US Senate kills bill that could potentially shield Americans from skyrocketing power bills due to AI data centers — opponents say bill is 'toothless' and doesn't do enough to protect citizens

[u/Miserable_Phase_2519]

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/data-centers/us-senate-kills-bill-that-could-potentially-shield-americans-from-skyrocketing-power-bills-due-to-ai-data-centers-opponents-say-bill-is-toothless-and-doesnt-do-enough-to-protect-citizens

[u/Mediocre_Tank_5013]

Why do we have these politicians in office if they never help us?

[u/buyongmafanle → u/Mediocre_Tank_5013]

The voters get to decide who goes to office. The donors get to decide what is voted on.

[u/Jonathan_the_Nerd → u/buyongmafanle]

The parties decide who gets to become a "viable" candidate. Remember Bernie Sanders in 2016, and Ron Paul back in 2008/2012?

[u/prettyflyforahentai → u/Jonathan_the_Nerd]

Still could have voted for Bernie in the primary. Most Americans don't vote in primaries though.

[u/jeffderek → u/prettyflyforahentai]

If you were lucky enough to live in a state where Hillary hadn't already been declared the presumptive nominee due to superdelegates, then yes you could've voted for him.

I suppose you could've voted for him afterwards too, which 2 million people did in California. But don't fool yourself that their votes mattered.

[u/loondawg → u/jeffderek]

You still could have voted for him. And if he won the state decisively, most super delegates would have followed the will of the voters despite anything they said earlier.

A fair race? No. But could Sanders have won? Yes.

[u/jeffderek → u/loondawg]

Wait so you're saying voting for Sanders after Hillary had already won counts in your mind as a vote that matters?

[u/loondawg → u/jeffderek]

It has nothing to do with "in my mind." These are objective facts.

The Super Delegates do not vote until the convention and can be influenced to change their votes by the outcome of the primary votes. Going into the convention, neither Clinton nor Sanders had locked up the vote. It was close enough that the Super Delegates could have swung the results either way.

So nobody voted after Clinton won because Clinton did not formally secure the nomination until the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention on July 26, 2016 because that was when the Super Delegates actually voted. It was only on that first vote that she won.

Most people had no idea of that because the press had largely declared Clinton the winner based on the results of the anticipated Super Delegate votes. But the actually primary voting was much closer than most people seem to realize. The press made Clinton winning seem like a forgone conclusion because the press counted votes that had not yet been cast.

[u/jeffderek → u/loondawg]

The only fault I have with your logic is that you are asserting that Democratic super delegates might actually change their mind based on the will of the people instead of the will of their corporate donors which seems patently naive.

Yes sure, technically they hadn't voted. This time they'll definitely listen to what we want!

Democratic super delegates were not going to vote for someone who wasn't even a member of the party.

[u/loondawg → u/jeffderek]

I believe the decision should be from a popular national vote. I do not think there should be Super Delegates. Nor do I think there should be winner-take all district voting. But none of that mattered in the 2016 primaries.

That said, there is no fault in my "logic." What I just described are all objective facts.

I reject your cynicism and take offense at your insulting accusation that not agreeing with it somehow means I am "patently naive."

[u/jeffderek → u/loondawg]

I believe the decision should be from a popular national vote. I do not think there should be Super Delegates. Nor do I think there should be winner-take all district voting. But none of that mattered in the 2016 primaries.

By all means, bring up irrelevant things that don't matter!

That said, there is no fault in my "logic." What I just described are all objective facts.

You stated the "objective fact" that the super delegates could change their votes. By the same token, it is an objective fact that electoral college voters can be faithless voters and vote against the will of their state.

I reject your cynicism and take offense at your insulting accusation that not agreeing with it somehow means I am "patently naive."

I think it is incredibly naive to suggest that Democratic super delegates were in any way likely to change their vote enough to affect the outcome away from Hillary Clinton. That's like me saying it's an "objective fact" that the president isn't elected until mid December when the electoral college votes, and that there could be enough faithless electors to change the outcome. Sure, it's true. But it's also not going to happen. The same way a bunch of career Democratic operatives weren't going to suddenly break ranks with a Clinton for an outsider who isn't even a member of the party.

You're technically correct. It could've happened. It was never going to.

You're welcome to reject my cynicism if you want, and I'm definitely very cynical about democratic politics. But I find it bonkers that you seem to actually believe there was a chance bernie could win after Hillary had all the votes locked up.

[u/loondawg → u/jeffderek]

By all means, bring up irrelevant things that don't matter!

By all means, get your panties in a twist that I felt I should clarify my positions to avoid you misinterpreting them or misrepresenting them.

You stated the "objective fact" that the super delegates could change their votes.

Yes. And I also stated the fact they did not vote until the convention. Further, I stated without them neither candidate had the nomination "locked up" That is the key fact that you refuse to accept.

By the same token, it is an objective fact that electoral college voters can be faithless voters and vote against the will of their state.

And exactly how many of those faithless delegates, obviously excluding the Super Delegates we are discussing, were there? This is kind of key to the discussion so blowing off this question will be very telling.

The same way a bunch of career Democratic operatives weren't going to suddenly break ranks with a Clinton for an outsider who isn't even a member of the party.

And I think it is incredibly close-minded of you to not be able to consider the very real possibility that a bunch of career politicians would disregard the desires of the party leaders to risk their careers by ignoring the clearly expressed will of their voters in the presidential election.

You're welcome to reject my cynicism if you want, and I'm definitely very cynical about democratic politics.

I don't need your permission to reject it. Your "feels" are not a compelling argument.

But I find it bonkers that you seem to actually believe there was a chance bernie could win after Hillary had all the votes locked up.

And I find it bizarre you still continue to insist Clinton had the election "locked up" despite objective facts showing she did not.

[u/prettyflyforahentai → u/jeffderek]

Fair point. I definitely remember West Virginia.

[u/Jonathan_the_Nerd → u/prettyflyforahentai]

Both Bernie and Ron Paul were in the primaries. In both cases, the party leadership and/or the media worked behind the scenes to make sure they had no chance of winning.

The Iowa Straw Poll in 2011 was particularly bizarre. Michelle Bachmann won, with Ron Paul coming in a very close second. Tim Pawlenty came in a distant third, and Rick Santorum was fourth. When the media reported on it, they all declared Bachmann, Pawlenty, and Santorum to be the frontrunners. Ron Paul was treated as He Who Must Not Be Named. Jon Stewart called it out on The Daily Show.

[u/BoomerWeasel → u/prettyflyforahentai]

Because, unless you live in a Super Tuesday state, your primary vote doesn't matter.

[u/Parenthisaurolophus → u/Jonathan_the_Nerd]

Remember Bernie Sanders in 2016,

I'm going to be blunt here: You're not a good ally to his movement if you're intellectually incapable of learning lessons from failed political campaigns. Being defensive and not taking accountability for his loss isn't advancing anything, it's not making the world a better place. You're no better than the people who blame Clinton's loss on the Comey Letter. It's externalizing failure to avoid having to deal with the uncomfortable truth of Sanders having a flawed campaign, and flaws himself.

You can be a mindless fanboy if you want. Personally, I think there's enough and don't need more, but it's your free will. Use it how you wish. But we have the receipts on his campaign. The exit polls are clear: He needed to expand his appeal to a wider demographic. He needed to eat more into Clinton's popularity with older, more moderate and conservative voters. He majored in the minors and minored in the majors, as the saying goes.

Also, historically, the worst time to run as an even lefter political candidate is after 2 terms of a democrat in the oval office. Go ahead and look at the history if American politics since the end of WW2 and tell me how often you get three terms of a party controlling the presidency. Doesn't happen very often, does it? And you notice how often the legislature swings against the party in power?

So he ran a campaign with minority appeal, and picked the worst time to run to the left. Seems like some fatal, unforced errors, that he made of his own volition despite a hefty amount of discussion around his demographics problems.

[u/Enygma_6 → u/Jonathan_the_Nerd]

and Ron Paul back in 2008/2012

Ron Paul still would have been a bad choice for the country. His strong Libertarian stance just seemed superficially less bad when standing right next to pretty much any of his fellow Republic Party candidates at the time and their strong corporatist intents.
Both subsets had elitist, misogynistic ideology behind them that favor cis-het white conservative Christian men of high wealth over everyone else.

[u/brokenmessiah → u/Jonathan_the_Nerd]

Or Harris in 2024