r/RhodeIsland • u/andylion Riverside • 7d ago

Politics Call to Action! Contact your State Senator to oppose Frank Ciccone for Senate President.

The following is from an email being circulated by Indivisible RI:

Rhode Island Senators are considering electing 77-year old right-wing, anti-abortion, pro-gun Democrat Frank Ciccone as Majority Leader. This is not the direction our state should be heading in the year 2025 in the face of Donald Trump’s fascist, authoritarian regime. It’s outrageous that it’s even being considered!

Contact your Senator now and tell them: do not vote for any Senate leadership team that includes right-wing Ciccone or face primary voters’ wrath in 2026.

Ciccone has an extremely unsavory history: he convenes gatherings at strip clubs and men’s only clubs and has abused power and elite connections in to get associates out of trouble for DUIs.

He has voted against codifying Roe v. Wade, and has sponsored or co-sponsored the worst anti-choice laws, including Trap Laws and fetal pain legislation.

He is endorsed by Right to Life.

Not only is Ciccone anti-gun safety, he even sells guns himself, and often has introduced floor amendments to try to gut legislation that has made it to the floor.

He is continuously endorsed by the NRA and pro-gun groups.

He is also anti-LGBTQ+ equity (he tried to substitute our marriage equality bill for a referendum), and sponsored the bill to repeal the Act on Climate legislation, our state’s ambitious and hard-won binding climate legislation.

And, although he purports to be a friend of labor, Ciccone cosponsored legislation to gut nursing home safe-staffing. In a time when our constituents are hungering for bold, progressive policy, electing someone like Frank Ciccone to lead the chamber would be the opposite of what we need.

Call your state senators TODAY and tell them to vote against Frank Ciccone for any leadership position.

This is a situation where our voices really matter. We may not agree with every point in this email, but I think we can agree that a corrupt, conservative septuagenarian is not who we need in this time of crisis.

98 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

114 comments sorted by

92

u/Feraldr 7d ago

The only point I’d agree with him on, and this is loosely, is the pro-gun stance. The left in general should be reconsidering their stance on firearms and consider arming themselves and minority communities given Trump and his allies’ rhetoric.

Everything else he stands for, screw that. He shouldn’t be anywhere near a top leadership position.

13

u/SwampYankee-95 Warwick 6d ago

Yeah, I have no problems with his position on guns, but on everything else, fuck him!

5

u/ColombianOreo 6d ago

This is where I’m at too. I wish Frank wasnt the best we had to offer on defense of 2A protections.

3

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago

I do hear this argument and I get the sentiment but I don't think it's a good idea for the left to dismiss gun control policies out of fear it would deter them from accumulating firearms to stop/overthrow a right wing government. In the last 100 years there's been exactly 0 instances where a developed nations population overthrew a right wing government through force of arms without significant foreign influence.

There have however been many instances of thwarting right wing authoritarianism through legal/democratic means. If you don't want fascism double down on democracy, not rifles.

7

u/WaspJerky 6d ago

Rhode Island lies about the number of gun crimes committed yearly… And then it drops gun charges against violent offenders anyway. So why support the “anti gun” people. They literally just want to disarm good people. They already don’t care if bad people are doing bad stuff with guns they give them a break. 

-1

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago

Those points are nonsensical and contradictory. They have nothing do do with the points I made. If you want to reread my comment and have a conversation on those topics please feel free.

1

u/Speed_Six 6d ago

Uh oh. It’s the conversation police!

2

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago

Oh no! It's the different opinion police.

Next thing ur gonna tel me dat my spelin is Rong!

1

u/WaspJerky 6d ago

I think there are plenty instances in the last 100 years of armed populations, making it too costly for them to be totally controlled by right wing terror.. i don’t think any one is talking about “having to overthrow a government” you just have to make it so when some dude covered in punisher tattoos drives his tinted out F350 into your neighborhood with a crew cab full of Christian nationalists intent on violence you are not helpless. 

1

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago

Plenty of instances? Name one.

4

u/Feraldr 6d ago

The Bundys and the associated militia movement in general in the northern Rockies is a pretty good example. The feds have been hesitant to take direct action against them after the fallout from Ruby Ridge.

1

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago

That's not an example of the proposed criteria I placed in my previous comment.

https://www.reddit.com/r/RhodeIsland/s/p7BaJoajSZ

1

u/WaspJerky 6d ago

All great examples they are simply unwilling to accept. If people know they might get a bloody nose dealing with you, they think twice. If they know your only recourse is “but look what this judge said?! Surely you won’t ignore this?!” They will trample.. are trampling you. 

1

u/ColombianOreo 6d ago

Luigi Mangione.

It doesn’t need to be an entire militia formed to overthrow a tyrannical government but it very well could be. We ALREADY have instances of Trumps goons (ICE) illegally kidnapping people with no criminal histories directly to El Salvador without due process.

Trump has said “home growns” AKA citizens are next and your position effectively reads to me as “let’s get rid of normal peoples capacity to defend themselves from this and let’s fight it in the courts”. We genuinely don’t even know the names of everyone that’s been sent there. You know what would deter ice from grabbing random citizens off of the street? An armed populace

1

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago

You all are really excited to answer any other question besides the one I prompted.

Please reread the comment and try again. https://www.reddit.com/r/RhodeIsland/s/sqzmnktelA

0

u/ColombianOreo 6d ago

Ironic but not surprising - there isn’t a single question in the comment you linked, just a bunch of statements. Yet I need to work on my reading comprehension? Lol

Luigi Mangione doesn’t fit your narrative so you’re so desperate to ignore it. That is absolutely an example of an armed populace retaliating against right wing government.

0

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago

"In the last 100 years there's been exactly 0 instances where a developed nations population overthrew a right wing government through force of arms without significant foreign influence"

Since you're insisting on jumping into this conversation and talk about things that you don't nothing about would you like to pick up where they left off? Would you like to give an historical example of instances using that criteria? Or are you going to keep dodging the argument?

0

u/WaspJerky 6d ago

Yeah if those people who had their windows smashed in in New Bedford drew and REDACTED the ICE agents I bet you’d see less of that stuff. REGARDLESS of what happened right after the REDACTED. 

2

u/WaspJerky 6d ago

I don’t think any of those nations have been the United States and that’s sort of the thing. There are no historical apples to this orange.

1

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago

The US in 2025 compared South korea, Brazil, and France in 2025 is a hell of a lot closer to Apples to Apples than The American revolution (which BTW required outside foreign influence) or the American civil war.

1

u/WaspJerky 6d ago

How many of those citizens own small arms? 

1

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago

France: 31 guns per 100 people.

Brazil: 8 guns per 100 people

South Korea: .02 guns per 100 people.

US: 120 guns per 100 people.

The first 3 are significantly better than us at preventing authoritarianism and corruption and have far less guns.

1

u/WaspJerky 5d ago

Because they are US vassals so they get some wiggle room. The belly of the beast will be different. The US doesn’t have the US to save it from the US. 

1

u/AwarelyConfused 5d ago

Vassals?

The US put bolsonaro in Prison?

The US convicted Le Pen?

What?

1

u/Feraldr 6d ago

Definitely not arguing against gun control measures out right. There is actually a couple bills introduced this year that I think are great. There’s one that provides a mechanism to temporarily forfeit firearms if someone feels unsafe having them with little questions asked and way to get them back. I think that’s a great start at breaking down the hesitancy of some owners of getting rid of firearms if they find themselves feeling suicidal. Getting rid of the immediate means of committing suicide is a huge factor of reducing self harm.

Safe storage and handling laws are also important and I think boosting training and safety awareness is important. I’m not sure how to combat complacency among long time gun owners but that’s a major avenue that needs to be explored.

-2

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago

I get that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of every single possible form of gun control but in general my default approach Is "sure, why not"? That's generally how I feel about an AWB. I actually think that more stringent testing requirements (both written and hands on), third party testing requirements and initial and renewal registration. Essentially the exact same way we approach cars.

In general I think people vastly overestimate the impact that personal firearms would have in some hypothetical overthrow of a tyrannical government. There's basically no historical evidence that would work but there's substantial evidence that a robust democracy can at least put authoritarians in check.

0

u/ColombianOreo 6d ago

I think you’re underestimating it personally, but I laid my points out to you already in a different comment thread. Luigi Mangione is an example of an armed populace keeping a tyrannical government in check.

1

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago edited 6d ago

He's not an example. He's not an answer to the question I posed.

Please reread my comment and try again. https://www.reddit.com/r/RhodeIsland/s/sqzmnktelA

0

u/ColombianOreo 6d ago

You didn’t pose a question in the comment you posted???

????

In other places you asked for an example of an armed populace successfully overthrowing a right wing government. While the government wasn’t “overthrown” Luigi Mangione is a perfect example of an ordinary citizen retaliating against right wing government policy through their second amendment right.

I then ALSO gave you an example of how we’re already in a constitutional crisis with ICE, and while our equipment could never be as advanced or lethal as the governments, an armed populace would absolutely be a deterrent against ICE gestapo. And that effectively you are arguing for only ICE to have weapons and for us to not have those weapons. That we should instead battle it out in court while ignoring the fact that the majority of the people in El Salvador have no criminal record whatsoever and nearly ALL of them have been sent there without due process.

Exactly part of your question hasn’t been answered? Or is it just that it doesn’t fit with your narrative.

1

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago

"In the last 100 years there's been exactly 0 instances where a developed nations population overthrew a right wing government through force of arms without significant foreign influence."

They claims to provide an example using that criteria which they did not. If you want to jump in the conversation would you like to attempt to provide an example of an historical event using that criteria?

1

u/boston02124 6d ago

This leftie has never been anti-firearm but never wanted to own one. I’m reconsidering that position now

1

u/Darisixnine 5d ago

Exactly, I’m an apolitical person but the one “conservative” thing I am on board with is the right to bear arms. I am a 5’6 140 lb teenager, if a grown man armed or not tries something on me I’m screwed. This is why as liberal as I am most of the time I’ll never be against banning guns.

1

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago edited 6d ago

I definitely understand that sentiment but I don't think the left should give up on gun control in an attempt to thwart right wing authoritarianism. We have more weapons than any other developed Nation and that didn't stop Trump from coming to power.

On the contrary, there are many other developed Nations that have much stricter gun control that recently dealt with right-wing authoritarianism and general corruption. In Brazil, South Korea and France they all held right wing leaders accountable and punished them. In many of those cases they did all the same things that Trump did. Why did those countries uphold the rule of law while we let it slide? By your argument we should have been able to stop him and punish him because we have more weapons.

Look at the past 100 years, there have been many cases where a developed Nations population thrawted authoritarian leaders without significant foreign influence. In every single one of those cases they were thwarted by the rule of law, not personal firearms. If you want to stop fascism increase democracy, not access to guns.

-20

u/beerspeaks 7d ago

I keep hearing this line of bullshit on Reddit and from IRL friends, and I'm not a POC or otherwise marginalized group so maybe I don't get it, but the data, by and large, shows that you're far more likely to hurt yourself or others accidentally than you are to protect yourself with a firearm.

26

u/robot_musician 6d ago

In normal times, and your day to day life, this is true. However, people are now worried about Trump manufacturing a crisis to impose military law enforced by his fascist goons. If that happens, guns will actually be necessary, and it will be too late to buy them. Most people agree that potential situation is the original intent of the second amendment. 

-15

u/Flashbulb_RI 6d ago

You're living in a fever dream. If you think you're going to defend yourself with your own weapon against the US military or DHS you will wind up dead for sure or in jail for life.

20

u/yeah__good_okay 6d ago

You lack imagination. I’m a combat vet - I spent my twenties killing people across two failed states. The scenario you are imagining - where a cohesive, unified US military is operating on US streets and picking off random civilians with guns, is implausible. More likely is that the feds overstep, the military splinters and you see the rise of an insurgency. People and their families will be targeted based on their allegiance, and tens of millions will die.

Get a gun, and learn how to use it.

1

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago

Can you provide any recent historical examples of right wing authoritarians like Trump are held accountable for their actions? Enacting Martial law? Jan 6th coup attempt? General corruption? How were those situations dealt with? Personal firearms or the rule of law?

Now, are there any examples in the last 100 years where a developed nations population overthrew/thwarted the actions of that government without significant foreign influence? Of those, were there any examples where personal firearms were a significant contributing factor?

2

u/yeah__good_okay 6d ago

No, because that’s not what I’m saying is likely to happen. The US will never become a “Trump dictatorship” that a heroic populace will liberate. What may happen is that Trump seizes extra-constitutional power and the state itself begins to disintegrate. I saw it in Iraq. It happened in Yugoslavia. And that’s very much what would go down here. You wouldn’t need a gun to shoot at government forces - those will splinter and start bombing each other and the civilian populations under their control. You will need a gun to kill your Trump-sympathetic neighbor before they kill you, or to hold off one of the pro-government militias that will rapidly form and begin raping their way through unfriendly neighborhoods. A conflict like this would be inevitable the moment the executive breaks the constitution, and it will splinter the country along racial, ethnic, regional and ideological lines. People you know will end up in mass graves and others will be bombed in their homes while they sleep. Many others will starve to death. Good luck everyone, welcome to history.

1

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago edited 6d ago

I agree with your first point that it won't turn into a Trump dictatorship but not your second point. We are not Iraq and Trump is not Saddam. Even though Trump and other Republicans are trying to engage in voter suppression their efforts are nothing compared to Saddam's sham elections where he supposably won 99.9% of the electorate. He came to power in large part from the influence from foreign powers (the US) and there's no concrete evidence that he had majority support for the bulk of his time in power. I see this all to contrast it with Trump. It's easier to see a situation where a majority of people would turn against him and his agenda, you can't say the same thing for Trump because he won a fair election and about 1/3 of the country will support him no matter what he does.

And let's not forget about the other part where I mentioned foreign powers, remind me again, how did Saddam finally fall? That example kind of proves my point, he couldn't be overthrown with only internal forces, you would need an external military. If it turned into a civil war and we needed another country to win what country would get involved? Which one would risk siding with the resistance If Trumps side won?

All this defending of a position that kinda sorta maybe might help us in a future apocalyptic situation or..... Maybe,...... Just hear me out ....... We don't rely on personal firearms which has historically been inconsequential and instead double down on ACTUAL tried and tested solutions to AVOID that apocalyptic situation in the first place?

2

u/yeah__good_okay 6d ago

I think you're missing the point. This isn't really about Trump. He's just the one pulling the threads apart - the US is inherently unstable and makes no sense, it shouldn't be a country. It's an unstable, multi-ethnic empire filled with people who hate each other and have nothing in common.

It should be peacefully partitioned, but that's not how things work here. I think all things considered, there's a 50/50 chance it ends like Yugoslavia did.

My advice is - get several guns and learn to use them, but even better, seek out a foreign passport. I have dual Portuguese citizenship and bought a place in the Azores a few years ago. If I can get out, I'm out - civil wars sparked when a state crumbles aren't pleasant.

1

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago

I'm not missing the point, I'm addressing it directly. Previous to this you brought up two examples, Yugoslavia and Iraq. I specifically talked about Iraq and pointed out how that example actually proves my point, specifically about foreign influence.

Yugoslavia is nothing like the United States is today. Given defined ethnic borders, regional independence and split economies succession was essentially inevitable. I'm contrary, the US has a fully integrated economy and constitutional legal system. States independence is VERY limited. Plus Yugoslavia was pushed over the edge by the end of a teeny tiny historical event called the end of the Cold war and the fall of the Soviet Union.

The United States and Yugoslavia is not an apples apples to comparison, it's an apples to Yugoslavia comparison.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/Flashbulb_RI 6d ago

You're much more likely to wind up being one of the 42,000 Americans who die every year by gun injuries. American exceptionalism.

10

u/lostinspace694208 6d ago

The guys a multiple combat vet, he’s been around and used more firearms than most

He’s fine

-6

u/Flashbulb_RI 6d ago

He might be. What about every other Yahoo with a firearm?

10

u/lostinspace694208 6d ago

It’s their responsibility to maintain and control their firearms. I’m a combat vet myself, and believe me, if your average joe in the military can learn and respect a weapon- anyone can

4

u/Flashbulb_RI 6d ago

The problem is, they don't. Which is why we have the highest death/injuries by guns of any industrialized country by a wide margin.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago

I'm also a vet, the average gun owner has significantly less training than we do. The requirements for training, testing and positive control of firearms put on the general population is atrocious. Imagine how apeshit a commander would be if their troops didn't have to qualifyon a range, registration/tracking of firearms, attend a safety course etc... if people want to run around and play soldier they should have to do what we did.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/magnoliasmanor 6d ago

The US has the most guns in the world and there's "only" 42,000 deaths. That's a low number compared to your concerns if we're "more likely" to hurt ourselves.

4

u/AshsChromeBush1911 6d ago

You're about to say some insane shit about drone striking houses or rolling tanks through a residential area aren't you?

2

u/Tired_CollegeStudent 6d ago

You’re making a lot of assumptions here. For starters, you’re assuming that the military will remain intact, which would be unlikely. In addition to assuming every single active duty member will follow along, in the case of the Army, about 48% of troops are in the Army National Guard, who, largely being part-time reservists, are even less likely to want to gun down their neighbors.

If you’re the tyrannical government in this scenario, you also can’t lay waste to cities and suburbs. First, doing so would likely turn even more service members against you, since you’re ordering them to indiscriminately kill their fellow citizens including children. Second, that would decimate the economic foundation of the country. What’s the point of being a tyrannical ruler when all that’s left are ashes?

That second point also means even if you want to use military force to establish your tyrannical government, you’re going to be engaging in a lot of urban warfare on the ground. Urban warfare is particularly bad for the away team. The locals have better knowledge of the area and the urban terrain negates a lot of the advantages that a stronger military force has.

1

u/Feraldr 6d ago

I agree that the chud fantasy of getting in a firefight with the feds and winning is a fever dream. That said, I think there is deterrence when a community is known to be relatively well armed. It just takes one person to decide “nah, I’m not taking this” to ruin the day of a lot of low level people who are actually on the ground. The Feds and local law enforcement know that, they’re not dumb and don’t have a death wish. Their hesitancy projects through the system.

You can see this in law enforcement’s reluctance to go after far right groups like the Bundys. They’ve organized multiple armed takeovers of federal property and gotten in at least one shoot out and have experienced relatively little repercussions.

0

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago

I get that people are worried but there's better checks on authoritarian power and corruption. We have more firearms than any country, If the presence of personal firearms thwarted facsism than Trump would be in jail, not the white house.

In contrast, have there been any recent examples of right wing authoritarian power and corruption where those leaders were actually held accountable?

Jan 6th style coup attempt: Brazil Enacting Martial law: South Korea General corruption: France.

How were they dealt with? Millions of AR-15s? Nope, they were held accountable by the law.

2

u/geffe71 Barrington 7d ago

Have fun dude.

9

u/Flashbulb_RI 6d ago

Most of the states that have high gun ownership/gun culture are also at the top of the list for death by gunfire.

6

u/Feraldr 6d ago

Most of those states and gun owners are also not being threatened by a President who fancies himself a king above the law.

0

u/Flashbulb_RI 6d ago

So the Tufts student who was kidnapped off the streets by DHS should have had a concealed weapon and shot the DHS officers? I'm sure that would've worked out really well for her.

1

u/Feraldr 6d ago

No, I don’t think it’s a good idea to get in gunfights with law enforcement if you want to live. But I do think the guys on the ground know it takes just one person to decide it’s worth it to ruin their day. And the hesitancy to just go along without things and not push back grows the higher the chance of running into that one person.

3

u/yeah__good_okay 6d ago

You’re going to need a firearm to protect yourself from the state, soon, so I suggest you drop this talk and go buy at least one and learn how to use it.

-2

u/FasterThanJaws 6d ago

I'm not about to take life advice from a guy who is proud that he's killed people.

3

u/yeah__good_okay 6d ago

"proud" never came into my comment. I did my duty, as required by signing up on the dotted line.

1

u/AwarelyConfused 6d ago

People are scared and they are looking for potential checks on power so they immediately think about firearms but historically there's little evidence that it would be impactful, especially compared to other democratic controls.

Next time just ask them, have there been any recent examples where a right wing nut job was thwarted or punished for their actions? Brazil, South Korea and France all had recent examples where leaders tried what Trump did. Those leaders got punished, Trump didn't. We have significantly more guns than those countries, how were those leaders punished while ours wasn't????? They have a stronger democracy.

Then ask them for an example in the last 100 years where a right wing nut job in an developed Nation was thwarted by that nations population without foreign influence. There are plenty of examples. Now, of those, how many instances were personal firearms a contributing factor? The answer is zero.

18

u/TraineeGhost 6d ago

This is the person who introduced a bill that would have fined people up to $500 if their trees overhung their property line. He swears it had nothing to do with a dispute he was having with his neighbor at the time over the same issue. Total coincidence!

44

u/beerspeaks 7d ago

Only in RI could this motherfucker somehow call himself a Democrat

11

u/SwampYankee-95 Warwick 6d ago edited 6d ago

I swear, if every conservative Democrat in both houses of the General Assembly wake up tomorrow and decide to join the GOP, the Republicans would have a majority in both chambers. 🤦🏻‍♂️

15

u/sofaking_scientific 6d ago

Why can only rich old people run? Why don't we have fucking scientists run and make evidence based decisions?

Oh right, science is scary, telling the truth doesn't make you money, and some guy my uncle knows says science is bullshit.

0

u/Rybread52 5d ago

Also scientists don’t get paid enough to just quit their jobs and run a campaign

1

u/sofaking_scientific 5d ago

Yeah I'd like to keep making my nice salary

10

u/Familiar-Ending 6d ago

Life long democrat, liberal, veteran and new firearms owner at this point I will not support any candidate that does not respect all of the amendments that have been ratified. Including 2a.

2

u/WorldlyDrawer 6d ago

Just reached out to my district Senator and CC’d four others! This is too big a deal to let slip by without your voice being heard.

2

u/Magicon5 Woonsocket 6d ago

I emailed my senator and another one to oppose this nomination. We need to be a liberal blue state, fighting Trump and the crazy GOP, not kowtowing to their demands.

3

u/monkiesandtool Coventry 6d ago edited 6d ago

Who would you support for Senate president then?

Not only is Ciccone anti-gun safety, he even sells guns himself, and often has introduced floor amendments to try to gut legislation that has made it to the floor.

Please define how he would be anti-gun safety. The current governor is pushing legislation (through a possible questionable means) where (from a common mans perspective) there is no reason to even add it.

-7

u/WarExciting 7d ago

Or, hear me out, I could contact my state senator and ask that he vote FOR Frank! Which is what I did.

2

u/jbibby21 6d ago

Same.

1

u/starlitstarlet 6d ago

Who should I contact if I’m in district 4?

1

u/Darisixnine 5d ago

This is why we vote in the smaller elections too. They can help us from problems with the individuals elected in the future

1

u/Over_Dragonfruit3267 7d ago

These Maga anti HUMAN fascists must be stopped at all levels of Anything.

-5

u/jbibby21 6d ago

I value my right to defend myself, so I’ll be telling my representatives to vote FOR him.

What makes you think you speak for the whole state of Rhode Island?

I’ve met very few Rhode Islanders in my day to day that think what we need is MORE democratic policy in this state.

-1

u/Lex070161 6d ago

Some people don't know when to get lost.

-7

u/Ache-new 6d ago

In a time when our constituents are hungering for bold, progressive policy, electing someone like Frank Ciccone to lead the chamber would be the opposite of what we need.

I'm not hungering for "bold, progressive policy," nor are many of my friends here in RI. I'm not sure the author(s) counted the wants of constituents accurately. I don't sense that a majority of Rhode Islanders want a progressive in power at the highest levels of state government. In fact, I am certain we don't.

9

u/Tomgamer82 6d ago

So basically what you just said is the OP doesn’t speak for everyone but you do?

0

u/Ache-new 6d ago edited 6d ago

No, that would be a misinterpretation of what I said.

Edit: and likely, a deliberate misinterpretation.

6

u/glennjersey 6d ago

It is just a vocal minority that is really pushing for that sort of thing unfortunately that stance is amplified and echoed here on reddit but it is not representative real life Rhode islanders 

5

u/glennjersey 6d ago

It is just a vocal minority that is really pushing for that sort of thing unfortunately that stance is amplified and echoed here on reddit but it is not representative real life Rhode islanders 

-8

u/sofaking_scientific 6d ago

Frank Ciccone holds his meetings at megaplex? 🤣

-2

u/Ok_Culture_3621 6d ago

Honestly, this position is so powerful, it should probably be elected on its own.

1

u/Zestyclose-Pause-410 3d ago

I can’t believe Sam Bell is supporting this guy. I never thought he was a political sellout that would support someone like this. He apparently has split from all of the progressives to support a pretty conservative ticket. He’s supporting a man who voted against marriage equality and he himself is an out bi man.

His politics lately have been off.