The Vietnam War was unpopular the whole time but the opposition Grill in 1968 at the Viet Cong lunch the massive offense against Keith cities the military Center the u.s. troops levels escalated so did the casualties as for the Warriors the whole time was unpopular when will it was a no-win situation many people believed with good reason that our development is that the Vietnam was not accomplished in anything yet the enormous numbers of people dying in horror flick and photographic videos were sent back to the US which showed civilian population horrible it was another reason was the war was so pointless was that though the communist countries would Ally together we ignored the fact that all Asian countries hated each other communities do not after defeating as the Vietnam invaded Cambodia and crushed the comunist Khmer Rogue ,one of the few groups that was worse than the nazis
Answer:
the answer is b
Explanation:
Many times, the House and Senate pass slightly different versions of a bill. If this happens both the House and the Senate appoint conferees to work out a compromise. ... If both the House and the Senate pass the bill from the conference committee, then the bill is sent to the President.
Hope this helps! if not then my Apologizes!
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.
Answer:
The Three-Fifths Compromise established that a state’s enslaved population would be counted for partial representation.
Explanation:
The Three-Fifths Compromise was an agreement made between delegates during the Constitutional Convention (1787) that established that the number of seats in the House of Representatives for each state should be calculated in accordance to the number of free persons (excluding Indians not taxed) and the three-fifths of slaves in every state. In other words, the Compromise counted three out of every five slaves as people for partial representation. This agreement would increase the power of slave states.
Constantine the Great built the city to resemble Rome, the center of the Western Roman Empire.
