Trump: No Transgenders In The Military!

[Roy]

yeah I question that number. But even if it is true, you are talking about 12K out of what? 1.2 Million military? The average year's recruitment is over 180,000.

Yeah, it is. But next year it would be over 192,000. 5% higher. So the recruitment cost would also be 5% higher. And 5% of a 16-billion recruitment/training budget is $800 million - which is close to what the study claimed the cost would be.

There's nothing hidden or complex here. You can do the maths yourself, as I did, using your own sources. You'll get the same magnitude of answer.

[Sparko]

Yeah, it is. But next year it would be over 192,000. 5% higher. So the recruitment cost would also be 5% higher. And 5% of a 16-billion recruitment/training budget is $800 million - which is close to what the study claimed the cost would be.

There's nothing hidden or complex here. You can do the maths yourself, as I did, using your own sources. You'll get the same magnitude of answer.

No it won't be any higher. They don't force people to join the military. They take what they get. So if they average 180K per year, they will continue to average the same. This is a drop in the bucket. People leave the military all the time. Some years more than others. Heck sometimes they force people into early retirement for budget reasons. My brother was in the Air Force and they PAID him to leave because of budget cuts.

[Roy]

No it won't be any higher. They don't force people to join the military. They take what they get. So if they average 180K per year, they will continue to average the same.

Well obviously if they lose 12000 personnel and don't replace them, they won't have a recruitment increase. But replacing those personnel would cost much much more than the claimed saving.

That's the point.

[Sparko]

Well obviously if they lose 12000 personnel and don't replace them, they won't have a recruitment increase. But replacing those personnel would cost much much more than the claimed saving.

That's the point.

Think of it as a savings. There will be 12000 less people in the military.

[hedrick]

The “hoot” is that the whole issue arose not from the military, but from a Trump tweet pandering to bigots like you. In short, it was yet another desperate attempt to retain his ever dwindling support among his core voters, namely the stupid part of America.

Surveys suggest that support among his core voters is not dwindling. They got exactly what they expected.

[One Bad Pig]

Surveys suggest that support among his core voters is not dwindling. They got exactly what they expected.

I'm not exactly one of his core voters, but I'm also pretty much getting what I expected. I still think he was the least worst option.

[Charles]

I'm not exactly one of his core voters, but I'm also pretty much getting what I expected. I still think he was the least worst option.

The least worst option can be extremely bad. The least worst option can be so bad that you need to question yourself if it really was the least worst option.

[Jedidiah]

The least worst option can be extremely bad. The least worst option can be so bad that you need to question yourself if it really was the least worst option.

No question it is far far better than what Hillary had to offer.

[Sparko]

The least worst option can be extremely bad. The least worst option can be so bad that you need to question yourself if it really was the least worst option.

Just stay in the car, Chuck.

[One Bad Pig]

The least worst option can be extremely bad. The least worst option can be so bad that you need to question yourself if it really was the least worst option.

Well, sort of. There's not a whole lot of point to indulging in "what if....?" When election time comes around again, it'll be worth revisiting, if only to help guide my next vote.

[Terraceth]

The least worst option can be extremely bad. The least worst option can be so bad that you need to question yourself if it really was the least worst option.

Okay then, who is your proposal for an option that was less worse than Hillary or Trump? Gary Johnson? Jill Stein? Darrell Castle? Rocky de la Fuente? Michael Maturen? Evan McMullin?

[KingsGambit]

Okay then, who is your proposal for an option that was less worse than Hillary or Trump? Gary Johnson? Jill Stein? Darrell Castle? Rocky de la Fuente? Michael Maturen? Evan McMullin?

Maturen, of course

[Adrift]

Okay then, who is your proposal for an option that was less worse than Hillary or Trump? Gary Johnson? Jill Stein? Darrell Castle? Rocky de la Fuente? Michael Maturen? Evan McMullin?

Rand Paul seemed pretty okay (for a Republican), but there was no way in hell he was going to win. He could barely get any media coverage even when he was doing relatively well in polls.

[Starlight]

The least worst option can be extremely bad. The least worst option can be so bad that you need to question yourself if it really was the least worst option.

I agree. I was always of the opinion that though Hillary was the lesser of the two evils, that she was still so bad that it was morally repugnant to vote for her, and thus I encouraged Americans to vote for Jill Stein.

I was, and remain, hopeful that an utterly disastrous Trump presidency might be better for the Dems and America in the long term, than a semi-disastrous Hillary presidency would have been, as it might be enough to catalyze the kind of radical political change America so clearly needs, and show the true colors of the Republican base clearly for all to see.

[Tassman]

No question it is far far better than what Hillary had to offer.

That was the prevailing narrative at the time. But, as it's turned out, nothing could be worse than the reckless Trump presidency. The world may not even survive it.