Steven Holt

120 posts

Steven Holt banner
Steven Holt

Steven Holt

@ProbablyWrong87

💡 Curious thinker | 📖 Lifelong learner 🌍 Exploring life one question at a time

Portland, Oregon Katılım Mart 2023
558 Takip Edilen7 Takipçiler
Steven Holt
Steven Holt@ProbablyWrong87·
@low_dosage @micah_erfan Because a representative shouldn't represent too many people, or else it begins to get difficult to accurately reflect their constituents' concerns. 100k is a nice, round cutoff. But the smaller the districts, the better.
English
1
0
1
20
Baseball's Not Dead
Baseball's Not Dead@dead_baseball·
@Kerbabble At this point, still looks like no intention to signal. He's about the throw the ball back to the pitcher...
Baseball's Not Dead tweet media
English
1
0
0
76
Baseball's Not Dead
Baseball's Not Dead@dead_baseball·
I think the batter being 3 steps to first and the catcher first trying to frame it, then taking the ball out of his hand, and then challenging might be a bit too long. That's plenty of time for someone to signal to the catcher to challenge, which is what they're trying to avoid.
Matt Weyrich@ByMattWeyrich

This is the second time today HP umpire Carlos Torres has denied an ABS challenge. Athletics catcher Shea Langeliers tapped his mask after Orioles' Taylor Ward walked in the 1st, but there was no review granted.

English
5
1
35
6.1K
Steven Holt
Steven Holt@ProbablyWrong87·
@MDriftor @n0rthgoingZax @micah_erfan Also, that disenfranchisement of the Virigina voters is causing injury to the 49 other states because they're sending an unconstitutional delegation to the U.S. Congress.
English
0
0
0
16
MDriftor
MDriftor@MDriftor·
@ProbablyWrong87 @n0rthgoingZax @micah_erfan Wrong decisions by a state impacts all other states and makes 49 other injured states and ~300 million other injured parties. Otherwise a state can just ignore all of its law and have their Supreme Court corruptly agree and no other state can appeal if it's the EC tiebreaker.
English
1
0
0
22
Steven Holt
Steven Holt@ProbablyWrong87·
@n0rthgoingZax @micah_erfan Of course. Thats why the federal courts ought to overturn the Virginia SC ruling against the equal protection of referendum voters.
English
0
0
0
51
Al Smizzle
Al Smizzle@AlZeidenfeld·
@ProbablyWrong87 Partly, but 95% of why it disappears is because of physical capability when they’re 11 vs 8
English
1
0
1
145
Steven Holt
Steven Holt@ProbablyWrong87·
@Pro__Trading The U.S. Constitution is left leaning. What else would you expect from a brand new country just liberates from a monarchy?
English
0
0
0
158
Pro-America | Politics & Markets
Pro-America | Politics & Markets@Pro__Trading·
The court was left leaning for 50 years. It's finally right leaning for a few years and the left is melting down.
English
148
313
8K
819.9K
DestructiveChemistry
DestructiveChemistry@DesperateChem·
@micah_erfan "Republican-appointed" and "conservative" are not synonyms, especially with regards to the Supreme Court. No one would argue that Earl Warren, appointed by Eisenhower, was on the right.
English
1
0
1
13
Yogi
Yogi@Houseofyogi·
@micah_erfan Court isn’t a game
Yogi@Houseofyogi

Calling for Court packing is NOT reform. It's a fundamental attack on the separation of powers and destroys the checks and balances laid out by the Constitution. You are literally eroding trust in the highest court because your current politics disagree. We have had nine justices since 1869. That number has held through two world wars, the Great Depression, civil rights, Watergate, Vietnam, 9/11. Every generation had reasons to be furious at the Court. None of them broke the structure. Because they understood something this generation apparently forgot: the Court is not supposed to agree with you. That's the whole point. Lifetime appointments exist so justices don't have to care about your timeline, politics or your trending hashtag. They interpret the law. Period. You don't get to add four seats because you didn't like a ruling. FDR tried this exact play in 1937. He wanted to push massive reform for his New Deal and was at peak popularity. His OWN party told him no. Senate Democrats looked at a president trying to stack the bench and said this destroys everything. And they were right. Because the second you let one president resize the Court to get outcomes, every president after does the same thing. Now you don't have a judiciary. Every single justice sitting today was nominated by an elected president and confirmed by an elected Senate. That IS the process. You not liking the result doesn't make it illegitimate. The Court hasn't failed. Politicians openly trashing the highest court in the country because it ruled against their agenda are conditioning an entire generation to believe institutions only matter when they're useful. And people wonder why trust in government is collapsing. That's how you lose a republic. So I ask anyone wanting to stack the court? Who's really the king, because it now looks like you.

English
1
0
1
111
Steven Holt
Steven Holt@ProbablyWrong87·
@UplandHunterVA @micah_erfan Roe v. Wade was a conservative opinion when conservatism was focused on small government and the rights of individuals.
English
0
0
2
38
Steven Holt
Steven Holt@ProbablyWrong87·
@Dishlocation @SFMattISU I'd rather see a human get a borderline call wrong than a computer overrule a human who got the call right.
English
1
0
0
77
Magic Realism
Magic Realism@Dishlocation·
@SFMattISU Meanwhile a dozen calls are missed every game. This sort of stuff diverts from the real issue: we need ABS on every pitch.
English
7
0
68
9.4K
Steven Holt
Steven Holt@ProbablyWrong87·
@robertgraham This only happens when we realize that there are far more than 435 communities in the U.S. and expand the House accordingly.
English
0
0
2
532
Robert Graham
Robert Graham@robertgraham·
No, this is the worst explanation. We do not have "proportional representation" in the United States. Maybe we should. I think we should. But we don't. #1 is therefore not "perfect" but would require massive partisan gerrymandering to achieve. #2 is how our system is designed to work. Districts are drawn around "communities". They elect somebody to represent their community, not to represent a party. It's not "fair" to political Parties, but our system isn't intended to be fair to Parties, but to communities. It's impossible to have a conversation about gerrymandering without somebody making the implicit assumption it's about party fairness and proportional representation.
Michael Okuda@MikeOkuda

This is the best explanation of gerrymandering you will ever see: washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2…

English
39
16
266
48.7K
Burgh_Sports
Burgh_Sports@Sports_Burgh412·
@TheKingSourceN @jamesonhaslam His foot does not go towards the plate. He goes up and down nothing going towards the plate. If you played baseball you’d understand it’s impossible to go towards home and circle back and throw to second
English
2
0
2
135

Keşfet

@low_dosage @micah_erfan @dead_baseball @Kerbabble @MDriftor @n0rthgoingZax @AlZeidenfeld @CraverJustin