In this quote, sun fo is talking about the Chinese nationalist party and the nanjing government under the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek. Do you agree with the sun fo that they have moved "contrary to the spirit of democracy," or do you disagree?

Sun Fo is CORRECT when he says that the Kuomintang had a departure from its original purpose.

Explanation:

The Kuomintang was created to promote the Republicanism in China, an experience totally new to its History. The Kuomintang was the republican movement led by the Nationalist Party of China. The party was led by the military Chiang Kai-shek, who tried at all costs to unify China, with the formation of a national government. With the support of the old classes of rural landowners and important portions of the new emerging industrial and commercial classes, Chiang Kai-shek led a series of military coups and formed a dictatorial government. The alliance of the Chinese ruling classes, within the Kuomintang, gave rise to an extremely conservative and reactionary political program of social modernization. The central government started to repress urban workers and, mainly, the communists who led the revolts and the peasant uprising with extreme violence.

hello there!

the graphics that you have attached within the question, indicates that few people in bolivia work in industry according to its labor force.

however, the graphic that is on the right side of the picture shows the gdp sector in bolivia. this gross domestic product is a macroeconomic magnitude   that shows the monetary value of all finished goods and services within a country's borders in a specific time period. in this case, the graphic is showing the monetary value in each sector -agriculture, industry and services- of bolivia in 2012.

so, although the first graphic located at the left side indicates that not so many people work in industry, this is the second most important sector according to the gdp metrics because of the monetary value that impacts on its country. it does not need to be the most valuable one. if it makes an impact on the country's economy, it will be definitely crucial to it.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is