91–100 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what our current President and his "deep state" wants you to believe. However, after three + years it's pretty obvious that our President has a firm grip on power. He still plays the victim every once in a while. But all the departments are quite clearly bowing and pleasing him as best they can.
Or giving that appearance while they wait it out?
This misses the point. All large DoD contract are usually followed by a lawsuit from the loser. I have seen this happens so many times. If MSFT lost, they would have probably sued.
Yes, it is normal. Even small government RFP contracts often have do-overs when losers challenge the results. I remember when Boeing first was awarded the US Air Force tanker contract. It was soon rescinded for, among other things, fraud. They won the project again the second time around. Recently, the US Air Force has refused delivery of the tankers because of manufacturing flaws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darle…
Comparatively the A330 MRRT, which the first round winning bid was based on entered service June 2011.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused which company are you referring to? oh, wait every dominant giant company ever...
oh, ^please^... not "every dominant giant company ever" has been found by U.S. federal court to have engaged in monopolistic / anti-competitive behavior. legality aside, that's to say nothing of all their no-walter-its-not-illegal-youre-just-an-asshole shenanigans contemporaneous with, and preceding, the lawsuit. playing dumb and conflating what Microsoft did with "every dominant giant company ever" only serves to wh…
That's only because as times changed so did the US mostly lost interest in punishing or even investigating its own companies (that's subjectively understandable, nobody wants to hit their own). Voices say they're trying to change this, we'll just have to wait and see.
On the other hand I'm sure you agree that "U.S. federal court" is not the global standard in justice. And since the EU has no "home player" bias their courts did not shy away from investigating and fining big-tech monopolies like Google or Facebook.
"Playing dumb" and conflating Microsoft with exclusivity in the abuse of market position doesn't do this discussion any service. Your comment is strongly undermined by this clear bias.
My take on this whole thing, is the Amazon basically wrote the entire scope...so they just thought they were going to win because only they would meet it (this was a bit of a scandal just a few months back.) They bid high, and then they lost. Now they are mad that their lobbying wasn't a 100% success, so they are suing. It's all so very Amazon.
Amazon has put a LOT of money into DC. From setting up an HQ2 in DC to Bezos personally purchasing the largest mansion in the city to host event for political power brokers. It should be no surprise that he's pissed that that amount of investment isn't starting to pay dividends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon has put a LOT of money into DC. From setting up an HQ2 in DC to Bezos personally purchasing the largest mansion in the city to host event for political power brokers. It should be no surprise that he's pissed that that amount of investment isn't starting to pay dividends.
How is Bezos buying a big house an investment in the city? Come on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>And running a newspaper that continuously annoys a President doesn't really fit the apparently popular idea that Bezos is spending money to get favourable treatment from politicians. At least from outward appearances, most of the ruling class and permanent government isn't particularly fond of the current President.
That's what our current President and his "deep state" wants you to believe. However, after three + years it's pretty obvious that our President has a firm grip on power. He still plays the victim every once in a while. But all the departments are quite clearly bowing and pleasing him as best they can.
It lost because Trump hates Jeff Bezos for some reason.
Bezos is a Democrat and owner of the Washington Post, a paper which has been openly critical of Trump's administration.
Instead, they made a contract that is too big to lose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A quote past the first paragraph of the story: > the IG said "we believe the evidence we received showed that the DoD personnel who evaluated proposals and made the source-selection awarding Microsoft the JEDI Cloud contract were not pressured about their decision on the award of the contract by any DoD leaders more senior to them, who may have communicated with the White House." As with most articles, the juicy, sal…
That sentence seems purpose-build to be so obviously trying to hide the truth as to be giving it away. It means the " DoD personnel who evaluated proposals " were not pressured by senior DoD leaders, but by White House officials directly. Or why would the statement explicitly mention "DoD leaders more senior to them"? If they were not pressured, why not simply say "DoD personnel were not pressured to award..."? And w…