

The Guardian isn’t exactly a fly by night news org, and if you were to just search “Sarah Shaw detained ICE” you would find news articles from many sources.


The Guardian isn’t exactly a fly by night news org, and if you were to just search “Sarah Shaw detained ICE” you would find news articles from many sources.


In general, recipients of UBI end up in better employment positions than they had before receiving UBI. That means they pay more in taxes and contribute more to society. They also are in better health, which means those that were truly poor and on medicaid before, are no longer costing society as much in medical costs.
But keep licking that boot.


You know why governments exist? Like, at their core? To take care of the fucking people living under them. It’s why village A stopped attacking village B, cuz they realized that, if they pooled their resources, they could defend against the fucking leopards and bears better. So yes, your taxes would go up. But you know what? Unless you’re actually rich, and not even like net worth of 3 million dollars or something, that ain’t even rich, but unless you’re RICH rich, you’ll get more throught that “handout” than you would pay in taxes. And the fact that it’d be funded through your taxes means it’s not even a handout to begin with! It’s a government SERVICE. The thing that made banding together in groups of more than a dozen people sound like a good idea in the first place.
Now, as for your point of having a lot of money not obligating you to support bums… well, first. Fuck you. You’re an asshole. And second, 50% of homeless people in the US are former foster kids that aged out of the system and have no support network. So I guess just fuck them, they get to die on the streets, right? Bad luck to not be born with wealthy parents. And historically, having a lot of money DID mean you had an obligation to support these so called “bums”. From the '40s to 1963, the top tax rates were ~90%. On the ultra wealthy. The Rockefellers and whatnots. Now it’s what? I dunno, 30%? That is, if you don’t use creative accounting and just make it .01%, which we all know is the typical practice. It’s not a handout, it’s making these rich beyond rich fucking assholes pay their fair share. But you can keep licking that boot, because, sure. Someday, YOU’LL make it. And when you have more money than you can possibly use in your great grandchildren’s lifetimes, it’ll be really important to you to keep some just turned 18 year old kid, who bounced around the foster system his whole life, and has no support system at all, out of housing. Good for you.


You know, you’d get it too. The population is the beneficiary. The subsidizer would be people like Musk and Dorsey. by taxing them.


To be replaced by “Harold Whiteman”, a dapper man of Nordic ancestry, who helped white slaves escape from white slavery with the help of the friendly neighborhood watch organization, the KKK!


That’s amazing! I’ve got the same combination on my luggage!


The article doesn’t mention his party, but yes, he was a republican.


Ok? I never said she committed no crime. In fact, I specifically did say it was a trafficking case. And she served 2 1/2 years in prison for it, thereby paying her debt to society. So what’s your point?


I didn’t say you were a right wing nutjob, I said that making such ridiculous leaps in logic make you sound like one. I agree, this is Lemmy, so the chances of you actually being full right wing are pretty slim. Though seeing the term “Marijuana-related charges” and being like, well, it could be simple possession, or they could’ve beaten someone half to death for smoking their weed is the type of leap that nutjobs make.
I am simply making a point that we don’t know what the “marijuana-related charge” is.
If you really wanted to know more about the charges, you could’ve googled for 2 seconds and found the same article I did. Instead you just put out into the world that, well, maybe she beat someone half to death. Again, that’s battery.
I am simply making a point that we don’t know what the “marijuana-related charge” is.
Is basically the same line of thinking conspiracy theorists use when they say something ridiculous and then say they’re “just asking questions.” Especially if you’re using that line as a defense against pushback when you suggest that those marijuana related charges may have involved violence.
I’m not saying all this to attack you. I’m saying it so that next time you come across an article that you feel lacks some critical information, maybe you’ll look into it further rather than just suggest that the person said article is about is actually some sort of monster.


That story has a bit more info about the marijuana related charges. Not a ton, but it does have:
"A longtime Milwaukee resident, Yang worked as a nail technician and a receptionist at nail salons before the COVID-19 pandemic. She was earning a living for her children, who range in age from 6 to 22. Her partner, Bub, is disabled: he has had two brain surgeries, is partially paralyzed and suffers from memory loss.
During the pandemic, the family moved into a house that prosecutors say was part of a marijuana trafficking operation.
Yang was among 26 people indicted in a sweeping federal case in 2020. It alleged Yang helped count and package cash that was mailed to marijuana suppliers in California. Prosecutors found bags of cash taped between pages of magazines, according to a complaint."
So it was a trafficking case. Weed was being shipped from Cali, where it’s legal, to Wisconsin, where it’s not, and they were mailing back cash to pay for the weed. To me it just sounds like she was trying to take care of her family and disabled partner during a difficult time.
Also, “Marijuana-related charges” is never going to mean “beating someone half dead because they smoked your weed.” That’s just battery. Even guessing that that is code for some violent crime makes you sound like a right wing nutjob making huge mental leaps to justify how horribly this woman was treated by the govt as a good thing.


https://fortune.com/2025/01/31/aldi-scrubbed-careers-website-of-all-dei-initiatives/
Aldi did the same thing this boycott of Target is about. So no, not Aldi first.


you’re supposed the pronounce it “Tar-jay”
Lmao, no you’re not, that’s just something people started doing to literally make fun of the “Walmart but fancy” image they cultivated for themselves.


The literal rest of my life will be spent trying to fuck over America and Americans.
As an American, I’d just like to say we absolutely deserve this.
Are these products available in states without legal marijuana? Just confused as to what this really affects, as THC is already illegal federally. Are states with legal weed suddenly not going to sell gummies? Seems unlikely, as they’re already violating the federal law just selling weed to begin with.