Donald Trump

[zombywoof]

P.S. I see Senor NoirSol is looking at this thread

Fun fact, he is the reason I brought up the ADA and Italy. I'll let him explain his work as to why the comparison isn't just a funny little aside about how nothing's perfect anywhere, but also directly related to something one of my friends is doing with his life!

[nug_diggum]

Metz shall now be known as Anal_Cyst
Make it so blacksun

[MagisterXF94]

QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Feb 7 2019, 08:02 PM) P.S. I see Senor NoirSol is looking at this thread

Fun fact, he is the reason I brought up the ADA and Italy. I'll let him explain his work as to why the comparison isn't just a funny little aside about how nothing's perfect anywhere, but also directly related to something one of my friends is doing with his life!

@#(!!

I need to perfect my forum lurking skillz. But since P1 called me out, here we go.

What she said is true.

Every country has its negatives, we have Salvini and the 5 Stars, bankrupting our economy for a stupid UBI.

They have the disabled in chief.

I'll still take Italy over America though.

Now onto the disability aspect.

We have laws in place Italy, that are supposed to help with the inclusion of a disabled person in normal life.

There are several, laws however the most "important" one is legge 104/92; (92 is the year, and " legge", means "law" in Italian.

Legge 104 has the aim to fufill article 3 of the Italian Constitution.

"All citizens have equal social dignity and are equal before the law, without distinction of sex, race, language, religion, political opinions, personal and social conditions.

It is the duty of the Republic to remove those obstacles of an economic and social nature which, really limiting the freedom and equality of citizens, impede the full development of the human person and the effective participation of all workers in the political, economic and social organization of the country."

Legge 104 grants me several perks:

It increases the chance of me finding a job, as I am a protected category.

It provides me with a disability pension to pay my family's increased expenses.

I can choose the place of work which is closesest to my domicile.

It provides benefits for employers who hire disabled people. The state makes firms who hir, people with handicaps pay less taxes and recieve an economic incentive from the state.

My employer, gets 25% back off his cost of hiring me too.

Legge 17/99 stipulates that I'm not to pay university taxes except for the enrollment fund. This way my university education isn't a burden on my family's finances.

(I had to pay a grand total of 76 euros for my bachelors and my masters combined.

Legge 118/81 is supposed to implent the removal of all architectural barriers in public spaces.

Legge 13/89 deals with architectural barriers in private spaces.

There are a ton of other laws which I'm not going to side otherwise I'm going to have to, cite the whole f****** Italian lawbook regarding disablities to you all.

Does this work?

Yes and no.

While without these laws i'd be $#@!ed, the implementation of these laws is very much imperfect.

Most public places in my town are inaccessible, or partiallly accesible.

That is mostly fault of the architects and engineeers.

But I can't really blame them because they don't live with a disability.

And without living with a disability, it is almost impossible to realize the requirements needed to make a building mot only accessible, but usable. By "Usable", I mean a building that is completely barrier-free, as to allow its usage in complete authonomy.

And here we arrive to another focal question.

The question of autonomy.

I want to, be autonomous when I can. I don't wish to rely on caregivers if I can help it.

My future wife will not have to take care of me 24/7/365. She will not be a nurse.

The road to autonomy is as much a personal journey, one of development, embarrising issues, and so on.

There is much I can do on my own, but there is still much I can't do, and for some things I will have to ask for help.

The state,however must do better in terms of tearing down architectural barriers, not enough is being done.

That is why, i decided to jump in and contribute.

I am part of an organisation, composed of young people all of which are determined to improve our town in multiple ways.

I was elected to be responsible of all matters and projects which have to do with disability matters.

For my most recent Project "Young people design accessibility", we are attempting to provide a new framework past the current legislationin how to remove physical as well as cultural barriers around the concept of disabilities.

We won a regional tender and recieved funding

Thanks to inside contacts, I managed to pitch the project to the current under secretary of the ministry of disabilities of the Italian republic.

He, a blind person, loved the project and said that after we finish the local and regional implementation he would like to discuss how we could turn it into actual national law.

For the same reasons which gave rise to the above project I decided, to run for a seatin my faculty department as well as the council of students.

Today I help a professor in my department to deal with all issues pertaining to disabled students in our faculty.

And I also drafted a paper for the current dean of my university highlighting the current critical issues in terms of accessibility.

The paper was well received and the dean invited me to oversee the construction work, and closely collaborate with him and his delegates.

TLDR Italy could be better in terms of accessibility and disabled related matters.
@badp here's an article I wrote.

https://progettiamotrieste.it/la-maledi ... izzazione/

*Lurk mode on*

[zombywoof]

Anyways, it's thanks to talking to Blacksun that I happened to know that access in Italy isn't quite what it is in the US. That's not to say the US is a better country or that Italy sucks or whatever, but it is to say that every nation has its ups and downs. I would rather, for example, live in California than almost any other nation on earth. Our LGBT protections are top-notch, we have a robust economy, the weather is great, weed's not only legal but inexpensive and delicious, and there's both skiing and surfing.

BUT... I can't walk down the street with a beer in my hand, the social safetynet is too low, and housing/health insurance are insanely expensive. There are huge problems with our infrastructure that need to be fixed and our prison system is out of control.

Where I differ from, say, minigun, is that I love the place I live and want to fix these things rather than just give up.

[cashto]

QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Feb 7 2019, 10:56 AM) Two questions:

1) When do you believe the "welfare state" started in the US?

2) What are the words in the preamble to the US constitution?

Welfare state connotes direct handouts from the state. There have been many ideas of how a government can ensure the welfare of its people with handouts being precisely one of those ideas.

The New Deal, specifically the third of the "Four Freedoms": "freedom from want". Yes, the preamble to the Constitution does list "provide for the general welfare" as an enumerated goal, but there is a difference between "the general welfare" of a community (involving government spending money on roads, schools, police, courts, facilitating interstate commerce, etc.) and providing for a society where, again in your words, "everyone has enough to survive".

That latter thing didn't exist until the 20th century, certainly not at a federal level. It's SS and Medicare and disability and unemployment insurance and all those things. Do you consider them handouts? It's the thing that Republicans are trying to abolish for 90 years. I know you know all of this, so I'm rather confused what point you're trying to make.

It seems you have some aversion to the word "welfare state", as if Reagan sufficiently poisoned the word for all time back in the 80s or something. I'm not saying everyone's on food stamps, I'm saying that There Is A Food Stamp Program. And not only does it exist, but you're legally entitled to use it.

[badpazzword]

It's unfortunate that Italian law doesn't get applied as much as it should; I wasn't aware of NoirSol's personal situation. The political situation of Italy has been disastrous for the last 30 years, and now it's getting actively toxic. You don't need to remind me.

None of this has anything to do or can justify trump russia gop flint ice voter oppression climate change travel ban breitbart healthcare iran puerto rico wall gerrymandering trans ban etc. You have people in this thread saying universal healthcare will automatically turn you into a starved third-world dictatorship and here you are bringing up Mussolini? Okay??

(unsubscribes from thread)

[zombywoof]

QUOTE (cashto @ Feb 7 2019, 02:37 PM) The New Deal, specifically the third of the "Four Freedoms": "freedom from want". Yes, the preamble to the Constitution does list "provide for the general welfare" as an enumerated goal, but there is a difference between "the general welfare" of a community (involving government spending money on roads, schools, police, courts, facilitating interstate commerce, etc.) and providing for a society where, again in your words, "everyone has enough to survive".

Seriously, Cashto. There was an entire 150 years of this nation's history before FDR ran for President.

QUOTE That latter thing didn't exist until the 20th century, certainly not at a federal level. It's SS and Medicare and disability and unemployment insurance and all those things. Do you consider them handouts? It's the thing that Republicans are trying to abolish for 90 years. I know you know all of this, so I'm rather confused what point you're trying to make.[/quote]
Those are perfect examples of the welfare state. The welfare state is one method by which a government can ensure the safety and security of its constituents.

QUOTE It seems you have some aversion to the word "welfare state", as if Reagan sufficiently poisoned the word for all time back in the 80s or something. I'm not saying everyone's on food stamps, I'm saying that There Is A Food Stamp Program. And not only does it exist, but you're legally entitled to use it.[/quote]
I really do not have an aversion to the phrase "welfare state." I have not at any point suggested that there shouldn't be a food stamp program, that you think everyone should be on food stamps, or that food stamps should go away.

I said that the purpose of governments is to organize a community for the survival of that community. You said "no that's just the welfare state." I said, "no, it's something that every government has done throughout history because that's the purpose of government."

Let me ask you another question then: what happens to a government if all of its citizens die or leave?

QUOTE (badp @ Feb 7 2019, 02:40 PM) None of this has anything to do or can justify trump russia gop flint ice voter oppression climate change travel ban breitbart healthcare iran puerto rico wall gerrymandering trans ban etc. You have people in this thread saying universal healthcare will automatically turn you into a starved third-world dictatorship and here you are bringing up Mussolini? Okay??

Because I am notorious for justifying the GOP? Anyways the joke about Moussolini is that our train system in the US sucks, so no matter how bad our leaders are, at least even your guys' worst one could figure out how to get those things working.

[Terran]

QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Feb 7 2019, 06:19 PM) Anyways the joke about Moussolini is that our train system in the US sucks, so no matter how bad our leaders are, at least even your guys' worst one could figure out how to get those things working.

auto industry lobby? that would be my guess anyway. it just doesn't make sense otherwise.

[zombywoof]

Yeah that's my guess too.

[cashto]

QUOTE (cashto @ Feb 7 2019, 02:37 PM) The New Deal, specifically the third of the "Four Freedoms": "freedom from want". Yes, the preamble to the Constitution does list "provide for the general welfare" as an enumerated goal, but there is a difference between "the general welfare" of a community (involving government spending money on roads, schools, police, courts, facilitating interstate commerce, etc.) and providing for a society where, again in your words, "everyone has enough to survive".

QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Feb 7 2019, 03:19 PM) Seriously, Cashto. There was an entire 150 years of this nation's history before FDR ran for President.

You're going to have to explain what your point is, since I fail to see how mentioning the Homestead Acts is a reply to what I wrote.

QUOTE I said that the purpose of governments is to organize a community for the survival of that community.[/quote]

No, you said this:

QUOTE To me, a democratic government is just an agreement by its citizens to work together to create a society in which everyone has enough to survive. That's pretty $#@!ing leftist and is basically just communism.[/quote]

The key word here, to me, is everyone. If you had just said "the point of government is do stuff that makes the community better overall", I would have said, well, duh. I fail to see how that is particularly leftist. Surely you didn't mean to suggest that every democratic government ever is communist.

Guaranteeing every person a certain minimum standard of living? Now that's an innovation. That's not something we had 200 years ago. That's all I'm saying, and I'm not sure why you're treating this as a very controversial point.