Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.

‘Cost Me the Election’: Data Centers Trigger Voter Backlash

posted by hubie on Sunday June 28, @12:19PM   Printer-friendly

owl writes:

https://www.newsweek.com/cost-me-the-election-data-centers-trigger-voter-backlash-12118327

A wave of voter anger over massive data center projects is beginning to reshape U.S. politics, with local officials and senior lawmakers losing elections after backing controversial developments tied to the artificial intelligence boom.

In Utah on Wednesday, State Senate President J. Stuart Adams—one of the most powerful Republicans in the state—lost his primary election after supporting a major data center development near the Great Salt Lake, in one of the clearest signs yet of the growing political risks tied to the industry.

At the local level, the fallout was just as direct. "Do I think that the data center vote cost me the election? Yes I do," former Box Elder County Commissioner Lee Perry said after conceding his primary race, after voting to advance the same project.

Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
‘Cost Me the Election’: Data Centers Trigger Voter Backlash | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 44 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 30, @11:42AM (6 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30, @11:42AM (#1446719) Journal
    I also noted before that the problem was equal treatment under law not free speech. For whatever reason, Congress refused to completely ban such speech for everyone (I still think the First Amendment is more than adequate to explain why that happened). So one set of rules for certain people and a more restrictive set for other people. Real people not the corporate personhood people.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30, @03:39PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30, @03:39PM (#1446753)

    So one set of rules for certain people and a more restrictive set for other people. Real people not the corporate personhood people.

    A corporation is comprised of a group of people. But that group is not a separate person. The group may have some of the powers and responsibilities of an individual, biological person, but that does not make it a person.

    Can corporations marry each other? Does a corporation have a biological sex at its birth? Does a corporation have a right to vote in elections? Can a corporation hold public office?

    If you can't answer yes to all of those questions and provide cogent explanations for why you're saying yes, then it's a sign that corporations aren't people. If you're insisting that corporations are people but can't marry other corporations or hold public office, then you're denying rights to "corporate personhood people" that you provide to real people.

    So are you going to continue to gaslight everyone that "corporate personhood people" are actual people?

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 30, @06:14PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30, @06:14PM (#1446775) Journal
      There was a reason I wrote: "Real people not the corporate personhood people." It was to forestall arguments about same sex corporation marriages. Why would you suggest something unnatural like that?

      My point was that rights are being taken from real people not legal constructs.

      So are you going to continue to gaslight everyone that "corporate personhood people" are actual people?

      Are you going to read?

  • (Score: 2) by aafcac on Tuesday June 30, @04:37PM (3 children)

    by aafcac (17646) on Tuesday June 30, @04:37PM (#1446763)

    They already had, there were campaign donation limits that had been in place prior to those rulings. And, it's not like SCOTUS hasn't been going well out of it's way to invent reasons why you can't regulate that stuff.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 30, @06:16PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 30, @06:16PM (#1446776) Journal

      They already had, there were campaign donation limits that had been in place prior to those rulings. And, it's not like SCOTUS hasn't been going well out of it's way to invent reasons why you can't regulate that stuff.

      And those unconstitutional limits were gone afterward. Funny how that works!

      • (Score: 2) by aafcac on Wednesday July 01, @03:21AM (1 child)

        by aafcac (17646) on Wednesday July 01, @03:21AM (#1446828)

        They're not a unconstitutional, SCOTUS ruled them to be, which is kind of funny as the court gave itself the right to declare things to be unconstitutional, not the constitution itself.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 01, @05:17AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 01, @05:17AM (#1446831) Journal

          They're not a unconstitutional, SCOTUS ruled them to be,

          Already explained why.

          as the court gave itself the right to declare things to be unconstitutional, not the constitution itself.

          Who should be doing it instead? Trump perhaps? It's one of those implied powers you hear about.