# I Pit Rick Scott and I Pit Florida **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 18, 2015, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041 "2015-02-18T22:41:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/61 "2015-02-20T13:06:01Z")
Scott Walker? WTF? You done been brickrolled, foo. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/62 "2015-02-20T16:06:24Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Oh, wait, not _this_ section … > > **Bricker** , you are are shallow, sociopathic fuckwipe, being “smart” in the sense of how the red line on one’s back such as is left by the bullwhip feels. > > Just had to get that out. This. Also, **Bricker,** you shame and disgrace to the legal profession, it makes no difference whatsoever whether the indictments of Walker I hoped for ever happened or will happen. I still get to Pit Rick Scott and he still deserves it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/63 "2015-02-20T16:49:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A prediction about the future cannot ever have been said to be “in error,” because it did not come to pass? > > Really? > > Must be a liberal principle of some kind. Well, that certainly settles _that_! Should have known better than to mess with a sharpie like you, what with your keen declarative skills. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/64 "2015-02-20T17:39:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In post 57 of this thread, there is a link to one such thread. In post #2 of THAT thread, I link to two earlier similar threads. Fair enough, that does seem more similar than your initial description made it seem. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/65 "2015-02-20T17:57:50Z")
So, **Bricker** , tell me, what IS the proper response when a politician who I dislike is in the midst of being officially investigated concerning, or has been charged but not convicted for, various forms of malfeasance and skullduggery? There’s a big difference between something like “man, I sure hate that Dick Cheney… well, I’m sure there must be some scandal lurking somewhere” and “man, I sure hate that Rick Scott Walker, thus I’m enjoying these actual documented existing ongoing investigations by legitimate agencies that actually exist, and I sure hope the find him guilty”. There’s also an interesting question as to how we should view investigations that end up NOT finding someone guilty. If I’m considering re-electing someone who was the subject of 4 or 5 separate ethics investigations but was never found guilty, should I take that into account? Proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt is not a standard that I’m required to use when deciding who to vote for. How often are serious and lengthy and expensive investigations actually nothing more than partisan witch-hunts and smear campaigns? I think it’s a legitimately tricky question… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/66 "2015-02-20T18:04:43Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So, **Bricker** , tell me, what IS the proper response when a politician who I dislike is in the midst of being officially investigated concerning, or has been charged but not convicted for, various forms of malfeasance and skullduggery? There’s a big difference between something like “man, I sure hate that Dick Cheney… well, I’m sure there must be some scandal lurking somewhere” and “man, I sure hate that Rick Scott Walker, thus I’m enjoying these actual documented existing ongoing investigations by legitimate agencies that actually exist, and I sure hope the find him guilty”. Not here, there isn’t; both are equally legitimate Pit-fodder. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/67 "2015-02-20T18:54:28Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > There’s also an interesting question as to how we should view investigations that end up NOT finding someone guilty. If I’m considering re-electing someone who was the subject of 4 or 5 separate ethics investigations but was never found guilty, should I take that into account? Proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt is not a standard that I’m required to use when deciding who to vote for. How often are serious and lengthy and expensive investigations actually nothing more than partisan witch-hunts and smear campaigns? I think it’s a legitimately tricky question… I would say you need to consider the facts of the situation, which includes both the evidence of a crime as well as the level of partisanship in the atmosphere and of the people bringing the charges. (E.g. Rick Perry being indicted for what’s at worst a pretty routine political move wouldn’t mean anything to me at all.) [Also, probably, the ease of bringing charges. IIRC Sarah Palin was a victim of her own “reformist” move in making it very easy for anyone to trigger investigations of public officials, which backfired on her when she became a polarizing figure.] ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/68 "2015-02-20T20:37:23Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > [Also, probably, the ease of bringing charges. IIRC Sarah Palin was a victim of her own “reformist” move in making it very easy for anyone to trigger investigations of public officials, which backfired on her when she became a polarizing figure.] Was that because she was polarizing or because she was corrupt? The conditions aren’t mutually exclusive. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/69 "2015-02-20T20:49:21Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Not here, there isn’t; both are equally legitimate Pit-fodder. Your commitment to accuracy is thus demonstrated. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/70 "2015-02-20T20:55:19Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So, **Bricker** , tell me, what IS the proper response when a politician who I dislike is in the midst of being officially investigated concerning, or has been charged but not convicted for, various forms of malfeasance and skullduggery? There’s a big difference between something like “man, I sure hate that Dick Cheney… well, I’m sure there must be some scandal lurking somewhere” and “man, I sure hate that Rick Scott Walker, thus I’m enjoying these actual documented existing ongoing investigations by legitimate agencies that actually exist, and I sure hope the find him guilty”. > There’s also an interesting question as to how we should view investigations that end up NOT finding someone guilty. If I’m considering re-electing someone who was the subject of 4 or 5 separate ethics investigations but was never found guilty, should I take that into account? Proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt is not a standard that I’m required to use when deciding who to vote for. How often are serious and lengthy and expensive investigations actually nothing more than partisan witch-hunts and smear campaigns? I think it’s a legitimately tricky question… I’m not sure there’s a bright-line answer to that question. I think **Fotheringay-Phipps** has the right sense of it: consider the evidence of a crime as well as the level of partisanship in the atmosphere and of the people bringing the charges. In this case, it’s instructive that in order to sell the case of Rick Scott’s guilt, the description of the Florida Sunshine law must be subtly manipulated: _conversations between the governor and other statewide elected officials in his cabinet about staffing decisions must be open to the public and recorded with minutes_ isn’t the law, but it’s a description tailored to the current situation that makes Scott look pretty guilty. But that doesn’t matter to the empty-headed **BrainGlutton** s of the world, who are willing to hang criticism from any flagpole, no matter how weak. And when their weak-assed predictions don’t come to pass, they simply move on the next one, never admitting the existence of and failure of their previous calumnies. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/71 "2015-02-20T20:57:32Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Was that because she was polarizing or because she was corrupt? The conditions aren’t mutually exclusive. What became of all those investigations? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/72 "2015-02-20T21:19:44Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > What became of all those investigations? I assumed they fizzled out in the collective sigh of relief when Alaskans realized Palin was now a national embarrassment and not just a statewide one. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/73 "2015-02-20T22:14:49Z")
There in sub paragraph © it says “…except when conducted in the premises provided for process related to micturation or any voiding of the bowels…”. Therefore, any conversations related to political skulduggery that took place in a public restroom can be legally deemed in compliance with the Sunshine Laws. Now, was there a very unusual set of circumstances like that, wherein most if not all of the conversations took place in the Men’s Room? Perhaps, but that would not be admissible to a jury, since there are many plausible explanations: too much coffee, perhaps, a change in medications or simply a preference for the acoustics. Might I look askance at that, might I harbor suspicions that these men were not just in there manhandling their Romneys or wiping their Nixons? Of course I may, I am not bound to legal standards, I would not be a bit surprised that Gov. Nosferatu is not a paragon of political virtue. Nor would it surprise me that he is creative enough to thwart the intent of a Sunshine Law without doing anything specifically indictable. Still, since I am already of the opinion that he is an ambulatory turd, my opinion of him is unaffected in any measurable way. If he were indicted and convicted on evidence that, strictly speaking, in the opinion of our Foremost Legal Scholar…did not warrant such a result? I’m sure I could muster up a “tsk-tsk”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/74 "2015-02-20T23:48:40Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > There in sub paragraph (C) it says “…except when conducted in the premises provided for process related to micturation or any voiding of the bowels…”. Therefore, any conversations related to political skulduggery that took place in a public restroom can be legally deemed in compliance with the Sunshine Laws. If the drafters saw need to include that, the intended scope of the law must be much broader than **Bricker** is making it out to be. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/75 "2015-02-21T00:21:27Z")
Maybe they didn’t, but **luci** ’s word of the week is “micturation” and he had to use it. What supports my belief that they didn’t is because the correct word is “micturition” and lawyers have people to fix their spelling. Except maybe in Florida. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/76 "2015-02-21T00:39:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > If the drafters saw need to include that, the intended scope of the law must be much broader than **Bricker** is making it out to be. What if the drafters didn’t include language like that, but **elucidator** just made it up? What does that tell you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/77 "2015-02-21T00:40:34Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Maybe they didn’t, but **luci** ’s word of the week is “micturation” and he had to use it. What supports my belief that they didn’t is because the correct word is “micturition” and lawyers have people to fix their spelling. Except maybe in Florida. If only there were some way to read the actual text of the law. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/78 "2015-02-21T01:35:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What if the drafters didn’t include language like that, but **elucidator** just made it up? > > What does that tell you? That he’s smarter than they are! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/79 "2015-02-21T02:43:07Z")
Nah, he’s got me, **BG** , I was making shit up. Oh, the shame. Should have known better, try to fool a smart guy like **Bricker**. Got the sense of humor of a staplegun, but smart enough to know there’s no such law. Darn! So _close_! ---
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041/80 "2015-02-21T04:00:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What if the drafters didn’t include language like that, but **elucidator** just made it up? > > What does that tell you? It tells me the governor is either too stupid to avoid possibly breaking the law, or intentionally broke the spirit but not the letter of the law. Neither case is especially palatable. Not that this situation, _in itself_, is that big a deal. However, I feel sure this guy is either markedly ignorant, markedly stupid, or markedly corrupt, even without googling him. He’s a Florida Republican, the state of the hanging chad. Remember that shit? Such a small number of votes had such an enormous effect on so many people’s lives. On a related note, Jeb hasn’t got a snowball’s chance against Hillary. Why? Because women will finally get a chance to try to elect a female president, and between women, minorities, and young people, we’ll get enough votes, rest assured. Dubya done fucked it for for Republicans trying for President, all because of a little choice of vice president. Hanging chads, the choice of a vice president…such huge things decided by such small ones. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-rick-scott-and-i-pit-florida/713041.md?page=5)