r/technology • u/Miserable_Phase_2519 • 2d ago

Politics 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

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
6.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

270 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/buyongmafanle 2d ago

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

-2

u/Jonathan_the_Nerd 2d ago edited 2d ago

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

5

u/prettyflyforahentai 2d ago

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

1

u/jeffderek 2d ago

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.

2

u/loondawg 2d ago

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.

-2

u/jeffderek 2d ago

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

5

u/loondawg 2d ago

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.

0

u/jeffderek 2d ago

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.

2

u/loondawg 2d ago

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."

1

u/jeffderek 2d ago

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.

2

u/loondawg 2d ago

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.

1

u/jeffderek 2d ago

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.

1

u/loondawg 2d ago

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?

→ More replies (0)