6 ms·

While you may not take this as proof it affected this exact decision, it's hard to ignore it as a possible reason. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/amazon-wants

While you may not take this as proof it affected this exact decision, it's hard to ignore it as a possible reason. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/amazon-wants-to-depose-president-trump-over-jedi-cloud-contract-loss.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/amazon-wants-to-depose-presi...

tbrownaw 2y ago
Updates... JEDI was cancelled (article also mentions results of investigations into Amazon's claims): https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/06/pentagon-cancels-10-billion-jedi-cloud-contract.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/06/pentagon-cancels-10-billion-... The lawsuit got tossed because it didn't matter any more: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-ends-amazon-challenge-10-bln-cloud-contract-after-pentagon-cancellation-2021-07-09/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-ends-amazo... The replacement program somehow includes all three of the usual suspects, plus Oracle: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3239378/department-of-defense-announces-joint-warfighting-cloud-capability-procurement/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/323937...
dmix 2y ago
Bezos wants to help elect someone who (his lawyers allege) killed a gov contract favourable to his own business? Or did I misread your comment.
- a123b456c 2y ago
  I think the implicit argument is that he wants to avoid more canceled contracts, along with other forms of retribution like personal attacks he experienced a few years earlier.
  - dmix 2y ago
    Maybe but Bezos is not lacking money. That contract was $1B/yr contract over ten years. They make $600B+ a year. Not exactly going to tip the scales of his stock options. These billionaires usually buy money losing newspapers, or social networks, for personal reasons. If I was going to bet on it I’d very much lean on a personal motive beyond money.
    - DiscourseFan 2y ago
      Its a general posture. Amazon is an industrial powerhouse and Trump has signaled that he can and will attack his political opponents no matter how rich they are. If he wants to, Trump may actually nationalize Amazon; the alternative is presumably becoming his toady.
      - cryptonector 2y ago
        See "the steel cases". The POTUS cannot unilaterally nationalize any businesses.
        dragonwriter 2y ago
        See Dobbs and Loper Bright, past precedent previously viewed as solid and well-established is no guarantee of future outcomes with this Court.
        cryptonector 2y ago
        Or Brown vs. Board of Education. The courts can change their minds once in a while. There are no indicia that this court wants to overturn the steel cases.
        Gooblebrai 2y ago
        More context? A search on Google doesn't bring anything useful to me.
        kalleboo 2y ago
        My googling turned up this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._...
        kalleboo 2y ago
        The current Supreme Court has been pretty clear that there is no such thing as settled case law anymore
  - chipdart 2y ago
    > I think the implicit argument is that he wants to avoid more canceled contracts, along with other forms of retribution like personal attacks he experienced a few years earlier. That makes no sense at all. If the primary concern was avoiding canceled contracts, it would be in his best interests to ensure that the guy who is threatening to cancel contracts out of spite would not be elected. Pressuring the Washington Post to not endorse the candidate who does not pose that threat goes exactly against that. It's something else.
    - FrojoS 2y ago
      It sure makes sense. The endorsement is extremely unlikely to decide the election. On the contrary, the chance that the endorsement will lead to retribution after a lost election is arguably much higher. They think it happened last time around. You can say it's cowardly to act like this. But it does make sense.
      - heresie-dabord 2y ago
        > say it's cowardly to act like this. But it does make sense. So cowardice has been the greater virtue all along? Has it come to this, that political cowardice makes sense? That it makes sense when Democracy itself is at risk? That it makes sense in Journalism? That it makes sense at the newspaper of Bob Woodward [1] , now run by a billionaire with no guts to stand for Democracy itself? That other oligarchs are tilting the election towards the obvious insanity of a leader who, in word and deed, will dismantle Democracy to indulge himself and his cronies? We have sanewashed madness and the end of Democracy. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Dies_in_Darkness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Dies_in_Darkness
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Yes this is the problem of oligarchies
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ipaddr 2y ago
  He wants to avoid the wealth and capital gains tax on unrealized assets.
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  The theory is that Bezos is scared of endorsing Harris then seeing Trump elected.
- dclowd9901 2y ago
  It can be hard to understand something if you wish not to understand it. It’s pretty simple here: he didn’t endorse Trump. But he doesn’t want to get on his bad side in the case he is elected. Make sure you take a moment to comb your moral fabric and see if that jibes with how you think the world should work.

tbrownaw 2y ago

Updates... JEDI was cancelled (article also mentions results of investigations into Amazon's claims): https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/06/pentagon-cancels-10-billion-jedi-cloud-contract.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/06/pentagon-cancels-10-billion-... The lawsuit got tossed because it didn't matter any more: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-ends-amazon-challenge-10-bln-cloud-contract-after-pentagon-cancellation-2021-07-09/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-ends-amazo... The replacement program somehow includes all three of the usual suspects, plus Oracle: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3239378/department-of-defense-announces-joint-warfighting-cloud-capability-procurement/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/323937...

dmix 2y ago

Bezos wants to help elect someone who (his lawyers allege) killed a gov contract favourable to his own business? Or did I misread your comment.

a123b456c 2y ago
I think the implicit argument is that he wants to avoid more canceled contracts, along with other forms of retribution like personal attacks he experienced a few years earlier.
- dmix 2y ago
  Maybe but Bezos is not lacking money. That contract was $1B/yr contract over ten years. They make $600B+ a year. Not exactly going to tip the scales of his stock options. These billionaires usually buy money losing newspapers, or social networks, for personal reasons. If I was going to bet on it I’d very much lean on a personal motive beyond money.
  - DiscourseFan 2y ago
    Its a general posture. Amazon is an industrial powerhouse and Trump has signaled that he can and will attack his political opponents no matter how rich they are. If he wants to, Trump may actually nationalize Amazon; the alternative is presumably becoming his toady.
    - cryptonector 2y ago
      See "the steel cases". The POTUS cannot unilaterally nationalize any businesses.
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        See Dobbs and Loper Bright, past precedent previously viewed as solid and well-established is no guarantee of future outcomes with this Court.
        cryptonector 2y ago
        Or Brown vs. Board of Education. The courts can change their minds once in a while. There are no indicia that this court wants to overturn the steel cases.
      - Gooblebrai 2y ago
        More context? A search on Google doesn't bring anything useful to me.
        kalleboo 2y ago
        My googling turned up this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._...
      - kalleboo 2y ago
        The current Supreme Court has been pretty clear that there is no such thing as settled case law anymore
- chipdart 2y ago
  > I think the implicit argument is that he wants to avoid more canceled contracts, along with other forms of retribution like personal attacks he experienced a few years earlier. That makes no sense at all. If the primary concern was avoiding canceled contracts, it would be in his best interests to ensure that the guy who is threatening to cancel contracts out of spite would not be elected. Pressuring the Washington Post to not endorse the candidate who does not pose that threat goes exactly against that. It's something else.
  - FrojoS 2y ago
    It sure makes sense. The endorsement is extremely unlikely to decide the election. On the contrary, the chance that the endorsement will lead to retribution after a lost election is arguably much higher. They think it happened last time around. You can say it's cowardly to act like this. But it does make sense.
    - heresie-dabord 2y ago
      > say it's cowardly to act like this. But it does make sense. So cowardice has been the greater virtue all along? Has it come to this, that political cowardice makes sense? That it makes sense when Democracy itself is at risk? That it makes sense in Journalism? That it makes sense at the newspaper of Bob Woodward [1] , now run by a billionaire with no guts to stand for Democracy itself? That other oligarchs are tilting the election towards the obvious insanity of a leader who, in word and deed, will dismantle Democracy to indulge himself and his cronies? We have sanewashed madness and the end of Democracy. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Dies_in_Darkness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Dies_in_Darkness
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Yes this is the problem of oligarchies
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ipaddr 2y ago
He wants to avoid the wealth and capital gains tax on unrealized assets.
unethical_ban 2y ago
The theory is that Bezos is scared of endorsing Harris then seeing Trump elected.
dclowd9901 2y ago
It can be hard to understand something if you wish not to understand it. It’s pretty simple here: he didn’t endorse Trump. But he doesn’t want to get on his bad side in the case he is elected. Make sure you take a moment to comb your moral fabric and see if that jibes with how you think the world should work.