1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Sholpan [36]
3 years ago
13

What impact did the events of 1970 and 1971 have on nixon’s actions in vietnam?

History
1 answer:
Neporo4naja [7]3 years ago
5 0
The impact that is made in the events of 1970 and 1971 on the actions of Nixon in Vietnam is that his administration never made an  iron-clad pledge based on the secured infringement of the Soviet <span> hegemony. Hope this answers your question. </span>
You might be interested in
Why were idealistic supporters of the Nazi party willing to endorse Hitler’s annexation of Austria? They distrusted intellectual
kumpel [21]

The correct answer is:

They wanted a quick return to the former power and glory of Germany.

After the unification of Germany rejected Austria and the German Austrians from the Prussian-dominated German Empire in 1871, the notion of Anschluss, meaning a unified Austria and Germany that would establish a Greater Germany, begun spreading.

After WWI,  the Republic of German-Austria failed to form a union with Germany, because of the Treaty of Saint Germain and the Treaty of Versailles. By 1938, Hitler’s annexation of Austria had gathered support from Nazis in both Austria and Germany for a union of the two countries.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
The use of literacy tests during the post-Reconstruction years was primarily an attempt to drive which group out of politics?
alexgriva [62]
Literacy tests were intended for African Americans. 
3 0
3 years ago
Which two of the following sentences from the article include CENTRAL ideas of the article?
Marianna [84]

Answer:

during  the 1820s and 1830s, various reform groups, such as anti-slavery organizations, spread across the U.S. With Burn’s vote, the 19th Amendment was ratified.:

4 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Reasons against getting rid of the Electoral college
VARVARA [1.3K]

Here's an excerpt from https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005330

Pro 1 : The Founding Fathers enshrined the Electoral College in the Constitution b/c they thought it was the best method to choose the president. Using electors instead of the popular vote was intended to safeguard against uninformed/uneducated voters by putting the final decision in the hands of electors most likely to have the info. necessary to make the best decision; to stop states w/ larger pops. from having undue influence; & to compromise between electing the president by popular vote & letting Congress choose. According to Alexander Hamilton, the Electoral College is if "not perfect, it's at least excellent," b/c it ensured "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who isn't in an eminent degree endowed w/ the requisite qualifications." The Founders wanted to balance the will of the ppl against the risk of "tyranny of the majority," in which the voices of the masses can drown out minority interests.

Con 1 : The reasons for which they created the Electoral College are no longer relevant. Modern technology allows voters to get info. to make informed decisions in a way that couldn't have been foreseen by them. Also, while Alexander Hamilton in 1788 saw the electors as being "free from any sinister bias," members of the Electoral College are now selected by the parties & expected to vote along party lines regardless of their own opinions about candidates. Just as several voting laws that limited direct democracy in the Constitution have been modified/discarded thru-out history, so should the Electoral College. As a result of Constitutional amendments, women & former slaves were given the right to vote, & Senators, once appointed by state legislatures, are now elected by popular vote. The vice presidency was once awarded to the runner up in electoral votes, but was changed over time to reflect the reality of elections.

Pro 2 : The Electoral College ensures that all parts of the country are involved in selecting the POTUS. If the election depended solely on the popular vote, then candidates could limit campaigning to heavily-populated areas or specific regions. To win, candidates need electoral votes from multiple regions & therefore they build campaign platforms w/ a national focus, meaning that the winner will actually be serving the needs of the entire country. W/o the electoral college, groups such as IA farmers & OH factory workers would be ignored in favor of pandering to metropolitan areas w/ higher pop. densities, leaving rural areas & small towns marginalized.  

Con 2 : The Electoral College gives too much power to "swing states" & lets the presidential election to be decided by a handful of states. The 2 main parties can count on winning the electoral votes in certain states, such as CA for the Dem. Party & IN for the Rep. Party, w/o worrying about the actual popular vote totals. B/c of the Electoral College, presidential candidates only need to look to a limited # of states that can swing 1 way or the other. A Nov. 6, 2016 episode of PBS NewsHour revealed that "Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton have made more than 90% of their campaign stops in just 11 so-called battleground states. Of those visits, nearly 2/3 took place in the 4 battlegrounds w/ the most electoral votes — FL, PA, OH, & NC."

Pro 3 : The Electoral College guarantees certainty to the outcome of the election. If the election were based on popular vote, it would be possible for a candidate to receive the highest # of popular votes w/o actually obtaining a majority. This happened w/ President Nixon in 1968 & President Clinton in 1992, when both men won the most electoral votes while receiving just 43% of the popular vote. The existence of the Electoral College precluded calls for recounts or demands for run-off elections. The electoral process can also create a larger mandate to give the president more credibility; for example, President Obama received 51.3% of the popular vote in 2012 but 61.7% of the electoral votes. In 227 years, the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral vote only 5 times. This proves the system is working.  

Con 3 : The Electoral College ignores the will of the people. There are over 300 million people in the US, but just 538 people decide who'll be president. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by more than 1 million votes, yet still lost the election on electoral votes. Even President Donald Trump, who benefitted from the system, stated after the election that he believes presidents should be chosen by popular vote: "I would rather see it where you went w/ simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes & somebody else gets 90 million votes & you win." Just as in 2000 when George W. Bush received fewer nationwide popular votes than Al Gore, Donald Trump will serve as the POTUS despite being supported by fewer Americans than his opponent.

5 0
2 years ago
Why did the Fugitive Slave Act anger Northerners? a) It contradicted the Missouri Compromise. b) It increased federal interventi
Papessa [141]

The answer is <u>b) It increased federal intervention in the affairs of independent states.</u>

By the time these federal Acts were enacted in the U.S., several Northern states had already abolished slavery but it was legal in the Southern states. The Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850 allowed for the capture and return of runaway slaves within the territory of the United States, aiming to prevent that the Northern states would become safe havens for runaway slaves.

The last act was more rigid in their provision and stated more regulation, including the guarantee of harsher punishments for anyone interfering in runaways slave's capture, the right of slave owners and their “agents” to search for escaped slaves within the borders of free states and compelled citizens to assist in their capture as well. It also denied slaves the right to a jury trial, among others.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 implied much government's intervention in the state's affairs, and this angered most northern states. They responded by intentionally neglecting the law or creating acts that nullified or that protected black people, the so-called "personal liberty laws", and by making great efforts to assist runaway slaves, among others.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • I don't know the answer.
    11·1 answer
  • 2 Points
    5·1 answer
  • Which of these is a similarity between early Indus River Valley and early Chinese(Shang) civilizations?
    14·1 answer
  • Because of cultural diversity, a single culture never dominates an entire country.
    10·1 answer
  • Do some research on the Epic of Gilgamesh regarding its discovery, the source of the tale, how it was able to survive (physicall
    7·1 answer
  • According to the US Constitution the government and its officers are not
    9·1 answer
  • Account of william hawkins stay in india
    9·1 answer
  • The Articles of Union __________.
    13·1 answer
  • How did other civilizations help the Indus river valley grow?
    14·1 answer
  • Shortly after World War I ended, some complained that the Versailles Treaty did nothing more than declare a truce for twenty yea
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!