They'll have to get in line behind Louisiana

I don't see why this is downvoted. It is a reasonable question.

We are told this work will grow the economy. When asked how, they point to companies that are losing money hand over fist. It doesn't make sense and voters are not stupid.

It's not all rosy in multi-party systems. Those 8-9 candidates are chosen by party leaders, not open-primaries. There is no such thing as a gun rights democrat or a pro-choice republican.

No the bulk of the public invests in some form and much of industry gets funding. It would probably function better without the assholes.

You have a very shallow understanding of economics. "Less regulation" is great if you can't think beyond next quarter. "Good regulation" is what keeps the economy healthy long-term.

They also have a very short-term outlook. Deregulation of derivatives was great for the market, until it caused a massive financial crisis.

> Obviously the party and candidates which promote less regulation are preferable to the stock market.

For a while...

In your understanding, what do you think caused the last few recessions?

Abortion bans, book bans, trans bans, voter ID laws and so forth are regulation. It's "regulation for thee but not for me".

Republicans are not the party of "less regulation". That's another of these myths they use like "states rights" or "fiscal responsibility".

Don’t let one bad sector ruin the whole disk

It's easy to get that constant propaganda when every single item you interact with has "Made in China" printed on it

'Data centres bad, they use oceans of water everyday, they said it on the news, defund the police, vote Jihadi Communist Party they will provide growth to our economy'

It's just the extension of the Soviets living rent free in every single American mind. Americans can't comprehend a world in which a perfidious communist menace doesn't lurk behind every shadow, whispering anti-Christian and anti-capitalist lies into the virgin ears of their youth.

Not to justify those problems, but there are direct comparisons of those problems in the US. More recently with the human rights issues with ICE, though this is certainly not a new issue it has been ramped up over the years, but territorial ambitions, though less direct, have been US policy for over 60 years. Recently you have Iran and Palestine of course, but the US has been overthrowing democratically elected leaders in particularly South American countries for a while now. As I say, less direct than sending troops in and taking over literally, but installing a puppet leader in these countries is certainly grounds for "territorial ambition".

As I say, I don't want to dismiss what China is doing as "well the US are doing it too", it's just worth pointing out if that's a red line for a global power

By all metrics, PRC objectively, the most benevolent raising power in recorded history.

1. Reeducating/integrating restive minorities instead of actually geocoding them and winning their war on terror without droning all the school children. Nobel Peace prize stuff.

2. Inheriting all border disputes from ROC, then settling 11/13 land, essentially all with more concessions. Even 5 way SCS, PRC first to concede 11 dash down to9 dash. AKA not only did PRC not initiatate any disputes, they settled majority vs reasonable parties and now manages rest vs frankly petulant chidren, i.e. India (bhutan who can't settle because India) and most SCS claimants... TLDR autistic democracies who demand 100% instead of some sort of split - aka utterly retarded position given to losers of wars. This the kind of absurd idiocy PRC magnanimity gracefully handling.

3. We tried flipflop US democracy that still manage to bomb kids under every administration almost every year. I'm sure pretty sure there are better recipes to try.

TLDR: Once you put down the the libtard koolaid, PRC should be getting literally every Nobel Peace prize for how benevolent they've been.

I don't think the debate is so much about whether to build data centers as much about where to build them. In an ideal setting, the government identifies land suitable for industrial purpose, carves out dedicated zones, provisioned with necessary power and utilities, where industries can go and setup without intruding into somebody's status quo. The data center buildout at this time is happening at such a pace that they've has exhausted most of the existing zoned options, and unwilling to wait for new zones to be planned, are going out purchasing ad-hoc pieces of land and covertly having them rezoned for industrial purposes. This might sometimes might mean industries popping up behind somebody's residence or in an already resource constrained area. If you look deep, it's actually a fight between those who want to bypass urban planning in the interest of speeding up industrial development versus those who insist it is necessary.

You're expecting a nuanced debate from an electorate that has had this distilled into a purely Boolean issue: bad or good

The position of a pro-build democrat is untenable, when their running mates have successfully painted datacenters as dark portals to the ninth level of hell

I should clarify: I'm not talking about Texas; this trope was used across the country this election cycle, even at the most local of local elections.

Dog-catcher candidates were taking disingenuous anti-datacenter stances if they thought it could get them votes.