I asked you how Trump is supposedly forcing AI data centers to “get their own power” and instead of giving anything resembling a mechanism, law, EO, or regulatory change, you just grabbed a handful of random “AI investment” headlines and an executive order about human rights sanctions and called that “facts.”
Your logic seems to be...
Meta spends a ton of money on data centers
Apple spends a ton of money on U.S.
manufacturing
Nvidia spends a ton of money on AI hardware
Micron and IBM spend a ton of money on chips and computing
EO 13818 exists (about corrupt foreign officials, not utilities)
Therefore, Trump has already made AI companies build their own power supply so Americans don’t see higher electric bills.
That isn’t evidence, it’s a collage.
Investments ≠ mandates.
Press releases ≠ policy.
An EO about sanctioning foreign human rights abusers ≠ federal authority over how data centers source electricity or how utilities set retail rates.
You didn’t show...
Any law or regulation requiring data centers to build independent power
Any binding agreement where these companies “commit” to shielding U.S. retail customers from rate impacts
Any change to utility, FERC, or PUC rules
Any text that even mentions this “they must pay their own way for power” concept
You basically proved two things...
AI companies exist and spend a lot of money
Presidents can issue executive orders on totally unrelated topics
If that’s your standard of proof, then I guess “There are dolphins” + “NASA went to the moon” = my neighbor is Aquaman.
I asked you how Trump is supposedly forcing AI data centers to “get their own power”
I am not sure when or where you asked that since I said nothing about "get their own power". My comment was, literally: "For those slow on the uptake, Trump is making the enemy pay for all MAGA agenda." and thats what I explained.
you just grabbed a handful of random “AI investment” headlines
Ah, see thats your assumption, because you did not watch the press conference where they all stood next to Trump as he touted how he got them all to invest in the US, and meekly agreed that they were indeed making all these investments. So no, not "random" headlines.
That isn’t evidence, it’s a collage.
If collages don't interest you, you haven't seen a Q drop and you are in the wrong place!
AI companies exist and spend a lot of money
Did I really do just that? See, if you were looking to acquire knowledge rather than prove something (or rather reassure to yourself that Trump hasn't done anything) you would have realised that the only way that statement could be true is if you took the time to check how much money they typically invest in US infrastructure, say from 2020-2024, and then compare it to what I posted.
If there is a significant bounce, then you know its more than "they axist and spent a lot of money"
Any law or regulation requiring data centers to build independent power
Any binding agreement where these companies “commit” to shielding U.S. retail customers from rate impacts
Again, if you think the way the world really works is by binding agreements and regulations, then you are in the wrong place. Those are optics. What eally happens gets decided on in back rooms.
And inb4, no I am not gonna "prove" anything to you. I am not in the business of proving tihngs. I am here to show people what others showed me - how to see behind the veil.
If that does not interest you, its not your thing and you rather believe only what you can see with your eyes - hey, good for you. But you wont find much use from this place, thats not what we do here.
You’re shifting the goalposts and redefining terms as you go.
The original claim was explicit.
The headline and multiple comments framed it as
“Trump is making data centers get their own power so Americans don’t pay higher electricity bills.”
I asked the obvious policy question...How?
Mechanism matters.
You pivoted to:
“Trump is making the enemy pay for MAGA agenda.”
That’s not the same claim, and it doesn’t answer the question.
Press conferences and CEOs standing politely are not mechanisms.
Corporations nodding along at an announcement ≠ mandates, rate structures, utility agreements, energy sourcing requirements, or regulatory changes.
That’s PR optics, not policy implementation.
“Behind the veil” isn’t a substitute for evidence.
You explicitly said:
“If you think the way the world really works is by binding agreements and regulations… Those are optics.”
But the physical world of infrastructure, utilities, and energy markets actually is governed by retail/commercial tariff structures, interconnect agreements, environmental permitting, amd capacity markets.
You don’t get to power a hyperscale data center on “back room vibes.”
If your argument is “it’s real but cannot be proven,” that’s a belief system, not analysis.
When someone says:
“I’m not going to prove anything”
“This gets decided in back rooms”
“If that doesn’t interest you, you’re in the wrong place”
They’re declaring a faith model, not a factual one.
Belief models are fine. Just don’t present them as policy outcomes.
Investment ≠ mandate.
Even if every number you cited is correct, it shows AI companies are spending money on AI infrastructure
It does not show mandatory off-grid power, shielding retail ratepayers, new energy siting law, etc...
Those are different claims entirely.
Bottom line
If your position is “there is no mechanism, no documents, no regulations, and no agreements because this is all behind-the-scenes,” then you’ve essentially confirmed my point.
There is currently no evidence of the specific claim that data centers are being required to ‘get their own power’ so retail customers don’t pay more.
That’s not “normie thinking. That’s how physical infrastructure, utility billing, and policy work. 🤷♀️
Pay attention to what's actually happened here.
The headline made a claim that is not supported by any actual evidence.
I asked if anyone had any actual evidence, because I couldn't find any.
Your response is basically "There isn't any actual evidence because evidence is being hidden."
Now, not even debating if such evidence is actually being hidden or why it's being hidden, you're confirming that I'm correct in saying there is no actual evidence to these claims to be seen.
And then basically crawling up my ass because I dared to ask for evidence to a claim some random person claimed President Trump said by sharing a Truth Social post from President Trump that didn't show what the OP claimed. 🤷♀️
I swear, sometimes I wonder if people think about what it is they're saying, instead of just having a knee jerk reaction of " Someone isn't agreeing with something I want to believe, that means they're my enemy! AAARRRRGGHHHH!!!"(my imagination supplying their battle cry)
You pivoted to: “Trump is making the enemy pay for MAGA agenda.”
When my very first comment on this post is exactly that - it cannot be pivot. You might want take a deep breath and to go back and read what you replied to.
Press conferences and CEOs standing politely are not mechanisms.
Its a data point. Remember that collage we are building? You gotta add all the data points and then see where it leads. And its okay if it leads different people to different places - because there is very little in this world (outside mathematics) that can be proven objectively.
Investment ≠ mandate.
Investment could be a result of a mandate. It could be a result of a lot of other factors. Again, discerning this is not easy and collage is your friend. More data points = closer approximation to reality.
That’s PR optics, not policy implementation.
Again, you are arguing something I never claimed. I never claimed its a "policy implementation". Trump exerts his will and gets things done. Honestly, we dont care what to label it as as long as the results speak for themselves.
You don’t get to power a hyperscale data center on “back room vibes.”
Oh keep watching this movie, Baka, you are gonna enjoy the ending.
Investment ≠ mandate.
Again, never used the word "mandate". Not sure why you are charging at all these random windmills. Remember, all these arguments you are launching is against my single sentence claim "Trump is making the enemy pay for MAGA agenda.” - nothing more nothing less.
You gotta keep that sentence in mind when you charge at me, otherwise you are wasting your energy.
“there is no mechanism, no documents, no regulations, and no agreements because this is all behind-the-scenes,”
Not my position either. "nothing that can be made public at this point". But everything will be made public completely, when the time comes. Dark to light.
Belief models are fine. Just don’t present them as policy outcomes.
Again, never used the word "policy"
There is currently no evidence of the specific claim that data centers are being required to ‘get their own power’ so retail customers don’t pay more.
Okay, I will address this question since you are kind enough to finally pose it to me explicitly.
I think you meant to say "there is documentary evidence", but "evidence" does not need to be only whats written on paper.
For example, if a company plans a data center without requiring upgrades to the local grids, that is a form of evidence. And we have to watch it all unfold to see where it goes.
But again, all documentation will become public when its time.
And then basically crawling up my ass because I dared to ask for evidence to a claim some random person claimed President Trump said by sharing a Truth Social post from President Trump that didn't show what the OP claimed. 🤷♀️
Yikes, I dont like anybody's asses 🤣 Dont let my answers get under your skin. I like to keep conversations going, esp when I feel it might go somewhere, and contrary to what your name might suggest , you actually remind me of myself 6 years ago.
Yeah I was a "normie", "leftie", "intellectual" through and through, and no one changed my mind by "proving" anything to me or providing documentation. They just encouraged me to ask questions and find glitches in the matrix and lead to my own journey and my own answers.
I am only trying to share my journey, not my destination.
I swear, sometimes I wonder if people think about what it is they're saying,
I feel the same way buddy, trust me. Kinda curious, what exactly did I say that got you so riled up?
Ok, let's step back and look at the conversation from the beginning. The sequencing here matters. OP made a specific claim (“Trump is making data centers get their own power”). You replied by embedding that claim into a larger narrative (“Trump is making the enemy pay for the MAGA agenda”), which reads as indirect validation. That’s fine, but it means the two claims are now linked for purposes of scrutiny.
The issue isn’t beliefs, it’s validation mechanics. OP made a claim, and you folded that claim into a bigger narrative as if it’s already true. That functions as support of the original claim. Then when I asked for evidence of any part of that combined construction (the OP's claim and then your larger narrative), you suddenly insist the OP’s claim was never part of the discussion.
That’s how unverified claims get laundered into “common knowledge”: validate first, de-link second, and the original assertion never has to carry evidence. 🤷♀️
My pushback wasn’t about your worldview. It was about the basic question. "Did the OP’s claim actually happen, and by what mechanism?"
If the answer is “it’s behind the scenes and will be made public later,” that’s fine as a belief. But that’s not evidence of a present- tense policy outcome, which is what the OP’s headline asserted, and which you indirectly supported with your original comment in this thread.
You seem to want to be able to support what the OP says by folding it into your outlook that our "enemies are being forced to pay for MAGA agenda" but when I ask you for evidence of this claim, you then want to wash your hands of anything to do with the OP, because you didn't say it. You seem to want to be able to use the OP's claim as evidence of an overall agenda, but you don't want to have the responsibility of verifying that it's legitimate.
I think that this would qualify as having your cake and eating it, too. 🤷♀️
But maybe I just read this all wrong. Maybe you just routinely go around making cryptic replies to posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the post itself. 🤷♀️
In any case, I don't see what's going to be gained from going around and around the same arguments here.
I asked you how Trump is supposedly forcing AI data centers to “get their own power” and instead of giving anything resembling a mechanism, law, EO, or regulatory change, you just grabbed a handful of random “AI investment” headlines and an executive order about human rights sanctions and called that “facts.”
I guess the problem is that you want Trump, or Bb, to say specifically what Trump’s going to do and how, before he does it.
Trump explicitly said, very early on, that our moves would never again be broadcast beforehand. It’s one of those clips that gets played over and over again, and is straight out of Sun Tzu.
You are asking for something nobody either can or will provide, then knocking on attempts at discernment of what’s going on.
You’re reframing the entire issue as “you’re not allowed to ask how because Sun Tzu,” which neatly avoids the original claim.
There are three separate layers here that you’re collapsing into one.
(1) A public policy claim.
The headline asserts something concrete...
“Trump is making AI data centers get their own power.”
That is a checkable, real-world claim about infrastructure and regulation.
(2) A demand for evidence, not clairvoyance.
Asking...
“What mechanism, law, order, or agreement makes this true?”
is not asking for prophecy or operational disclosure. It’s asking for anything in the present tense that makes the claim real rather than aspirational.
(3) Your response replaces evidence with doctrine.
Your argument boils down toTrump won’t broadcast moves therefore it’s invalid to ask for evidence therefore the claim is functionally true by principle, not by proof.
That’s not discernment. That’s faith. Faith has its place, but it’s not the same category as verifying a policy claim.
Here’s the key distinction, if the headline said
“Trump *plans to talk to tech companies about data center power costs,”
there’d be no issue. That matches what we can observe.
But when a headline upgrades that to:
“Trump is making AI companies build their own power"
that requires mechanisms, not Sun Tzu quotes.
And no, asking for present tense evidence is not asking for Trump to “telegraph moves” or “broadcast strategy.”
It’s asking whether the claim reflects reality yet.
If the honest answer is
“This is not happening yet, but we believe it will"
then fine , that’s a prediction, not a fact.
TL;DR: The HEADLINE is making a claim that is not supported by anything in real life.
I'm not sure if people are having such an issue with my request for actual evidence to the claims the HEADLINE makes because they think I'm calling Trump a liar, because they didn't bother to actually read what Trump wrote, and just believe what the HEADLINE says, or because they're upset that I'm poking holes in their hopium balloons that AI Data centers will have to pay for electricity. And if so, is that because they're upset their electric bills are so high and they're shifting their anger onto me because, again, I'm popping their hopium ballons?
He stated the generality publicly. I’m not providing any doctrine here, just interpreting what’s going on through Trump’s statements, framed by other Trump statements.
That’s not discernment. That’s faith.
“Future proves past.”
In the Bible, God sends a prophet, then later fulfills the words He sent that prophet. The method is not known at the time of the prophecy. This is not to deify Trump, but if what’s going on is indeed Biblical, it’s not absurd to imagine that a similar model might be being followed, and trusting that what was said will be done. The future will prove the past, rather than the present will assert the future. It seems as if we are either operating under God’s methodology, or under the Adversary’s imitation, but whichever of them it is, the specifics of how whatever is going on are definitely beyond me.
To put this another, non-religious way, “win first, then go to battle” or “make the deals first, then codify the statutes/laws later”. It’s what the deep state has been doing to us for who-knows-how-many-years.
You’re asking for Trump to fight in a way he’s never fought, and you’re asking anons to provide evidence in a way that likely can’t be done. If the Actuals for this tweet are out there, and I don’t believe they are, then you can feel free to find them.
TLDR: I think we are capable of finding and exposing crimes of the cabal, and knowing directional claims and verificatory methods and information, but not capable of knowing Actuals for things that may currently be classified or undisclosed. If you’re convinced that the thing you want is out there, I suggest you go find it, but I don’t believe we are being told “what’s happening” in real time. “Need to know basis” is not a new thing.
The headline claimed something is happening now (data centers being “made” to get their own power).
I asked the obvious “is that real and how?” question.
If the answer is actually “it’s future” or “it’s behind the scenes,” then the headline is just not true yet, and it’s not crazy to ask for evidence.
Belief about what will happen ≠ proof it already happened.
That’s the whole point. It's just that simple.
Someone is claiming that it's already happening. I ask for evidence that it's happening. People point to a post where Trump is saying what he wants to happen in the future and that he's going to talk to the companies in the future.
And people are upset at me because I'm living in the present, not the future. 🤷♀️
So let me get this straight...
I asked you how Trump is supposedly forcing AI data centers to “get their own power” and instead of giving anything resembling a mechanism, law, EO, or regulatory change, you just grabbed a handful of random “AI investment” headlines and an executive order about human rights sanctions and called that “facts.”
Your logic seems to be... Meta spends a ton of money on data centers
Apple spends a ton of money on U.S. manufacturing
Nvidia spends a ton of money on AI hardware
Micron and IBM spend a ton of money on chips and computing
EO 13818 exists (about corrupt foreign officials, not utilities)
Therefore, Trump has already made AI companies build their own power supply so Americans don’t see higher electric bills.
That isn’t evidence, it’s a collage.
Investments ≠ mandates.
Press releases ≠ policy.
An EO about sanctioning foreign human rights abusers ≠ federal authority over how data centers source electricity or how utilities set retail rates.
You didn’t show...
Any law or regulation requiring data centers to build independent power
Any binding agreement where these companies “commit” to shielding U.S. retail customers from rate impacts
Any change to utility, FERC, or PUC rules
Any text that even mentions this “they must pay their own way for power” concept
You basically proved two things...
AI companies exist and spend a lot of money
Presidents can issue executive orders on totally unrelated topics
If that’s your standard of proof, then I guess “There are dolphins” + “NASA went to the moon” = my neighbor is Aquaman.
🙄
I am not sure when or where you asked that since I said nothing about "get their own power". My comment was, literally: "For those slow on the uptake, Trump is making the enemy pay for all MAGA agenda." and thats what I explained.
Ah, see thats your assumption, because you did not watch the press conference where they all stood next to Trump as he touted how he got them all to invest in the US, and meekly agreed that they were indeed making all these investments. So no, not "random" headlines.
If collages don't interest you, you haven't seen a Q drop and you are in the wrong place!
Did I really do just that? See, if you were looking to acquire knowledge rather than prove something (or rather reassure to yourself that Trump hasn't done anything) you would have realised that the only way that statement could be true is if you took the time to check how much money they typically invest in US infrastructure, say from 2020-2024, and then compare it to what I posted.
If there is a significant bounce, then you know its more than "they axist and spent a lot of money"
Again, if you think the way the world really works is by binding agreements and regulations, then you are in the wrong place. Those are optics. What eally happens gets decided on in back rooms.
And inb4, no I am not gonna "prove" anything to you. I am not in the business of proving tihngs. I am here to show people what others showed me - how to see behind the veil.
If that does not interest you, its not your thing and you rather believe only what you can see with your eyes - hey, good for you. But you wont find much use from this place, thats not what we do here.
You’re shifting the goalposts and redefining terms as you go.
I asked the obvious policy question...How? Mechanism matters.
You pivoted to: “Trump is making the enemy pay for MAGA agenda.”
That’s not the same claim, and it doesn’t answer the question.
Corporations nodding along at an announcement ≠ mandates, rate structures, utility agreements, energy sourcing requirements, or regulatory changes.
That’s PR optics, not policy implementation.
You explicitly said: “If you think the way the world really works is by binding agreements and regulations… Those are optics.”
But the physical world of infrastructure, utilities, and energy markets actually is governed by retail/commercial tariff structures, interconnect agreements, environmental permitting, amd capacity markets.
You don’t get to power a hyperscale data center on “back room vibes.”
When someone says: “I’m not going to prove anything” “This gets decided in back rooms” “If that doesn’t interest you, you’re in the wrong place”
They’re declaring a faith model, not a factual one.
Belief models are fine. Just don’t present them as policy outcomes.
Even if every number you cited is correct, it shows AI companies are spending money on AI infrastructure
It does not show mandatory off-grid power, shielding retail ratepayers, new energy siting law, etc...
Those are different claims entirely.
Bottom line If your position is “there is no mechanism, no documents, no regulations, and no agreements because this is all behind-the-scenes,” then you’ve essentially confirmed my point.
There is currently no evidence of the specific claim that data centers are being required to ‘get their own power’ so retail customers don’t pay more.
That’s not “normie thinking. That’s how physical infrastructure, utility billing, and policy work. 🤷♀️
Pay attention to what's actually happened here.
The headline made a claim that is not supported by any actual evidence.
I asked if anyone had any actual evidence, because I couldn't find any.
Your response is basically "There isn't any actual evidence because evidence is being hidden."
Now, not even debating if such evidence is actually being hidden or why it's being hidden, you're confirming that I'm correct in saying there is no actual evidence to these claims to be seen.
And then basically crawling up my ass because I dared to ask for evidence to a claim some random person claimed President Trump said by sharing a Truth Social post from President Trump that didn't show what the OP claimed. 🤷♀️
I swear, sometimes I wonder if people think about what it is they're saying, instead of just having a knee jerk reaction of " Someone isn't agreeing with something I want to believe, that means they're my enemy! AAARRRRGGHHHH!!!"(my imagination supplying their battle cry)
When my very first comment on this post is exactly that - it cannot be pivot. You might want take a deep breath and to go back and read what you replied to.
Its a data point. Remember that collage we are building? You gotta add all the data points and then see where it leads. And its okay if it leads different people to different places - because there is very little in this world (outside mathematics) that can be proven objectively.
Investment could be a result of a mandate. It could be a result of a lot of other factors. Again, discerning this is not easy and collage is your friend. More data points = closer approximation to reality.
Again, you are arguing something I never claimed. I never claimed its a "policy implementation". Trump exerts his will and gets things done. Honestly, we dont care what to label it as as long as the results speak for themselves.
Oh keep watching this movie, Baka, you are gonna enjoy the ending.
Again, never used the word "mandate". Not sure why you are charging at all these random windmills. Remember, all these arguments you are launching is against my single sentence claim "Trump is making the enemy pay for MAGA agenda.” - nothing more nothing less.
You gotta keep that sentence in mind when you charge at me, otherwise you are wasting your energy.
Not my position either. "nothing that can be made public at this point". But everything will be made public completely, when the time comes. Dark to light.
Again, never used the word "policy"
Okay, I will address this question since you are kind enough to finally pose it to me explicitly.
I think you meant to say "there is documentary evidence", but "evidence" does not need to be only whats written on paper.
For example, if a company plans a data center without requiring upgrades to the local grids, that is a form of evidence. And we have to watch it all unfold to see where it goes.
But again, all documentation will become public when its time.
Yikes, I dont like anybody's asses 🤣 Dont let my answers get under your skin. I like to keep conversations going, esp when I feel it might go somewhere, and contrary to what your name might suggest , you actually remind me of myself 6 years ago.
Yeah I was a "normie", "leftie", "intellectual" through and through, and no one changed my mind by "proving" anything to me or providing documentation. They just encouraged me to ask questions and find glitches in the matrix and lead to my own journey and my own answers.
I am only trying to share my journey, not my destination.
I feel the same way buddy, trust me. Kinda curious, what exactly did I say that got you so riled up?
Ok, let's step back and look at the conversation from the beginning. The sequencing here matters. OP made a specific claim (“Trump is making data centers get their own power”). You replied by embedding that claim into a larger narrative (“Trump is making the enemy pay for the MAGA agenda”), which reads as indirect validation. That’s fine, but it means the two claims are now linked for purposes of scrutiny.
The issue isn’t beliefs, it’s validation mechanics. OP made a claim, and you folded that claim into a bigger narrative as if it’s already true. That functions as support of the original claim. Then when I asked for evidence of any part of that combined construction (the OP's claim and then your larger narrative), you suddenly insist the OP’s claim was never part of the discussion.
That’s how unverified claims get laundered into “common knowledge”: validate first, de-link second, and the original assertion never has to carry evidence. 🤷♀️
My pushback wasn’t about your worldview. It was about the basic question. "Did the OP’s claim actually happen, and by what mechanism?"
If the answer is “it’s behind the scenes and will be made public later,” that’s fine as a belief. But that’s not evidence of a present- tense policy outcome, which is what the OP’s headline asserted, and which you indirectly supported with your original comment in this thread.
You seem to want to be able to support what the OP says by folding it into your outlook that our "enemies are being forced to pay for MAGA agenda" but when I ask you for evidence of this claim, you then want to wash your hands of anything to do with the OP, because you didn't say it. You seem to want to be able to use the OP's claim as evidence of an overall agenda, but you don't want to have the responsibility of verifying that it's legitimate.
I think that this would qualify as having your cake and eating it, too. 🤷♀️
But maybe I just read this all wrong. Maybe you just routinely go around making cryptic replies to posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the post itself. 🤷♀️
In any case, I don't see what's going to be gained from going around and around the same arguments here.
BTW, man, if only you understood the real irony of your username!
u/#topkek
Uh huh
I guess the problem is that you want Trump, or Bb, to say specifically what Trump’s going to do and how, before he does it.
Trump explicitly said, very early on, that our moves would never again be broadcast beforehand. It’s one of those clips that gets played over and over again, and is straight out of Sun Tzu.
You are asking for something nobody either can or will provide, then knocking on attempts at discernment of what’s going on.
You’re reframing the entire issue as “you’re not allowed to ask how because Sun Tzu,” which neatly avoids the original claim.
There are three separate layers here that you’re collapsing into one.
(1) A public policy claim. The headline asserts something concrete...
That is a checkable, real-world claim about infrastructure and regulation.
(2) A demand for evidence, not clairvoyance.
Asking...
is not asking for prophecy or operational disclosure. It’s asking for anything in the present tense that makes the claim real rather than aspirational.
(3) Your response replaces evidence with doctrine. Your argument boils down toTrump won’t broadcast moves therefore it’s invalid to ask for evidence therefore the claim is functionally true by principle, not by proof.
That’s not discernment. That’s faith. Faith has its place, but it’s not the same category as verifying a policy claim.
Here’s the key distinction, if the headline said
But when a headline upgrades that to:
that requires mechanisms, not Sun Tzu quotes.
And no, asking for present tense evidence is not asking for Trump to “telegraph moves” or “broadcast strategy.”
It’s asking whether the claim reflects reality yet.
If the honest answer is
then fine , that’s a prediction, not a fact.
TL;DR: The HEADLINE is making a claim that is not supported by anything in real life.
I'm not sure if people are having such an issue with my request for actual evidence to the claims the HEADLINE makes because they think I'm calling Trump a liar, because they didn't bother to actually read what Trump wrote, and just believe what the HEADLINE says, or because they're upset that I'm poking holes in their hopium balloons that AI Data centers will have to pay for electricity. And if so, is that because they're upset their electric bills are so high and they're shifting their anger onto me because, again, I'm popping their hopium ballons?
Fair points.
You mean, Trump’s tweet, not a headline.
He stated the generality publicly. I’m not providing any doctrine here, just interpreting what’s going on through Trump’s statements, framed by other Trump statements.
“Future proves past.”
In the Bible, God sends a prophet, then later fulfills the words He sent that prophet. The method is not known at the time of the prophecy. This is not to deify Trump, but if what’s going on is indeed Biblical, it’s not absurd to imagine that a similar model might be being followed, and trusting that what was said will be done. The future will prove the past, rather than the present will assert the future. It seems as if we are either operating under God’s methodology, or under the Adversary’s imitation, but whichever of them it is, the specifics of how whatever is going on are definitely beyond me.
To put this another, non-religious way, “win first, then go to battle” or “make the deals first, then codify the statutes/laws later”. It’s what the deep state has been doing to us for who-knows-how-many-years.
You’re asking for Trump to fight in a way he’s never fought, and you’re asking anons to provide evidence in a way that likely can’t be done. If the Actuals for this tweet are out there, and I don’t believe they are, then you can feel free to find them.
TLDR: I think we are capable of finding and exposing crimes of the cabal, and knowing directional claims and verificatory methods and information, but not capable of knowing Actuals for things that may currently be classified or undisclosed. If you’re convinced that the thing you want is out there, I suggest you go find it, but I don’t believe we are being told “what’s happening” in real time. “Need to know basis” is not a new thing.
The headline claimed something is happening now (data centers being “made” to get their own power).
I asked the obvious “is that real and how?” question.
If the answer is actually “it’s future” or “it’s behind the scenes,” then the headline is just not true yet, and it’s not crazy to ask for evidence.
Belief about what will happen ≠ proof it already happened.
That’s the whole point. It's just that simple.
Someone is claiming that it's already happening. I ask for evidence that it's happening. People point to a post where Trump is saying what he wants to happen in the future and that he's going to talk to the companies in the future.
And people are upset at me because I'm living in the present, not the future. 🤷♀️