The majority of American (voters) choose Trump. The statement is still true.
You understood what I meant tho, as you instantly provided stats relating to the vote and not in the context of all Americans which would also include the people who are not eglible to vote but can still be Americans.
I have no idea what the will of all Americans is, but I can confidently and truthfully state the Americans that voted chose Trump by majority.
Not good at math but pretty sure 49.8% is more than 48.3%.
Example:
The most votes cast went to Trump so the majority voted for him.
Super interesting that English and German speaking populations have such a different interpretation on such an important topic of our democracies, that this caused an argument between us, when it really shouldn't because I need to respect your interpretation because it's true and vice versa.
Had worse starts into my Friday. Thanks for taking time out of your day for this exchange.
It does deserve scrutiny, but historically speaking swapping from legacy vendors to SpaceX or Starlink tends to result in cost savings for taxpayers.
I would bet that is also the case in this instance, and the media’s outage needs to be tempered until they do the leg work to actual understand the cost effectiveness of this change, and how the decision was made.
I think the point here is not savings it’s the appearance of (or actual) corruption/capture. It might be cheaper now, because he’s aware of scrutiny, but will it be cheaper when this cools down? Also, isn’t the point of govt bidding that we end up with the cheapest anyway, so that he would win anyway? So why does he need a shortcut?
Even if it was cheaper, permanently, I just don't think that the CEO of the company doing the contract should be in charge of the decision to choose that company.
Since governments are positions of power and demand trust, the appearance of not being corrupt is almost as important as the actual act of not being corrupt.
Personally I don't know that I think that any acting CEO should be in charge of government decisions, but even if I was more amenable to that, I think we shouldn't have one who will directly financially benefit from these decisions. It just gives an appearance of impropriety, and it erodes trust in our institutions, which I think are important. I would be similarly against the Verizon CEO being in charge of this decision.
Suppose they hired a disinterested third party, someone with experience with communications infrastructure, who doesn't stand to directly benefit from this [1], and then that person determined that Starlink was actually the best product for the money for this; that would be fine. I'm not opposed to everything that the Diablo cheater has ever breathed on, and if Starlink is the best tool for the job then it's totally fine to use it.
[1] I know everyone has an S&P500 fund or something, so most professionals in the US could indirectly benefit.
Even if it is cheaper, it’s a very clear and obvious conflict of interest. There’s 350 million people in this country; choose one that doesn’t have a direct financial interest in this. If that person says Starlink, then that’s fine.
The media outrage right now is completely justified.
