It was stupid to elect someone who at least hasn’t turned 25 yet lol. They still got that underdeveloped brain

I've been on a "I'm not voting for anyone over the age of 60 from this point forward" push but this is also a good reminder that you probably should not go too crazy with those theories. Maybe 35 to 60 is the sweet spot, enough life and professional experience to be competent but also not so entrenched to be overwhelmed by self interest...

What an idiot. Had such a promising life in politics ahead of him if he just didn’t break the law

Fall River will absolutely reelect him once he's out of prison (assuming no local bylaws prevent that.)

That might be part of it, but the real issue was that this mf thought he was Buddy Cianci.

Yeah, this clown though he was going to be the King of Fall River.

It was stupid to elect a known grifter that was trying to shake down businesses. Not electing a 25 year old.

Let's see how long before his wife ends up in a mountain of shit https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jasiel-correia-iis-snoowl-app-080102465.html

Until 25 years old the part of brain that evaluates risk is not fully developed.

Buddy Cianci would like a word with you.

That may be one of the last things ever heard by more an a few people. ;(

Why do some criminals, like this guy, have to go through the appeals process from prison, while others, like Steve Bannon, get to have their sentences delayed until the process plays out? This guy does seem guilty for sure, yet the judge having to toss a number of convictions that he says were never proved is concerning since it suggests the jury was biased against him.

Oh, come on!

He took a few bribes for construction jobs - he wasn't a hitman! That's damned near what every City Clerk does!!

I know plenty of under 25 year olds that don't break the law in any way, ever, under any circumstance. His age had NOTHING to do with it, that was all his personality (sneaky, narcissistic, arrogant), in other words LOSER!

Politicians can have a little law breaking as a treat.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Oh no! Wrong think! I bet I pay more taxes than you anyways

Money.

So you dont think there are politicians who have been on the job for so long they are primarily focused on their own self interest?

You think people like Ed Markey who has been a politician for almost 50 years is a better option than someone younger with a fresh perspective? Or someone like Mitch McConnell who has been in politics for 40 years? I'm simply stating, in general these old, long serving politicians are bad for our institutions but I'm also not going to go so crazy about correcting that by electing a really young person either.

Big time piece of shit

Age is less important than class. If someone is 30 and pushing bourgeois politics vs someone who's 70 pushing working class politics (and has an actual record of doing shit, not just talking a big game) I back the geezer.

Nothing like infantizing a grown ass adult.

Judging by the user's comment history they seem to be an expert in the field of manbaby psychology.

>I bet I pay more taxes than you anyways

Yeesh. Almost makes me nostalgic for the good ol' days when how much of a man you were largely depended on how many women you had banged.

Can we at least whip our dicks out and compare them in an entirely-straight fashion?

The poster boy for the acronym FTG

Forget underdeveloped brain, at 23 just no human being on earth has the kind of life experience and leadership experience to give them the context needed to make meaningful, properly informed decisions running something as big as a town. Even if they're prodigy smart and understand all the technicalities of the job.

No one is saying that they are exempt. But there is a reasonable floor where most people have "fully matured" to whatever level they personally are going to.

Nobody at 23 has the life experience and humility to run an entire town effectively.

​

An upper ceiling is a lot iffier for sure. I think in general we should try to avoid very old people who may be vulnerable to medical concerns (though mayor is kind lower stakes than president or governor) but I don't think I would straight up legally prohibit it.

Ice Town costs ice clown his town crown. But worse.

Loose Fall River Seal loses corruption case appeal.

Ice Town Costs Ice Clown His Town Crown

You must be poor then because actual rich people know how to avoid paying taxes.

I see you’ve worked at NY Post

Hell, they reelected him after he had been impeached!

Mass towns love a crook.

Ewwwww....pass.

Right. That’s the only point I was making lol

Good

What if there was a human being from Massachusetts who was elected mayor at age 21, was competent and professional with the job, through the suicide/drug deaths of his mother and brother, through a completely fabricated sex scandal, and left the position just a few years ago to become town manager somewhere else?

Every situation has its anomalies. I can find you a 12 year old who can drive a car safely but that doesn't mean we should start giving licenses to preteens.

Because the courts effectively gave each and everyone of his supporters 2 votes that could be assigned to him. You should not be allowed to run as a candidate for the office while the ballot has a motion to recall you on it.

The thing is, they did recall him, and then re-elected him! If he hadn't been recalled, fine...sucks...but makes sense.

This doesn't.

I mean, she’s already been moving finances around. It blows my mind how no one has looked into the fact that her family got the inside connection on prime property in a redevelopment district that was part of her then boyfriend’s plan to revitalize that neighborhood.

I know. I live in Fall River, and know full well everything that happened in that election. The ballot had 2 items on it: 1) Should Correia be removed from office, and 2) who should be elected mayor if he is recalled. To boot, there was a 3 way race with no run off for the mayor’s office, which split the anti Correia vote, allowing him to get elected again.

The courts set a precedent several years back when Flanagan was up for recalled and he challenged a BoE ruling that he could not appear on the ballot as a candidate for mayor in the same election in which he was up for recall.

Ugh. Gross.

Sad thing is, this dude will come back soon enough. Probably as a back room "advisor." Or he may just go for a comeback. He and Lt Gov Driscoll can for president together.

If it includes a battleship, I'm fuckin' in, yo

I'm sure they are.

I don't know, Buddy actually did shit to revitalize the city before crippling it on future pension payments and extortion.

The union busting kid can go to hell.

[deleted]

You mean, the unions? They do that. Extra points when they have un funded mandates.

From what people say he's been no good since he was a little kid.

He beat somebody in the head repeatedly WITH A FLAMING FIREPLACE LOG

If you can substantiate that, the US Attorney's office wants to hear from you. They...had nothing.

Hahaha well said!! The little Portuguese grandmas I know talk shit about him now

>I think this is what bothers me about these quippy, short-form discussions like we have on Reddit is you kinda always end up with "okay we all agree on X, right?"

This is a complete false premise word salad. I probably shoudn't even be engaging since you start up so disingenuously but ok, whatever. Just because I didn't write a multi paragraph rant in response to a deliberately nebulous example doesn't mean I'm being "quippy."

Nobody just arbitrarily decided "pre teens can't drive." Age limits were established for driving because the societal cost of bad immature drivers outweighed the negligible benefit of a few standout cases who are good enough to handle it. In fact, the trend has been to increase the age limit over time societal mobility has increased and tolerance for unsafe situations has generally decreased.

Developed, modern societies have all collectively come to roughly the same solution over literal centuries of development that there are things young people are generally not equipped to handle as well as adults and therefore should not be allowed to do due to risk to self and others. We don't let a 12 year old drive because the overwhelming majority of 12 year olds lack the risk assessment skills and appreciation for safety from a mix of lack of experience and biological development. We also set age limits for other things like drinking, other heavy machinery, pornography, and yes, holding certain offices. Likewise private companies like banks and car rentals won't extend certain business opportunities to people who they have similar concerns about because their investment risk is deemed to be too high.

Reasonable arguments can be had about any of those and whether the currently set limits are appropriate, but you're not the fucking arbiter of that conversation and you projecting about wanting to hear the "road of the crowd" or whatever is not fostering that conversation or adding anything of value. If the person who gave that example wants to expand on it and counter my answer to their question with some points of their own, they know where to find this thread. You on the other hand could no doubt find something better to do with your time that wax philosophical about what you think is the tragic downfall political discourse or whatever.

The issue here is first past the post. If this election had used ranked choice voting or another method requiring over 50% to win, he never would have won. He was recalled, but then won a plurality of only 35%: https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/03/13/fall-river-mayor-wins-recall-election

So the issue is that the voting system allows someone with 35% of the vote to win simply because there were a lot of candidates in the race. No way would he have won under RCV as he was never going to be the 2nd choice candidate of the 61% of people who voted to recall him in the first place.

The corruption case about weed shop bribes should totally stand but I maintain the idea for his app was so impossibly stupid that anyone who invested money in it deserved to get ripped off.

The article says he spent some of the ill gotten games on sex toys, but it doesn't specify what kind. Inquiring minds want to know?

>If you can substantiate that, the US Attorney's office wants to hear from you. They...had nothing.

Huh? In 2002, it was a lot of phantom charges that they couldn't prove, but this was his 1984 charge for assault where they had a victim/witness with injuries to match the account and full willingness to testify and prosecute.

There's only 2 reasons he wasn't in prison for that: the fact that he plea'd nolo on it and his status.

That doesn't really accurately describe the will of the people. 66% of voters voted to remove him from office.

The same election idiotically included him as an option on the 2nd question of who who the next mayor should be and there were like 5 candidates. He got 35% of that vote, a few hundred more than the next closest answer and was removed/re-elected on the same ballot.

At the end of the day, it's true to say that 2 out of every 3 voters who participated in the recall did not want him staying in office. It's dishonest to frame it as Fall River embracing a crook.

All you can really infer from that election is that a) there should be some overhaul to a process that allows a recall election to have the incumbent be on a replacement question and b) ranked-choice voting almost certainly would have prevented this.

Even then, this was before the 2nd set of charges about bribery, which actually might matter to people. The SnoOwl stuff was a more tenuous case and didnt really breach the public trust.

Naw, I stand by it. MAPOLI is pretty much just a criminal mob half the time.

To be honest, if someone else Portuguese runs, he's screwed.

There was a streak of a bunch of house speakers being indicted, but in this case, the assertion that the town happily re-elected him as a criminal is just plain false.

35% did. And the rest couldn't get their shit together to stop it from happening.

Dude, we have cities where councilors rep wards they don't even live in.

MA has always been fine with corruption.

Camara and Scott-Pacheco were spoilers for Correia. He still would have won.

,His 1984 charge,

He was born in 1991, you dope

Unless he's such a mastermind that he managed to work a heist before he was born, you need to state a mistake.

This is pretty specific—what’s the reference I’m missing?

He would have won over 50% in an RCV system after 61% voted to recall him? I find that hard to believe.