"<span>A. attacking US troops and then hiding in the jungle" is the best option from the list, since it was this tactic that most thwarted many US troops--mainly because they were far less familiar with the terrain.</span>
This is false.
The primary function of the Supreme Court is to interpret laws within the US to determine whether or not they are constitutional. This idea is known as judicial review. This is the Supreme Court's main function, as it allows the court to check the power of both the legislative branch and executive branch.
<span>Charles Dickens began as a law clerk in 1827 to provide for his family. He also spent a great deal of time in the theater district. By the age of 20, he was a reporter for The Mirror of Parliament during the age of Queen Victoria. The rise to writer status was a vast difference to the job he had at age 12 as a factory worker.</span>
<span>The conquest was successful. With the siege of Istanbul, the Ottomans proceeded to establish hegemony over numerous independent Turkish states within Anatolia. The result of imperial conquest was to unify the Turkish populations in Anatolia. In turn, other non Turkish, Muslim communities and principalities were brought together under the aegis of Ottoman leadership. </span>
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.
