Can you explain any of the specifics in any of this?
If Trump says he is doing something and you are contrarian about it, isn't the onus on you to prove him wrong?
Where is your evidence he's not doing the things he says he's doing?
I can't find anywhere in any of this, or anywhere else, where it details
You're looking for specific details that have already been published about something he just announced today? Do you expect Mother Jones to have built a time machine, get the announcement today at the same time as you, then go back to the past and post it yesterday?
If someone makes a specific policy claim (“Trump is making AI data centers get their own power”), the burden is on the person making the claim to show:
What mechanism
What authority
What law/regulation/EO
What binding agreement
What enforcement
If Trump says he is doing something and you are contrarian about it, isn't the onus on you to prove him wrong? Where is your evidence he's not doing the things he says he's doing?
Nowhere in Trump's post did HE make the claim that "he is making EVERY new AI Data Center get its own power..." At least, nowhere I can see. Someone just made the headline saying that.
I'm not saying President Trump isn't doing the things he's saying he's doing, I'm saying someone is just making a huge leap between what Trump posted and what they think it means or what they want it to mean.
That's my whole point. Where is anything, anywhere, showing that any of what THE HEADLINE above says is true. (Not what Trump is saying in the post he wrote, but what whoever wrote the headline here is claiming what Trump said.)
Trump’s post didn’t say he made anything happen. It said he’s been talking to companies and will have “more to announce.” That’s not a mandate, it’s a teaser.
Asking “what’s the mechanism?” isn’t contrarian, it’s basic verification. The default assumption in policy is “not enacted until demonstrated,” not “true until someone disproves it.”
You don’t need a time machine to recognize that no documentation, no rule change, no agreement, and no directive has been published.
If those develop later, they can be evaluated when they exist.
Calling requests for evidence “bad faith” doesn’t substitute for supplying any.
“Because Trump said something” + “headlines interpreted it” is not evidence of a policy already in effect.
I can't express how bizarre it is that I need to point this stuff out and how weird it is that people seem to think that it's a bad thing to want to see some facts instead of just automatically believing something because someone posted it here.
What happened to this being an elite research board? Since when did elite research= believing stuff just because it was posted here and criticize people who ask for actual evidence to claims being made?🤷♀️
You're on a Q board. The default setting should be giving deference to Trump. Not assuming he's lying.
Q spent years proving they are military intelligence so that we don't have to second guess every decision Trump makes.
Here, I'll show you the way it works on a board that trusts Trump:
Trump:
I'm going to make AI companies pay for their own power.
Everyone:
Ok.
Concern troll:
Lacks proof.
And this ...
“Because Trump said something” + “headlines interpreted it” is not evidence of a policy already in effect.
I'm fully prepared to live in a world where Trump doesn't deliver on his promise to make AI companies pay for their own power. Because I wasn't demanding that happen anyway. It was an unrequested gift nobody was asking for.
To challenge the gift serves no purpose other than to call Trump's integrity into question. On a Q board. Where Trump and Q had already bent themselves into pretzels for years proving themselves, yet you haven't passed 1st base with trust and deference.
I'm saying the OP made a headline up that has nothing to do with what TRUMP has actually said.
That's it. There's no point of even bothering to reply to the rest of your post because it's all built on a faulty premise.
I'm not saying Trump is lying about anything.
I'm saying that THE HEADLINE is not supported by anything President Trump has actually said or done.
I can't believe I have to keep spelling this out in excruciating detail. It's not complicated. AT ALL.
Maybe you should stop making up quotes that Trump never actually said to try to support your stance. It's the reason for this argument in the first place. People just making shit up and saying that Trump said it. 🤷♀️
If Trump says he is doing something and you are contrarian about it, isn't the onus on you to prove him wrong?
Where is your evidence he's not doing the things he says he's doing?
You're looking for specific details that have already been published about something he just announced today? Do you expect Mother Jones to have built a time machine, get the announcement today at the same time as you, then go back to the past and post it yesterday?
Sounds like bad faith concern trolling to me.
You’ve reversed the burden of proof.
If someone makes a specific policy claim (“Trump is making AI data centers get their own power”), the burden is on the person making the claim to show:
What mechanism
What authority
What law/regulation/EO
What binding agreement
What enforcement
Nowhere in Trump's post did HE make the claim that "he is making EVERY new AI Data Center get its own power..." At least, nowhere I can see. Someone just made the headline saying that.
I'm not saying President Trump isn't doing the things he's saying he's doing, I'm saying someone is just making a huge leap between what Trump posted and what they think it means or what they want it to mean.
That's my whole point. Where is anything, anywhere, showing that any of what THE HEADLINE above says is true. (Not what Trump is saying in the post he wrote, but what whoever wrote the headline here is claiming what Trump said.)
Trump’s post didn’t say he made anything happen. It said he’s been talking to companies and will have “more to announce.” That’s not a mandate, it’s a teaser.
Asking “what’s the mechanism?” isn’t contrarian, it’s basic verification. The default assumption in policy is “not enacted until demonstrated,” not “true until someone disproves it.”
You don’t need a time machine to recognize that no documentation, no rule change, no agreement, and no directive has been published.
If those develop later, they can be evaluated when they exist.
Calling requests for evidence “bad faith” doesn’t substitute for supplying any.
“Because Trump said something” + “headlines interpreted it” is not evidence of a policy already in effect.
I can't express how bizarre it is that I need to point this stuff out and how weird it is that people seem to think that it's a bad thing to want to see some facts instead of just automatically believing something because someone posted it here.
What happened to this being an elite research board? Since when did elite research= believing stuff just because it was posted here and criticize people who ask for actual evidence to claims being made?🤷♀️
You're on a Q board. The default setting should be giving deference to Trump. Not assuming he's lying.
Q spent years proving they are military intelligence so that we don't have to second guess every decision Trump makes.
Here, I'll show you the way it works on a board that trusts Trump:
Trump:
Everyone:
Concern troll:
And this ...
I'm fully prepared to live in a world where Trump doesn't deliver on his promise to make AI companies pay for their own power. Because I wasn't demanding that happen anyway. It was an unrequested gift nobody was asking for.
To challenge the gift serves no purpose other than to call Trump's integrity into question. On a Q board. Where Trump and Q had already bent themselves into pretzels for years proving themselves, yet you haven't passed 1st base with trust and deference.
You're the only one, if you actually are one.
Dude, did you not read my posts?
I'm not assuming TRUMP is lying.
I'm saying the OP made a headline up that has nothing to do with what TRUMP has actually said.
That's it. There's no point of even bothering to reply to the rest of your post because it's all built on a faulty premise.
I'm not saying Trump is lying about anything.
I'm saying that THE HEADLINE is not supported by anything President Trump has actually said or done.
I can't believe I have to keep spelling this out in excruciating detail. It's not complicated. AT ALL.
Maybe you should stop making up quotes that Trump never actually said to try to support your stance. It's the reason for this argument in the first place. People just making shit up and saying that Trump said it. 🤷♀️
I just re-read Trump's announcement. The title seems spot-on accurate to me.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-gCCTfWgAA50fG?format=jpg&name=large
Perhaps you're a tad bit pedantic.