<span>trading city on the Niger River where Africans traded gold, salt, cloth, books, slaves, shells, & metals</span>
The biggest difference between the Watergate Scandal and the Iran-Contra Affair is that the Watergate scandal was an internal politics problem, while the Iran-Contra Affair was a foreign politics problem. Both scandals were exposed by the media.
In the Watergate scandal, president Nixon was directly involved and exposed by the media as head of a group perpetrating illegal activities while it was never proved that President Reagan was directly related with the illegal aid to Contras and Iranian terrorist groups. So President Nixon was directly involved in the scandal.
The Watergate scandal was worse in my opinion because it is more famous and it was the only presidential impeachment in U.S. history, and that undermined the public image of american democracy.
John W. Mackay and George Hearst had interests in owning mines in common.
Hope this helps,
Davinia.
Answer:
Answer B
Explanation:
B: "To Keep the guard from being led by the governor of Arkansas"
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
