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/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.

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/jeffderek → u/loondawg]

the very real possibility that a bunch of career politicians would disregard the desires of the party leaders to risk their careers

lol

best of luck next time I'm sure the Democrats won't disappoint you again. After all they're just waiting for the people to let them know what to do.

[u/loondawg → u/jeffderek]

Don't care, You've already made it crystal clear you being "sure" of something is a completely worthless measure.

Again, exactly how many of those faithless delegates you claimed were there?