Hoover believed that you should not help people during a hard times. FDR was the complete opposite he wanted to help the american people get out of the great depression. So your answer is C.
Answer: - It can be corrupt. It is often ineffective.
Explanation: - It can be corrupt. (True, lots of nepotism, fake positions, privileges, exorbitant salaries for members of its upper management. Accusations of crime by UN troops).
- It is often ineffective. (Yes and no. It is ineffective because it has no military enforcing force or a system of economic sanctions to force rogue states to comply with its values. However, it is a formidable means of political and public pressure and only for that is better than nothing at all).
- It limits US sovereignty. This is only true if the US let the UN do such thing (it has never happened). The US invaded Panama without a UN mandate. It invaded Vietnam without a UN mandate. It invaded Iraq in 2003 without a UN mandate. China invaded and annexed Tibet in the 1950s and the UN was never able to stop it. Russia invaded several countries and the UN was able to do nothing about it.
- It restricts US foreign policy. Not really, the US is one of the founding Security Council members and can easily ply the UN by refusing to pay its yearly contribution (already happening).
- It includes a small number of nations. (False, most nations on Earth are part of the UN).
- It focuses only on issues related to trade. (False, it focuses on any issue that is relevant to the planet’s welfare).
The best answer is, As governor of New York Roosevelt had taken active steps to provide aid for citizens.
During the Presidential election of 1932 Governor of New York and Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt ran against the sitting President, Hoover on the platform of providing aiding to Americans, specifically those in New York. This political advantage saw Roosevelt's victory over President Hoover and elected him to be the 32nd President of the United States, who would go on to be one of the most important and influential Presidents of the United States.
C I would ask anyone for good advice on this
Answer:
The situation of the 60s - early 70s of the 18th century gives the impression that Britain deliberately provoked a colonial rebellion. The starting point of post-war tension growth was decree of 1763 on the Allegany-Cumberland line. It was followed in 1765 by a series of laws aimed at further economic strangulation of the colonies, in particular the Stamp Act, which introduced the five times taxation of all printed matter produced in the colonies and any legal documents drawn up on their territory.
The legislative initiatives of the mother country have become increasingly ominous. Thus, failure to comply with the Stamp Act threatened with the death penalty. De facto colonies were plunged into the atmosphere of medieval legal brutality.
In response, the Sons of Liverty extremist groups attacked British military and royal officials in the colonies. In parallel, a massive boycott of British goods began.
Such a decisive response caused confusion in London. In parliament, the voice of a few supporters of softening attitudes toward the colonies was finally heard. The internal struggle that took place in British political circles at that time was reflected by subsequent “zigzags” in their lawmaking. So, in 1766 the Stamp Act was canceled and the Sugar Act was softened, which retained the prohibition only on the import of rum into colonies. But in 1777, the Townshend Acts entered into force, introducing increased duties on imported tea, glass, paper, paints, and lead.
The Boston Massacre provoked a violent reaction. Riots spread to small towns and rural areas. The escalation of the conflict has a ‘sobering’ effect on the British Parliament. A gesture of reconciliation on its part was the abolition of the Townshend Acts, with one strange exception - the preservation of high duties on the import of tea. But such small concessions could no longer defuse the situation.
Explanation:
