paternalism is also evident in the relationship between parents and children, so we often witness how parents forbid certain things to children because they think they are bad. If they do not have to be, they are often the product of subjective observations. Many experts consider Paternalism a negative phenomenon because the hesitation of freedoms must never be the solution.
Answer:
The Caning of Charles Sumner, or the Brooks–Sumner Affair, occurred on May 22, 1856, in the United States Senate chamber, when Representative Preston Brooks, a pro-slavery Democrat from South Carolina, used a walking cane to attack Senator Charles Sumner, an abolitionist Republican from Massachusetts, in retaliation for a speech given by Sumner two days earlier in which he fiercely criticized slaveholders, including a relative of Brooks. The beating nearly killed Sumner and it contributed significantly to the country's polarization over the issue of slavery. It has been considered symbolic of the "breakdown of reasoned discourse"[1] and the use of violence that eventually led to the Civil War.
Explanation:
