|
|
Post by Adam Sybrant on Jan 8, 2017 19:45:07 GMT -6
Navy, Trump planning biggest fleet expansion since cold war abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/navy-trump-planning-biggest-fleet-expansion-cold-war-44631590This article is written by David Sharp of the Associated Press. The article talks about how the navy made a proposal of 355 ships in the fleet. This would significantly increase the number of ships from current 274 deployable battle ships. However, this number released by the navy last month is even larger than what president elect Trump promoted on the campaign trail. The Navy's revised Force Structure Assessment called for adding an additional 47 ships. Those including an aircraft carrier, 16 large surface warships, and 18 attack submarines. In addition it calls for more amphibious assault ships. The navy's 355 ship goal would require an additional 5 to 5.5 billion in annual spending in the Navy's 30 year projection. In conclusion to the article, I believe that adding such a large number of ships at this time could be bad. With our country in such a very high debt the 5 to 5.5 billion dollars spent annually on paying for the ships. If the we do go through with this there is no doubt that it will strengthen our Navy fleets. |
|
|
|
Post by Dom Strom on Jan 9, 2017 23:00:35 GMT -6
In response to Adam
Taking all the information into consideration, compromise in necessary. The funding it would take over the duration would surpass 150 billion, and reaching upwards of 165 billion during the projected time period of 30 years. It would greatly increase our defense if the U.S. was able to build all the ships, keeping up with rivaling countries of China and Russia, but will be tricky to actually make it happen. Getting congress to pay, in the current economic state of our country with the huge national debt, will be very hard, especially if some of their funding is cut. The compromise that could work would be to maybe not plan to make so many new ships, but still build some. This would not take as much funding, and would also work to do what was intended by increasing the national defense. We will have to wait and see what congress will do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Russell on Jan 10, 2017 10:37:34 GMT -6
In response to Adam:
I find it interesting how they immense amount of debt we are currently in doesn't affect the amount that we are spending in general. Adam is right though, it would for sure strengthen our navy. I just don't know that this is the best way 5 billion dollars can be spent. Yes there is nothing wrong with strengthening our navy, but our government has a lot of other issues too. Lets not forget that none of this comes in handy unless we actually attack with our navy. Although, if Trump is as aggressive as people say he will be, then it might be worth it. I am not against the idea, I'm just not sure what 5 billion dollars can fix in our nations issues. Also, its projected to cost 165 billion over 30 years. Where are we going to find this money? Will congress let this pass? The only thing we can do is wait.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Neith on Jan 10, 2017 12:07:24 GMT -6
I believe it would be completely necessary to fund the new navy ships. National safety is important and I am in support of our nation protecting itself. Although we already have the world's strongest military, new situations can arise at any moment. Although our national debt is at a all time high, we still need to fund and get congress to pay. I believe that this will take in to affect due to both Trump promoting it, and then the navy proposing the idea as well. All in all we just have to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Sybrant on Jan 10, 2017 17:45:12 GMT -6
In response to Matthew's article:
What the owner Dan Cathy said is protected by the 1st amendment. However it doesn't mean that he is right or should have said that. Everyone has their own opinion and is entitled to it. What Cathy said is hurtful to some people, however it doesn't mean he cannot say that. I do not believe that Chick-fil-A will lose a lot of business due to the fact that they are already so big. But, with every action there is a reaction meaning that some people will take offense to the owner's comment which could result in losing business. In the end the only person who can control weather they lose customers or not is Dan Cathy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Sybrant on Jan 10, 2017 18:17:05 GMT -6
US Intelligence Agency Leaders Squarely Blame Election Hacking on Russia abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-testify-russia-hacking-opens-door-grilling/story?id=44674836This article is written by Justin Fishel of ABC news. The article talks about how Russia hacked the 2016 U.S presidential election. During a hearing of the Senate Committee on Intelligence the findings of the investigation showed that Russia did indeed hack the election. It included that Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered a campaign to influence the U.S presidential election in an attempt by Russia to undermine public faith in the U.S democratic process. The goals of the campaign was to denigrate secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency. The findings also include that Putin preferred Trump more than Clinton. Republican committee member Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) pointed out that the hacks did not have any influence on the election results. I believe that going forward we have to keep eyes on what Putin and the Russians are doing. Them being able to hack us can possibly leak confidential material over to them. We do not want Russia to influence anything in our political process. In the future if this happens again we must place strict sanctions on Russia. |
|
|
|
Post by Derek Tielbur on Jan 10, 2017 22:02:34 GMT -6
In response to Adam
I think it is crazy how much this would cost the United States if we added about eighty ships. From what we have learned in class, we are already really high in debt and we don't need it to get any worse. Even though it would secure our navy and increase our defense, I personally don't think America is in need that bad. One part of the article I read talked about how a naval officer said that the Navy's request is not very realistic. This makes sense because we clearly don't have room in the budget to add billions of dollars for strengthening defense. However, Trump is unpredictable and this could end up happening if Trump finds a way to fit this expense in to America's tight budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kylee Macke on Jan 11, 2017 13:11:53 GMT -6
In reply to Adam
If Russia claims they hacked the election and did in fact prefer and support Trump instead of Hillary it makes me wonder how our relations with Russia will be. If I am correct, Trump and Putin had some relations before the election or even during it, so that fishy if they messed with it and he won. But, they claimed that they did nothing to change the election supposedly. Trump is unpredictable and it makes me wonder what he will do, either if he gets more strict with them or our relationship stays the same. Either way, I think something needs to be done about this, especially if they are getting into government files and systems like this, what else could they get into easily??
|
|
|
|
Post by Jasmine Martinez on Jan 11, 2017 19:19:02 GMT -6
In response to Adam:
I think that the comments on the article said, "squarely blamed the cyber-hacks of the 2016 presidential election on the Russian government." How the Russian Intelligence Services had cyber-operations people. Also, there was organizations associated with t he 2016 election. Which included both major U.S. politics parties. Its their first time that Russia has targeted a "couple dozen" elections in other countries. Where James Clapper fears that if Russia continues to grow and evolve that they will more in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jasmine Martinez on Jan 11, 2017 19:36:07 GMT -6
In response to Matthew:
In the article, it shows that Marc J. Randazza understands Dan Cathy's(The CEO of Chick-fil-A)figure of speech in the topic of same-sex marriage. Where one phrase says, the 1st Amendment protects you from the government action suppressing your right to free speech." The availability to speak your mind, but not defend yourself to rude and negative comments from others. One phrase worth mentioning is "Similarly, the first Amendment does not protect you from criticism." Where the 1st Amendment has some actions by using it. To where it can be very extreme in different point of view.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jasmine Martinez on Jan 11, 2017 19:44:50 GMT -6
In response to Chaseton:
I think that the newly elected-President has important decisions to be making for the "one china policy." By the article, it shows "Chinese officials were furious over the first conservation in decades between a taiwanese leader and a US President or President-elect." Basically, it sets off a diplomatic controversy with the Taiwan's leader. Where the surface between the U.S. and the Taiwan should be taken careful since its under one new leader known as the President and his actions in percussions. Since the space should;t be bad, but good for the sake of the country in the future to not be messed with curiosity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jasmine Martinez on Jan 11, 2017 19:53:13 GMT -6
In response to Dom:
In the article, it shows that "Fresh off saving 800 Carrier factory jobs from being off-shored to Mexico, President-elect is renewing his threat against companies that move their operations to foreign countries." Where the threat has words like "retribution" and "forewarned." An example, "Trump argued that those deserve "retribution." He said, businesses that want to offshore jobs have been "forewarned." How it's a carrot-and-stick and Trump has made that promise before. Where investors are optimistic about Trump's plan to focus on the "carrot" part:" as possible. The whole potential in regulations is on the businesses like big tax cuts and a roll back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jasmine Martinez on Jan 11, 2017 20:54:04 GMT -6
Sen. Franken Accuses Sen. Sessions of Misrepresenting His Record on Civil Rights abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-franken-accuses-sen-sessions-misrepresenting-record-civil/story?id=44690792This article written by Meredith McGraw(in Jan 10, 2017)talks about Civil Rights that has filed of misrepresenting the number of desegregation cases as being a U.S. attorney known as Sen. Sessions, R-Alabama. The article talks about how Sen. Franken accuses Sen. Sessions "In a 2009 interview with National Review. Where "Sessions said, he handled "20 or 30" civil rights cases--a claim he was not able to prove when pressed by Franken." Franken pointed out that "He did what any U.S. attorney would have to do: He signed his name on the complaint, and we added his name on any motions or briefs. That's it." Also, "Franken said, that while he's not a lawyer he thinks "filed" means more than having a name at the top of the case." It happened in Alabama, "We can state categorically that Sessions had no substantive involvement in any of them." Back in the old times, "Sessions answered that he personally litigated four civil rights cases during the 1980's." As you can that he lying this whole time. In the article, it was talking about the "open door policy." For an example, "When this issue was raised, I did do a supplemental that said, I provided assistance and guidance to civil rights division of attorneys and had an open door policy with them and cooperated with them on these cases." This issue can relate to our class. As once we had discussed about his topic. For an example,open door policy is a policy of a government used in the system of laws established in the late 19th Century and the early 20th Century. Now that is a meaning for the open door policy. |
|
