Help? Which evidence is most relevant to Kennedy’s claim that the internal conditions of the United States relate directly to the Communist threat?

"This is a great country, but I think it could be a greater country; and this is a powerful country, but I think it could be a more powerful country."

"The kind of country we have here, the kind of society we have, the kind of strength we build in the United States will be the defense of freedom."

"The reason Franklin Roosevelt was a good neighbor in Latin America was because he was a good neighbor in the United States."

"I don't want the talents of any American to go to waste. I know that there are those who want to turn everything over to the government."

Read this paragraph from chapter 5 of the prince. there are, for example, the spartans and the romans. the spartans held athens and thebes, establishing there an oligarchy: nevertheless they lost them. the romans, in order to hold capua, carthage, and numantia, dismantled them, and did not lose them. they wished to hold greece as the spartans held it, making it free and permitting its laws, and did not succeed. so to hold it they were compelled to dismantle many cities in the country, for in truth there is no safe way to retain them otherwise than by ruining them. and he who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always the watchword of liberty and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget. and whatever you may do or provide against, they never forget that name or their privileges unless they are disunited or dispersed, but at every chance they immediately rally to them, as pisa after the hundred years she had been held in bondage by the florentines. what idea is stressed in the passage? the desire for liberty the establishment of an oligarchy the dismantling of an acquired state the tendency toward rebellion

How does dr. king 's understanding of foutsider" compare to the understanding of the writers of "a call for unity"?

Which of these best explains why the argument in this passage is weak? (5 points) the argument doesn't take into account opposing points of view. the argument relies on attacking a weak version of the opposition. the claim is not valid. the argument relies on claims that are not backed up by facts.