71–80 of 82 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same thought occurred. And, even if prosecutors correctly thought that this was a waste of time to take to trial, GM saying nope "nothing here" doesn't, shall we say, impress me.
Yikes, maybe now is a good time to short GM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mostly because rich people can pay someone else to mail cockroaches to their enemies instead of getting their own hands dirty.
Damn, how do I get in to the cockroach mailing business, that sounds like a good gig.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rich people don't go to jail.
"Rich people don't go to jail" is a tautology masquerading as cynicism. In a world where nothing happens unless it's paid for, then it follows that more happens when there is more money involved. This includes criminal defense, where more money means more defensive moves which, in general, means a better defense. For the record, I think this is a strong argument for a world where things happen despite you not paying…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rich people don't go to jail.
The "former eBay employee" was pretty high up in eBay security operations and also a former police Captain and they don't come cheap. He's less rich than the CEO but can definitely afford more than the paltry $15,000 fine.
Definitely a different tier than OP’s “rich don’t go to jail” communicated imo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume you're being downvoted for the claim about Obama, so here's a source: > The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouc...
Not because of the Obama (or Trump or the number of other presidents who have protected the wealthy). The number of famous names is easily matched by the conviction rulings in any given city by those of modest or minimal means.
For the number of rich people (1%-ers) who go to jail to be similar to the number of poor people who go to jail, every rich person in the US would have to go to jail, simply because there are, by definition, 99x as many non-1%-ers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to assume there was no evidence of that, or else he'd be charged too.
Well, no evidence and benefit of the doubt are separate concepts. You can say that no record was made of it, and that it probably happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mostly because rich people can pay someone else to mail cockroaches to their enemies instead of getting their own hands dirty.
Damn, how do I get in to the cockroach mailing business, that sounds like a good gig.
Dubias (where legal) won't breed outside of captivity, so you don't have to worry about escapees.
I'm bearish on ordering insects to help your garden.
But if you truly find this disturbing try it out, it won't be cockroaches (unless you want an expensive meal for your chickens), but its kinda fun and the package will not be 'disturbing' even if it has creepy crawlies. Some will be eggs and some might be live.
If you have no garden needing attack insects, mealworms can be used in cooking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not because of the Obama (or Trump or the number of other presidents who have protected the wealthy). The number of famous names is easily matched by the conviction rulings in any given city by those of modest or minimal means.
Sure, but the number of famous people in the world is a tiny fraction of the number of people of modest or minimal means. For the number of rich people (1%-ers) who go to jail to be similar to the number of poor people who go to jail, every rich person in the US would have to go to jail, simply because there are, by definition, 99x as many non-1%-ers.
That's related to the point I was making, absolute numbers or specific cases are irrelevant. The percentage of convictions (versus cases brought) when categorized by tax bracket, is the second most influential indicator of conviction probability (after proof).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but the number of famous people in the world is a tiny fraction of the number of people of modest or minimal means. For the number of rich people (1%-ers) who go to jail to be similar to the number of poor people who go to jail, every rich person in the US would have to go to jail, simply because there are, by definition, 99x as many non-1%-ers.
> the number of famous people in the world is a tiny fraction of the number of people of modest or minimal means. That's related to the point I was making, absolute numbers or specific cases are irrelevant. The percentage of convictions (versus cases brought) when categorized by tax bracket, is the second most influential indicator of conviction probability (after proof).
But that's a lot different from the original claim "rich people don't go to jail."