4 ms·

This is a lot of words to miss a basic point. In those examples, the contract was sent out for bids, won by Starlink, then signed. In this case it was given to

This is a lot of words to miss a basic point. In those examples, the contract was sent out for bids, won by Starlink, then signed. In this case it was given to another vendor through the same process, then that contract is being cancelled and awarded (without, as far as I know, any further bidding process) to the person making decisions in the US government. This isn't some deep or complicated point. Surely you cannot write that many coherent sentences and fail to understand the issue here, right? I can only assume you are arguing in bad faith.

NitpickLawyer 2y ago
> In this case it was given to another vendor through the same process, then that contract is being cancelled and awarded (without, as far as I know, any further bidding process) No. In this case wapo (hah, no conflict of interest there) is reporting that "unnamed sources" are claiming that this is happening. Nothing has happened yet, but everyone is crying wolf, on a "people say" tangent. Yeah, and I'm the one arguing in bad faith.
- DannyBee 2y ago
  Both can be true - you definitely know that the main concern here is that people feel it's a conflict of interest. You deliberately ignore the fact that all the instances you listed were done through proper procurement processes, and so far, reporting does not suggest this one is. You then try to use it against someone here, amusingly. It certainly may be wrong reporting! But arguing that this is identity politics or whatever is definitely bad faith - this entire thread is full of people concerned that this is not going through the normal process, and appears to have happened after Elon complained about the existing contract, and exerted influence on the situation, despite stating (and others stating) he would not involve himself in things that are a conflict of interest. So, in good faith, what, precisely, is your argument that this is not a clear conflict of interest? He should have not offered an opinion, or been involved, in any way, with anything here. That's what it means to recuse from a conflict of interest. Instead, regardless of whether the reporting about the process is wrong, he has literally offered multiple opinions and appears to be trying to exert influence. You don't need reporting for this - you can get it directly from the source - Elon himself. You also don't even have to guess or opine what it means to have a conflict of interest or what is required in this case - FAR is pretty thorough. Meanwhile, you are complaining that this is bad faith identity politics, and "wondering" why you are downvoted.
  - NitpickLawyer 2y ago
    > So, in good faith, what, precisely, is your argument that this is not a clear conflict of interest? The fact that spx has had 30+b worth of contracts and the us gov saved probably double that on those contracts, and that those contracts delivered, and the usgov is happy. (for context, spx doesn't bid for "cost+" contracts, it only bids for fixed price. e.g. the entire crew dragon programe was half the cost of their competitors, they've launched everything in tranche1, half of tranche2, and are still the only provider that can reliably fly to the ISS)
    - DannyBee 2y ago
      Literally none of that has any relevance to whether it's a conflict of interest, and whether he should have recused. How do you not see that? How can you possibly, in good faith, think that "some of these contracts went well and saved money" has any relationship to whether something is a conflict of interest or not. Do you just not understand what a conflict of interest is? Or do you really think conflicts of interest don't exist if "ends justify means" or "they have the best interests of the government at heart" or something really out there like this? If so, this is a pointless discussion, and man you should take a business ethics (or conflicts of interest) class, because you don't really don't seem to understand conflicts at all. Or at the very least read the authoritative source I gave you of what a conflict of interest is for the purposes of federal contracting, that you seem to have completely ignored. The same way you completely ignored that even in your weird world of what a conflict in, in this case, he literally said he would recuse himself, and did not. Which, whether it saves government money, or whatever the heck, is definitely unethical. So overall, based on your response i'd say you are either not having this discussion in good faith, or you are so unequipped to meaningfully participate in this discussion that people are mistaking it for you arguing in bad faith.
  - natch 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - natch 2y ago
    What is your evidence that he was involved in the decision?
natch 2y ago
There are inquiries happening now into waste, fraud, and abuse. It's not surprising that as poorly decided contract decisions are going to come under review, some may be overturned or cancelled. There's no evidence saying Verizon has a larger footprint than Starlink. So if it turns out Starlink has much better coverage (surprise, surprise, it does) then that's a big red flag. This isn't some deep or complicated point. You should not accuse bad faith and I won't assume it of you. But there is a lot of derangement right now, because a lot of people are in bubbles and consuming lies and hate. The poster you replied to was perfectly reasonable, but you showed you have no clue that there's an effort underway to discover and cancel contracts that had been awarded with corruption. Not knowing that may not be bad faith on your part, but it's on you to stay informed before accusing others of bad faith.

NitpickLawyer 2y ago

> In this case it was given to another vendor through the same process, then that contract is being cancelled and awarded (without, as far as I know, any further bidding process) No. In this case wapo (hah, no conflict of interest there) is reporting that "unnamed sources" are claiming that this is happening. Nothing has happened yet, but everyone is crying wolf, on a "people say" tangent. Yeah, and I'm the one arguing in bad faith.

DannyBee 2y ago
Both can be true - you definitely know that the main concern here is that people feel it's a conflict of interest. You deliberately ignore the fact that all the instances you listed were done through proper procurement processes, and so far, reporting does not suggest this one is. You then try to use it against someone here, amusingly. It certainly may be wrong reporting! But arguing that this is identity politics or whatever is definitely bad faith - this entire thread is full of people concerned that this is not going through the normal process, and appears to have happened after Elon complained about the existing contract, and exerted influence on the situation, despite stating (and others stating) he would not involve himself in things that are a conflict of interest. So, in good faith, what, precisely, is your argument that this is not a clear conflict of interest? He should have not offered an opinion, or been involved, in any way, with anything here. That's what it means to recuse from a conflict of interest. Instead, regardless of whether the reporting about the process is wrong, he has literally offered multiple opinions and appears to be trying to exert influence. You don't need reporting for this - you can get it directly from the source - Elon himself. You also don't even have to guess or opine what it means to have a conflict of interest or what is required in this case - FAR is pretty thorough. Meanwhile, you are complaining that this is bad faith identity politics, and "wondering" why you are downvoted.
- NitpickLawyer 2y ago
  > So, in good faith, what, precisely, is your argument that this is not a clear conflict of interest? The fact that spx has had 30+b worth of contracts and the us gov saved probably double that on those contracts, and that those contracts delivered, and the usgov is happy. (for context, spx doesn't bid for "cost+" contracts, it only bids for fixed price. e.g. the entire crew dragon programe was half the cost of their competitors, they've launched everything in tranche1, half of tranche2, and are still the only provider that can reliably fly to the ISS)
  - DannyBee 2y ago
    Literally none of that has any relevance to whether it's a conflict of interest, and whether he should have recused. How do you not see that? How can you possibly, in good faith, think that "some of these contracts went well and saved money" has any relationship to whether something is a conflict of interest or not. Do you just not understand what a conflict of interest is? Or do you really think conflicts of interest don't exist if "ends justify means" or "they have the best interests of the government at heart" or something really out there like this? If so, this is a pointless discussion, and man you should take a business ethics (or conflicts of interest) class, because you don't really don't seem to understand conflicts at all. Or at the very least read the authoritative source I gave you of what a conflict of interest is for the purposes of federal contracting, that you seem to have completely ignored. The same way you completely ignored that even in your weird world of what a conflict in, in this case, he literally said he would recuse himself, and did not. Which, whether it saves government money, or whatever the heck, is definitely unethical. So overall, based on your response i'd say you are either not having this discussion in good faith, or you are so unequipped to meaningfully participate in this discussion that people are mistaking it for you arguing in bad faith.
- natch 2y ago
  [flagged]
- natch 2y ago
  What is your evidence that he was involved in the decision?

natch 2y ago

There are inquiries happening now into waste, fraud, and abuse. It's not surprising that as poorly decided contract decisions are going to come under review, some may be overturned or cancelled. There's no evidence saying Verizon has a larger footprint than Starlink. So if it turns out Starlink has much better coverage (surprise, surprise, it does) then that's a big red flag. This isn't some deep or complicated point. You should not accuse bad faith and I won't assume it of you. But there is a lot of derangement right now, because a lot of people are in bubbles and consuming lies and hate. The poster you replied to was perfectly reasonable, but you showed you have no clue that there's an effort underway to discover and cancel contracts that had been awarded with corruption. Not knowing that may not be bad faith on your part, but it's on you to stay informed before accusing others of bad faith.