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. 🤷♀️
Those articles show data centers building on-site generation because the grid is congested and slow, not because Trump issued a requirement.
They’re solving a capacity bottleneck, not following a mandate.
Totally different question than the headline here, which is policy claim vs. market behavior.
We're going back and forth because the OP is living in one possible future outcome and I'm living in the present.
Because President Trump has said what should happen and said that he was going to speak to the companies and the OP just jumped into their time machine and traveled straight to the point in time where AI centers were made to foot the entire bill for the energy required for the new data centers and consumers no longer had to pay for the spikes in their electric bills.
And people are apparently upset because they think me questioning what the OP is claiming = me calling President Trump a liar. 🤷♀️
And somehow me living in the present is somehow a threat to whatever will happen in the future. Like I jeopardize the space-time continuim because I ask for evidence of these mandates being used now. 🙄
Sorry, you’re asking for things I can’t provide. All I can say is you currently have me agreeing with a poster I don’t typically agree with, and I’ll leave it at that.
Well, if the reason you can't provide it is because it doesn't exist (which seems to be the most likely scenario here) then that pretty much proves my point.
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. 🤷♀️
Y'all are going back and forth calling heads and tails. It's the same coin. But here ya go...
https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/ai-data-centers-desperate-for-electricity-are-building-their-own-power-plants-291f5c81
https://grist.org/energy/data-centers-are-building-their-own-gas-power-plants-in-texas/
https://www.leylinecapital.com/news/ai-data-centers-desperate-for-electricity-are-building-their-own-power-plants
https://blog.ucs.org/mike-jacobs/power-hungry-why-data-centers-are-developing-their-own-energy-sources-to-fuel-ai/
I think you know how to use a search engine.
Those articles show data centers building on-site generation because the grid is congested and slow, not because Trump issued a requirement.
They’re solving a capacity bottleneck, not following a mandate.
Totally different question than the headline here, which is policy claim vs. market behavior.
We're going back and forth because the OP is living in one possible future outcome and I'm living in the present.
Because President Trump has said what should happen and said that he was going to speak to the companies and the OP just jumped into their time machine and traveled straight to the point in time where AI centers were made to foot the entire bill for the energy required for the new data centers and consumers no longer had to pay for the spikes in their electric bills.
And people are apparently upset because they think me questioning what the OP is claiming = me calling President Trump a liar. 🤷♀️
And somehow me living in the present is somehow a threat to whatever will happen in the future. Like I jeopardize the space-time continuim because I ask for evidence of these mandates being used now. 🙄
Sorry, you’re asking for things I can’t provide. All I can say is you currently have me agreeing with a poster I don’t typically agree with, and I’ll leave it at that.
Well, if the reason you can't provide it is because it doesn't exist (which seems to be the most likely scenario here) then that pretty much proves my point.