In politics, does the end always justify the means?

The phrase means that even if the action was or seems wrong, the outcome or result means it was not really wrong. The phrase strictly, applies to cases where the moral outcome is truly superior to no action. Otherwise the end would not truly justify the means.

sometimes but most of the time no

Explanation:Democraats want to disarm lawbiding ciezens, to stop murder but they don't see most gun crime is carried out by illeagally owned firearms. So they would just stop the citezens from defending theirselves, the people around them, friends, and family. So the end doesn't justify the means.

i thing that the best option is a.they feared it would cause a second economic collapse.

one of the most negatives aspects of the new deal was that it upset the balanced federal budget and led to a huge deficit for the nation while at the same time failed to end increasing unemployment. roosevelt's program, based on keynesian theories of economics, called for massive government spending to stimulate the economy. as he   failed to do this with large tax increases; large sums of money were borrowed to fund new deal programs. when the economy showed some improvement, roosevelt was concerned about inflation, and ordered cuts in government spending. unfortunately, he did so at a time when the new social security tax had cut people's disposable income. businesses were too afraid of spending, and the economy in 1937 was in worse shape than in 1929. at the end of that year, two million people were unemployed.

  the common sense as a pamphlet written by thomas paine. it promoted the independence of the colonies from british rule. the distribution of this pamphlet was great, it reached people everywhere and it was even read aloud at places people met. it also unite the colonists before the revolutionary war.

answer is d