The two major parties have the most money.
They are needed for organizing things in Congress, especially. If there were no political parties, how would Congress be organized? Who would appoint the committees? Who would try to set an agenda? It would be chaos.They are useful for the electoral process. The two parties serve as a pretty good way of getting like-minded people together. If they were not there, it would be much harder to identify good candidates, get them to run for office, support them, etc.They serve as an opposing factor to the interest groups. If it were not for parties, the interest groups would be unopposed. The parties try to pull people together in broad coalitions. The interest groups try to pull them apart on single issues.
Bulletproof vests are illegal in some places because they are considered to provide an advantage to criminals by protecting them from law enforcement and making it harder for authorities to stop them.
Legalized corruption includes any sort of corruption of the political or economic system that is not against the law. For example, during political campaigns, many parties contribute to a candidate's re-election campaign and implicitly get political consideration with future bills. So, for a small legalized bribe of several thousands dollars, a bill can be passed which will increase the profits of the donating party by hundreds of thousands, or millions. Sometimes these perks are instead offered through the push of expensive public works projects tendered through contracts with specifications focusing on the one donating party, so that real competition for the contact does not exist. Other times bills are passed to increase regulations on competitors, making it harder for other companies to compete or enter the market space. Another possibility of legalized corruption is job offers, paid speaking engagements, or other perks paid to an elected official. For example, a regulator who chooses to not pursue criminal investigation or reforms too hard against some parties may be rewarded by those parties with lucrative job offers once they leave office, often as a 'consultant'.
I think you want me to talk about empires for like history so here it goes. If you have a huge empire it is hard to keep as it is further away, it costs more money, is harder to run and keep organised and people further away are different to you than someone close so will probably not want to be ruled by you. Like if you are trying to take the place over you will have to send in your army and this will be harder if the place is further away rather than being close to you (it might cost a lot of money transporting people and weapons for example). Also people may be different so they could be harder to conquer like they might know things that you don't so it could be harder to defeat them. If you are trying to conquer a new place you won't know a lot about it for example. I hope I gave you the right sort of answer.
Income inequality can lead to increased motivation and competition, which can drive innovation and economic growth. It can also incentivize individuals to work harder and strive for success. Additionally, income inequality can create opportunities for social mobility and provide a diverse range of goods and services in the market.
Some disadvantages the presidential primaries posed on the parties were: it took power away from the parties, the candidates must campaign harder to win supporters votes, and win spotlight in media.
Winning isn't everything - it's the only thing.
It made picking the president and vice-president alot less harder.
Pull harder on your end of the rope than the opposing team pulls on theirs.
Yes, yes it is to some animals like the small screech owl. If spotted by a larger owl it will have a harder time winning.
Parties can both facilitate and complicate the business of government. On one hand, they provide structure, helping to organize political debate and streamline decision-making by aligning like-minded individuals around common goals. On the other hand, partisanship can lead to gridlock, making it harder to reach consensus and implement policies, particularly when opposing parties refuse to cooperate. Ultimately, the impact of parties on governance often depends on the political context and the willingness of leaders to engage in bipartisan efforts.
Both needs equal and opposite power. If the rope slippery, then holding the rope will be more important. If the floor is slippery, then floor not getting slipped is more important.
if you lost than you didn't try hard enough you try harder next time you might have a chance of winning.. just put your heart in to it and you will succeed...by: ana
Selling hotels in Monopoly can impact your gameplay by reducing your potential income and making it harder to bankrupt opponents. This strategy can help you manage your resources better and increase your chances of winning by strategically investing in properties.
They are needed for organizing things in Congress, especially. If there were no political parties, how would Congress be organized? Who would appoint the committees? Who would try to set an agenda? It would be chaos.They are useful for the electoral process. The two parties serve as a pretty good way of getting like-minded people together. If they were not there, it would be much harder to identify good candidates, get them to run for office, support them, etc.They serve as an opposing factor to the interest groups. If it were not for parties, the interest groups would be unopposed. The parties try to pull people together in broad coalitions. The interest groups try to pull them apart on single issues.
To lose is the opposite of winning. An example sentence is: If you lose, then just try harder next time.
The would make the running more comfortable but they will not assist you with winning. If you want to win, you need to train more and try harder. That is the best way to win.