He also had said that each of us has goodness inside of everyone, though that’s as individuals. But individuals together make up a greater portion and makes a society that should be changing what is good. Yet, the opposite is true as well. That if we as citizens don’t behave and create positive vibes, or influences others, it will cause bad morals and bad character. I think that Mencius was focused on creating a better person and from that, there will be good that
Grasping the dream should never be effortless; however, it should be reasonable. The new dream remains challenging for most, but with enough preservation, it is possible. The lower standards in the modern dream lead to a higher percentage of the nation allowed to achieve it. The statistic that 99% of the wealth in the United States belongs to 1% of the population is well-known among Americans. Therefore, it is more realistic aiming for the middle-class in order to grant a larger fraction of the population to share the wealth leading to a larger fraction being able to achieve the dream.
This matters because these people have a great responsibility to the people of their nation, and if the leader(s) are not careful, respectful, and responsible with their power, then Source C argues that “All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, to government, when its tyranny of its inefficiency are great and unendurable”. In some instances, it makes more sense for whole
Which was the cause of the colonies not wanting to be under rule. Examine the language used in both documents; who is the audience for each writer? Thomas Paine chose to write to the more common less educated people in the colonies. He didn 't use complex language or Latin phrases that were more commonly used in pamphlets aimed at the educated who usually were the more wealthy or
The truth is that through the nature of humanity, government is necessary to maintain control and peace. Societies are created by groups of people who find that living together and helping each other is better than attempting to live on their own. However, once a society gets very large with many different types of people it becomes necessary to implement some kind of government to suppress the inherent evil in man and to maintain peace and happiness. Humans need each other to succeed because it is more effective to work together than alone. This truth embraces all of human experiences because it is human nature to want to work together and this truth uses that part of humanity to justify the need for a government.
I believe that power is something people will obey because they know if they don’t do it that something bad will happen. Power will make people act differently to others and people can see that. When you act different people can tell that something is going on. I wouldn’t want people know that I got a raise if they have been there longer than me. That is just disrespectful and I wouldn’t want to do that.
While it is reasonable to infer that this inequality gap has widened due to globalization or technological changes making the American population less competitive, we’re missing the real issue that with this gap being so wide as it currently is, there is not positive change being made. To add on, economic inequality can typically affect political choice making due to stances in life. In article “Inequalities of Income and Inequalities of Longevity”, by Eric Neumayer, he specifies that “poor people are less likely to vote and have little influence on political decisions, whereas the very rich can exercise a strong influence via lobbying and donations.” This highly creates political incentives that would benefit the rich rather than the poor in making society a convenience for the rich at the expense of the poor. For example, Neumayer list that low income families or individuals have multiple consequences with health due to the reason that they can’t afford the best hospitality a wealthy person would be able to afford. Therefore, America has huge amounts of inequality in opportunity and we may be convinced that any individual can be successful through determination but facts are saying otherwise.
Popular vote is very direct; one vote for every person. It’s a common belief among political critics that the popular vote is a more fair system and will encourage a higher number of voter turnout. Under the restrictions of the Electoral College, specifically in lower populated states, some voters could feel an overwhelming sense of support for a specific candidate. This would give the voter the feeling that their vote would carry no meaning and in turn could cause a lower voter turnout. Since higher populated states have more electoral votes, many believe that the lower populated areas will be neglected.
Lack of leadership does cause some difficulties to the movement. For instance, without a centralized leadership, however, to my knowledge, without a centralized leadership, BLM would be more successful. It is all about raising awareness, so having a centralized leader would make it harder to spread out the message as people are more willing to listen to a group than to an individual.
Also I think that if the candidates are looking for the electotal votes; then the states with the most electoral votes gets the most attention. They need to concentrate on the states with the most electoral votes. The smaller states or states with lesser electoral votes gets little to no attention. One good aspect of the Electoral College is that it makes more sense to the smaller states to ensure they still have a voice in the elections. If the President were to be elected by popular demand; they would be from a highly populated state leaving less room for the smaller states to cast their votes.