Florida's republican governer elect, a real winner....

Post Reply New Topic

Then why don't each of them sneak in some money too fund separate oppositional parties?

Well they have time, why not take the risk with appropriate safety measures?

Wasn't there some sort of stink during the last election cycle that some of the Tea Party spin offs were being organized by Democrats? I'd have sworn I saw that being reported somewhere, but I couldn't attest to the veracity of the claim.

He was in command. He should have been convicted personally of a felony. The corporation under his command was convicted of 14 felonies. That he was not convicted personally is proof that the wealthy never pay for their crimes. If this was the war crimes trials they'd have nailed him for life. They executed a Japanese general for the acts of soldiers that were known to be out of his control.

You can see why they didn't charge Scott personally and it's the same reason they refused to charge that hedge fund manager in Colorado for a felony in a hit and run on a surgeon - it's because it would have ruined his career and that will never do. You can only ruin poor people forever and ever and ban them from voting and the rest of it. Scott must remain intact to offer his dubious "talents" to such people as the People of Florida!

They can either end the policy of ruining convicted felons for life (a life sentence, really) or they can start enforcing the law on the wealthy for a change. If the law is not enforced on certain people that ends the legitimacy of the system. The rule of law is dead. Why, even when the laws are rewritten to benefit the wealthy the rule of law may be technically intact but the legitimacy is dead.

Imagine had Scott been treated like a poor person. He'd have been put in solitary confinement for years and years and years and had his mind broken like they've been doing to tens of thousands of people throughout the USA. Imagine Rick Scott hallucinating and throwing excrement at his guards and babbling incoherently and shaking... that would have been him without the wealth and power. As it stands, he is above the law, and that alone makes him a monster.

Sometimes I'm surprised that there haven't been assassinations of these people yet - it just shows that the people who would be going around assassinating people have been encouraged to be on the side of the monsters, not to turn against them.

I am going to side (substantively) with ruveyn on this one.

The "directing mind" theory of liability is not generally accepted in common law jurisdictions, absent some specific statutory attempt to impute criminal liability.

Now I have no doubt that this man is a scoundrel of the first order who deserves to be held accountable for the things that were done under his watch. But to describe him as a, "criminal," is to take liberties with the meaning of the word. He may be a liar, a con artist and a man with the ethics of feral cat--but let's not allow him to defend himself by calling him a criminal when he is not proved so to be.