why do you think the United States is more polarized in its political parties then ever before? If things are not as polarized why do people think they are?

i'll tell you everything i know

explanation:

the american entry into world war i came in april 1917, after more than two and a half years of efforts by president woodrow wilson to keep the united states out of the war.

apart from an anglophile element urging early support for the british, american public opinion reflected that of the president: the sentiment for neutrality was particularly strong among irish americans, german americans, and scandinavian americans, as well as among church leaders and among women in general. on the other hand, even before world war i had broken out, american opinion had been more negative toward germany than toward any other country in europe. over time, especially after reports of atrocities in belgium in 1914 and following the sinking of the passenger liner rms lusitania in 1915, american citizens increasingly came to see germany as the aggressor in europe.

wilson, as president, made virtually all the key decisions over foreign policy. while the country was at peace american banks made huge loans to britain and france, which were used mainly to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the atlantic. until 1917, wilson made minimal preparations for a land war and kept the united states army on a small peacetime footing, despite increasing demands for enhanced preparedness. he did, however, expand the united states navy.

in 1917, with russia experiencing political upheaval, and with britain and france low on credit, germany appeared to have the upper hand in europe, while the ottoman empire, germany's ally, held on to its territory in modern-day iraq, syria and israel. at this point germany decided to resume unrestricted submarine warfare. its goal was to starve britain into surrender, although it realized that this would almost certainly bring the united states into the war. germany also made a secret offer to mexico regain territories lost in the mexican–american war in an encoded telegram known as the zimmerman telegram, which was intercepted by british intelligence. publication of that communique outraged americans just as german u-boats started sinking american merchant ships in the north atlantic. wilson then asked congress for "a war to end all wars" that would "make the world safe for democracy", and congress voted to declare war on germany on april 6, 1917.

on december 7, 1917, the u.s. declared war on austria-hungary.

u.s. troops began arriving on the western front in large numbers in 1918.

i hope this uwu

`stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar current or future case. stare decisis ensures that cases with identical facts be approached in the same way, unless overruled by the same court or a higher court such as the us supreme court. simply put, it binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions.

stare decisis is a latin term meaning "to stand by that which is decided".

answer; (b) asia;

during the debate over his landmark energy policy proposal, president jimmy carter failed to consult one of the most powerful senators, louisiana’s russell long, who would have a big say over whether the legislation moved through the upper chamber. this was classic carter. with a strong distaste for congressional politics, the president simply refused to do what most other presidents would consider routine, such as courting key senators. long became so irate with the president that when he was finally invited to a white house dinner, he stood up to ask a question and, before doing so, proceeded to sarcastically introduce himself: “i’m russell long, chairman of the senate finance committee.”

this interaction is a revealing moment in stuart e. eizenstat’s fascinating new history of carter’s presidency. the former peanut farmer from georgia was a president who, according to conventional wisdom, didn’t care much for party politics; nonetheless, in eizenstat’s view, carter’s legacy on domestic and foreign policy has been vastly underappreciated. the author paints carter as a “bold and determined” leader who bravely attacked the challenges of his time. eizenstat goes so far as to argue that carter might very well be the most successful one-term president in american history.