The reason is I often aren't able to respond to comments for some time and the unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even when answered the comment may scare them because they see it first.
It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.
It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here - this is specifically about things you want help with that might scare people.
PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE
This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.
We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.
If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.
But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.
If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.
It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.
First, Musk wouldn't himself stand for election as a representative or senator for two reasons
1. He hasn't got the time
2. He would likely have to put his own businesses in trust because they depend too much on government grants.
Members of his party would surely be far right Republicans. His aim surely would be to make them more able to vote against like Thomas Massie did without fear of being primaried by the president because they are backed by Musk instead of Trump.
If he succeeded it would take away from the Republican vote on some issues, can't see that it would harm the Democrats and it might split the vote and make it easier for democrats to get elected.
His numbers seem ambitious. Third parties rarely do well in the USA. You have to go back to the 1970s to find a third party that achieved more than one seat, with two seats, one in the House and one in Senate, the conservative party which split off from Republicans a bit like Musk's proposal. That seems a more likely ambition.
The US has very few independent or third party members. It has two independents at present, both in the Senate, Bernie Sanders and Angus King.
It has no independent members of the House.
Both independents caucus with the Democrats - caucus is an informal association in US politics, for most votes they remain independent and can and do vote against. Even party members often vote against unlike the US situation where on key votes the whip can request members to vote with the party and if they vote against, though a rarely used power, the whip can eject a member from their party.
It's more to do with political identity as well as access to the committees.
By caucusing they get to take part in committees and play more of a role in Congress - a lot of the work is done in committee and not in the more obvious votes on the floor.
Bernie Sanders is very aligned with the Democrats on most topics and liberal left of them. He is on many Senate committees.
Angus King is more cross party moderate but he chose to caucus with Democrats partly to get representation on Senate committes.
QUOTE "I established two basic criteria -- that I wanted to maintain my independence as long and as thoroughly as possible while at the same time being effective in my representation of Maine," King told reporters, of his decision-making process. He said that while it was "tempting" to go it alone as an unaffiliated independent, it "simply wouldn't be practical and in fact would severely compromise my ability to be effective on behalf of Maine," particularly because he would likely be excluded from participating on committees and subsequently the day-to-day work of the Senate.
Musk's party seems unlikely to caucus with Republicans.
That would make it hard for his party to have representation on committees if it had just a few seats in the House and only one senator.
We may have to go back to 1940 to find a third party with a committee membership. That was Lundeen from the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party, who had a seat on the Senate Military Affairs Committee
He also founded and chaired the Make Europe Pay War Debts Committee which aimed to try to get Britain to pay the US costs for WW1 by forcing it to sell parts of the Indies - not successful but that was more of an advocacy group.
There is no law or even rule but normally the committes are allocated seats in proportion to the seats in the House or Congress.
Any party that has a majority has to have a majority in each committee. The amount of the majority then depends on the proportion of seats, rounded to the nearest whole number.
So - supposing the same approach was used with a significant third party, then if Musk's party got 2 Senate seats it could then get committee seats on the committees with at least 25 members:
There is no way that the speaker or the leader of the Senate would be in his party. Only the speaker or leader of the Senate can bring legislation to the floor so his party couldn't initiate legislation.
It could take part in votes, and its members would have similar abilities to speak to other members. That's about it.
I can't see this as causing problems for Democrats.
RFK thinks that by changing kids' diet he can prevent them getting autism and with wellness camps but he can't force people to put their kids in camps and he can do things to help improve diet but it will make no difference to autism since kids have it at birth.
So the main risk here is misinformation. Bill Cassidy isn't doing anything about RFK it seems so it's probably up to the Dems if or when they get control of the House in the midterms or possibly even before:
BLOG: Trump's Big Bill could help Democrats flip seats in the mid-terms if they are correct about its effects on Medicaid
— parallel with when Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 but Dems flipped 40 seats in 2018
They could then subpoena witnesses and start investigations. If they get control of the Senate they can in principle threaten to fine him or even imprison him unless he comes back in line or resigns - a power Bill Cassidy has but won't use.
The government can't kill people for their ethnicity or views or anything else - that's a basic breach of the US constitution. They also can't set up concentration camps. The Supreme Court found that the decision to permit the government to set up concentration camps for Japanese people in WW2 was greviously wrong on the day it was decided.
There is nothing in Trump's Big Bill about killing people. That is likely based on the whole Alligator Alcatraz but thats just hyperbole it is not really surrounded by alligators. It is a comparatively dry part of the Everglades converted into an airport with runways long enough for supersonic jets like Concorde that's mostly unused with a normal road leading up to it and there are swamps if you go in the right direction a few miles away but not between the center and the road or anywhere near it.
It was built there because it is right next to a runway that is still in use that can be used to deport detainees and undocumented immigrants would be kept there for up to 2 weeks before they are deported. NOT because of the alligators that you might find if you were to travel as far as the swamps in the right direction - indeed it's the crocodiles are the real hazard, alligators are much less aggressive but Trump called it "Alligator Alcatraz" presumably because it sounds better than "Crocodile Alcatraz" and alligators I suppose are more associated with Florida than Crocodiles, it is all just colourful language and hyperbole to hit the news not the real reason.
BLOG: "Alligator Alcatraz" doesn't really use alligators
— it is just a detention center built on a partially abandoned airfield with security guards like any other detention center
PLEASE DON'T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:
INSTEAD PLEASE COMMENT ON THE SPECIAL SEPARATE POST I SET UP HERE: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/post-to-comment-on-with-off-topic-1d2
The reason is I often aren't able to respond to comments for some time and the unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even when answered the comment may scare them because they see it first.
It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.
It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here - this is specifically about things you want help with that might scare people.
PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE
This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.
We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.
If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.
But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.
If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.
It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.
Thanks!
https://bsky.app/profile/neverstopfighting.bsky.social/post/3lt63r3lkmc2y
I’m worried about this
First, Musk wouldn't himself stand for election as a representative or senator for two reasons
1. He hasn't got the time
2. He would likely have to put his own businesses in trust because they depend too much on government grants.
Members of his party would surely be far right Republicans. His aim surely would be to make them more able to vote against like Thomas Massie did without fear of being primaried by the president because they are backed by Musk instead of Trump.
If he succeeded it would take away from the Republican vote on some issues, can't see that it would harm the Democrats and it might split the vote and make it easier for democrats to get elected.
His numbers seem ambitious. Third parties rarely do well in the USA. You have to go back to the 1970s to find a third party that achieved more than one seat, with two seats, one in the House and one in Senate, the conservative party which split off from Republicans a bit like Musk's proposal. That seems a more likely ambition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_and_independent_members_of_the_United_States_Congress
The US has very few independent or third party members. It has two independents at present, both in the Senate, Bernie Sanders and Angus King.
It has no independent members of the House.
Both independents caucus with the Democrats - caucus is an informal association in US politics, for most votes they remain independent and can and do vote against. Even party members often vote against unlike the US situation where on key votes the whip can request members to vote with the party and if they vote against, though a rarely used power, the whip can eject a member from their party.
It's more to do with political identity as well as access to the committees.
By caucusing they get to take part in committees and play more of a role in Congress - a lot of the work is done in committee and not in the more obvious votes on the floor.
Bernie Sanders is very aligned with the Democrats on most topics and liberal left of them. He is on many Senate committees.
Angus King is more cross party moderate but he chose to caucus with Democrats partly to get representation on Senate committes.
QUOTE "I established two basic criteria -- that I wanted to maintain my independence as long and as thoroughly as possible while at the same time being effective in my representation of Maine," King told reporters, of his decision-making process. He said that while it was "tempting" to go it alone as an unaffiliated independent, it "simply wouldn't be practical and in fact would severely compromise my ability to be effective on behalf of Maine," particularly because he would likely be excluded from participating on committees and subsequently the day-to-day work of the Senate.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/angus-king-to-caucus-with-democrats/
Musk's party seems unlikely to caucus with Republicans.
That would make it hard for his party to have representation on committees if it had just a few seats in the House and only one senator.
We may have to go back to 1940 to find a third party with a committee membership. That was Lundeen from the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party, who had a seat on the Senate Military Affairs Committee
https://www.nytimes.com/1939/03/02/archives/stunning-secrets-on-foreign-policy-hinted-by-senator-lundeen-says.html
He also founded and chaired the Make Europe Pay War Debts Committee which aimed to try to get Britain to pay the US costs for WW1 by forcing it to sell parts of the Indies - not successful but that was more of an advocacy group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Lundeen#Term_in_office
At its height in 1935 the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party had 2 senators and 4 representatives if I got this right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Farmer%E2%80%93Labor_Party#United_States_Senators
There is no law or even rule but normally the committes are allocated seats in proportion to the seats in the House or Congress.
Any party that has a majority has to have a majority in each committee. The amount of the majority then depends on the proportion of seats, rounded to the nearest whole number.
So - supposing the same approach was used with a significant third party, then if Musk's party got 2 Senate seats it could then get committee seats on the committees with at least 25 members:
Appropriations 29
Armed Services 27
Commerce, Science, and Transportation 28
Finance 27
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RL/PDF/RL34752/RL34752.21.pdf
There is no way that the speaker or the leader of the Senate would be in his party. Only the speaker or leader of the Senate can bring legislation to the floor so his party couldn't initiate legislation.
It could take part in votes, and its members would have similar abilities to speak to other members. That's about it.
I can't see this as causing problems for Democrats.
Bump!
https://bsky.app/profile/notalawyer.bsky.social/post/3lt5l45lpls2s
https://bsky.app/profile/notalawyer.bsky.social/post/3lt5l45lpls2s
Threatening autistic people and says RFK will change it.
I feel so terrified.
RFK thinks that by changing kids' diet he can prevent them getting autism and with wellness camps but he can't force people to put their kids in camps and he can do things to help improve diet but it will make no difference to autism since kids have it at birth.
So the main risk here is misinformation. Bill Cassidy isn't doing anything about RFK it seems so it's probably up to the Dems if or when they get control of the House in the midterms or possibly even before:
BLOG: Trump's Big Bill could help Democrats flip seats in the mid-terms if they are correct about its effects on Medicaid
— parallel with when Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 but Dems flipped 40 seats in 2018
READ HERE: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/why-passing-trumps-big-bill-could
They could then subpoena witnesses and start investigations. If they get control of the Senate they can in principle threaten to fine him or even imprison him unless he comes back in line or resigns - a power Bill Cassidy has but won't use.
https://bsky.app/profile/aster-verite.bsky.social/post/3ltacugxo6d2v
Can you debunk this? I feel scared.
The government can't kill people for their ethnicity or views or anything else - that's a basic breach of the US constitution. They also can't set up concentration camps. The Supreme Court found that the decision to permit the government to set up concentration camps for Japanese people in WW2 was greviously wrong on the day it was decided.
There is nothing in Trump's Big Bill about killing people. That is likely based on the whole Alligator Alcatraz but thats just hyperbole it is not really surrounded by alligators. It is a comparatively dry part of the Everglades converted into an airport with runways long enough for supersonic jets like Concorde that's mostly unused with a normal road leading up to it and there are swamps if you go in the right direction a few miles away but not between the center and the road or anywhere near it.
It was built there because it is right next to a runway that is still in use that can be used to deport detainees and undocumented immigrants would be kept there for up to 2 weeks before they are deported. NOT because of the alligators that you might find if you were to travel as far as the swamps in the right direction - indeed it's the crocodiles are the real hazard, alligators are much less aggressive but Trump called it "Alligator Alcatraz" presumably because it sounds better than "Crocodile Alcatraz" and alligators I suppose are more associated with Florida than Crocodiles, it is all just colourful language and hyperbole to hit the news not the real reason.
BLOG: "Alligator Alcatraz" doesn't really use alligators
— it is just a detention center built on a partially abandoned airfield with security guards like any other detention center
— and accessed by road
READ HERE: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/alligator-alcatraz-doesnt-really
The Big Bill WILL permit Trump to build lots more detention centers but no different from ones the US always has as I explain in that debunk.