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.
Thanks for clarifying exactly what you were asking me - it didnt come across that way, but I am happy to dig into the claim in the Trump truth. I think this is the key claim you are asking about:
Data Centers are key to that boom, and keeping Americans FREE and SECURE but, the big Technology Companies who build them must “pay their own way.”
You mentioned you looked for some documentary evidence and couldn't find anything and implied that all Trump has done is talk to people and talking to people is not the same as implementation.
Assuming thats what you are referring to, I have to say I do stand corrected. I was originally wrong when I assumed that there was no documentary evidence.
It did not take me long to find out that infact, not only has there been documentary evidence, but its clear that Trump administration as been strategically working on this at a policy level (Yes, I am now making that claim).
So here is what I will present evidence for:
Trump's DOE has been working on changing policies to facilitate AI companies to pay directly to private power providers and not tap into the public grid.
FERC responds positively to this policy change and paves the way for making these Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) more transparent and give it regulatory stability:
We can see the results of these policy shifts in the market with PPA deals announced between AI companies and private power companies. Just a few to sample:
Now coming to the final question, regarding the implication from Trump's tweet EVERY new Datacenter/AI needs to have a PPA - Trump does not say it explicitly, but clearly implies that none of this would drive up the energy price for ordinary consumers. So how are these companies being mandated not to do that?
We can easily argue that market dynamics will take care of it. Companies will be able to sign far more lucrative 10-20 year contracts via PPAs (like I linked above) than depending on the grid.
But surprisingly, there is actually work happening on making these mandates at both federal and state level, and not always coming from Trump himself, infact sometimes even from his enemies, whatever their intentions be, definitely serving Trump's goal:
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.
Thanks for clarifying exactly what you were asking me - it didnt come across that way, but I am happy to dig into the claim in the Trump truth. I think this is the key claim you are asking about:
You mentioned you looked for some documentary evidence and couldn't find anything and implied that all Trump has done is talk to people and talking to people is not the same as implementation.
Assuming thats what you are referring to, I have to say I do stand corrected. I was originally wrong when I assumed that there was no documentary evidence.
It did not take me long to find out that infact, not only has there been documentary evidence, but its clear that Trump administration as been strategically working on this at a policy level (Yes, I am now making that claim).
So here is what I will present evidence for:
DOE Invokes Rare Authority to Direct FERC to Accelerate Grid Access for Large Loads and Data Centers
Alternate source
Sauce from DoE
Feds pave the way for Big Tech to plug data centers right into power plants in scramble for energy
FERC Begins Shaping the Future of Data Center Co-Location
Sauce from FERC
FERCing the nuclear-powered data center
Meta Locks In Up to 6.6 GW of Nuclear Power Through Deals with Vistra, Oklo, and TerraPower
Meta signs 20-year PPA with Constellation for entire output of Illinois nuclear power plant
Sauce from FB
Talen and Amazon sign 1.92GW nuclear energy PPA
We can easily argue that market dynamics will take care of it. Companies will be able to sign far more lucrative 10-20 year contracts via PPAs (like I linked above) than depending on the grid.
But surprisingly, there is actually work happening on making these mandates at both federal and state level, and not always coming from Trump himself, infact sometimes even from his enemies, whatever their intentions be, definitely serving Trump's goal:
DeSantis proposes an AI Bill of Rights, strict data center protections, and new safeguards for children in Florida
Sauce
Georgia
Virginia
Oregon
and so on (There are some 22 States doing this for "Climate Change")
In addition some other documentary evidence to show that Trump administration is serious about this:
DOE Site Selection Announcement for private-sector AI data centers and energy generation projects.
Trump Administration Seeks to Streamline Federal Permitting for Data Centers with New Executive Order and Action Plan
Trump Administration Launches Sweeping Initiative to Advance Deployment of Nuclear Technology
This was a good reply, thanks for the dig