7 ms·
This is standard procedure in these kind of contract fights. I get so sick and tired of government IT contract squabbles. They drag on for years, little usually
by CrankyBear 7y ago
This is standard procedure in these kind of contract fights. I get so sick and tired of government IT contract squabbles. They drag on for years, little usually changes, and, in the meantime the work doesn't get done.
- shadowgovt 7y agoI'm not sure how standard procedure it is for the President to intervene in a down-the-chain contract decision though.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoThe question shouldn't be whether it's standard, but if the office has the authority to intervene. You can then work backwards to legislative hot fixes to governance deficiencies.
- TallGuyShort 7y agoUnfortunately, the question of how much authority the office has depends on which party currently occupies the office and who's asking.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoWhich is why it's important to craft policy of strong checks and balances, regardless of which party has a majority. Today you're the Rebellion, tomorrow you're the Empire. Design systems resilient to subversion or tyranny by anyone.
- xamuel 7y agoYes, I've noticed this too: whenever the party I favor is in office, the office is a lame duck, unable to lift a finger without Congressional approval. Whenever the enemy party is in office, they're absolute tyrants answerable to no-one. This sure is convenient, as it saves me from all kinds of cognitive dissonance!
- TallGuyShort 7y agoUncanny. Do you also find that the morality of a war keeps switching for you?
- sehugg 7y agoWhether or not the occupant has just been impeached for leveraging public assets against political enemies seems to also be a relevant factor.
- TallGuyShort 7y agoEven that seems to 100% be prior party lines anyway.
- bduerst 7y ago>Even that seems to 100% be prior party lines anyway. The non-partisan GAO seems to disagree: https://apnews.com/9127109f325778490fd40c5f98be1817 https://apnews.com/9127109f325778490fd40c5f98be1817
- TallGuyShort 7y agoThat's somewhat irrelevant to the question of what people's opinions are of the power the president should have though, isn't it. I'm not defending Trump, I'm saying that D's are currently arguing he shouldn't have power that they would be happy to see exercised if it wasn't an R in office.
- bduerst 7y agoSure, if this had precedence. Would you say illegal actions taken by the president are relevant to whether they should continue to have power? This is the question that non-partisan people are considering.
- TallGuyShort 7y ago>> Would you say illegal actions taken by the president are relevant to whether they should continue to have power? Absolutely and immediately, once convicted, but that hasn't happened. And to emphasize my point about party lines - how much do you want to bet it won't happen? But let's be clear that my first comment was tongue-in-cheek. I'm not saying the president ACTUALLY has more power depending on the party. I'm saying that things people were fine with under Obama are suddenly a problem under Trump. And I will expect the same thing next time there's a Democrat in office - suddenly Republicans will flip-flop on the way the office is supposed to operate. edit: Maybe a more appropriate question is, among people who label themselves as "Democrat" and "Republican", who thinks that Trump should lose power after his impeachment, who also thinks that Clinton should have lost power after his impeachment?
- shadowgovt 7y agoBoth questions are interesting for different reasons.
- cferr 7y agoWell, he is head of the executive branch which the DoD falls under. He can issue whatever order he wants. It's up to the court to decide if they are/were lawful. SOP doesn't mean a whole lot here.
- shadowgovt 7y agoSOP doesn't constrain his options, but it makes one wonder why intervention was needed if it's unusual and it occurs.
- enraged_camel 7y agoIt is quite clear whether Trump's interference constituted foul play. Everyone who has been paying attention understands very well that he is motivated strongly and solely by his enmity of and hatred towards Bezos.
- robbyt 7y agoSure, but in this case, the choice of Azure over AWS was due to government corruption, rather than actual technical diligence.
- reallydontask 7y agois there any evidence backing this?
- psv1 7y agoThere's enough evidence for Amazon to take legal action. Then the courts decide if it's good enough.
- crystaldev 7y agoSo you mean zero, right? There's no evidence benchmark for a party taking legal action in a civil matter. Saying "you'll be hearing from my lawyer" doesn't strengthen an argument.
- psv1 7y agoI don't know what evidence they have. Not sure why you decided that it's zero.
- crystaldev 7y agoI decided based on your statement: > There's enough evidence for Amazon to take legal action. The "enough" here is zero. They may have more, but you argued for at least zero.
- psv1 7y ago> The "enough" here is zero. No, it isn't. Legally it might be zero, but multi-billion dollar companies don't enter legal processes that last years and cost them millions just for the sake of it. This isn't the same as "you'll hear from my lawyer".
- JackFr 7y agoNothing attracts lawyers like the smell of $10 billion.
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y agoThis could be genius if the rates are locked in. 1) Price services at current rates today. 2) Delay usage for 4 years until everything costs half as much. 3) Profit $$$
- bduerst 7y agoThis is usually factored in by the procurement group though, along with discounts relative to purchasing power.