I mean, who knows, but the problem is you are requiring someone to bear additional risk on themselves individually to help the greater whole without that greater whole compensating them in the event that the risk doesn’t pan out.

So, tell me, would you have preferred to go through what could have been a multi-year court battle that you might have lost, or just gotten your settlement?  Because those are your options.  

taxpayer-funded research supported every new drug approved between 2010 and 2016.

Ha!  This would of course, be true, but J.G. Wentworth only gives you cash for settlements you’ve already won.  

If society were structured differently, sure.  But to the extent society is structured as it is, NDA driven settlements are probably net/net a good thing.

There’s no NDA in the world that can be enforced against you reporting actual abuse and harassment in America.

Eh, naw. The thing is, you’re never going to (nor should you) be able to circumvent an individual or entity’s right to try and defend itself. But if they’re willing to give that up in exchange for your silence, I feel like I’m okay with the victims who were actually damaged doing that. Look, maybe if our society had…

That’s easy to say when you’re not the one being given the option to sign an NDA and get your settlement guaranteed today or having to go through a costly and risky court battle to get a payout (if you win) potentially years down the road.

I’m not sure they can handle it, but I agree we shouldn’t intervene unless we are going in with broad international support owing to a massive humanitarian crisis spawning. I hesitate to say we should wait for UN support for action, because I don’t think Russia will get on board under any circumstance, but if the…

It’s okay to not get into the detailed origins of everything you talk about. Really, it is. Cheeky Blakk won’t die if Barack Obama, when asked a question about how to change the narrative perception of young black men, doesn’t delve in depth on a topic that’s really a throwaway line to give the broader advice of “Don’…

A non-binding proposal of “policy results we’d like to see” is not the same as the President yammering about caravans before using an actual tool at his disposal to attempt to try to force immigration policy to go his way.  We always knew that one way Trump might try to enact immigration policy was via not signing a…

That’s probably true, but I’d also like to see a “how” that’s a serious effort by the backers of the proposal to lay out how we might get there in 10 years. I presume if they lay out a goal as specific as 10 years they have at least some vague notion about it’s plausibility.

Now that you mention it, if we push enough Americans off the 7 train platform, we could accomplish some of the goals of the Green New Deal.

I’m happy to ignore estimates from the biased dingleberries like the AAF, but I don’t think there’s anything to be “for” or “against” right now. I mean, who wouldn’t love an economy with net zero emissions besides, like, the Koch brothers?

Isn’t Obama speaking more towards pop culture imagery here than specifics? Unlike, say, Bill Cosby, I assume Obama is savvy enough to know there aren’t roving bands of twerking women looking for rich rappers to dance around.

I don’t typically look but I got suspicious around the time he said something to the effect of Harry Potter being magical in both fiction and real life if you let it or some such nonsense that’s since been dismissed. There’s being an earnest fanboy, and then there’s letting on that you’re a troll, which prompted me to…

I really wish we could find ways to make the business and pro-life sides of the Republican party fight more. They share some values sure, but there are several topics that the business plutocrats such as the Koch brothers simply do not care about and, if you could find a way to force them to be completely honest,…

The option to make use of a draft definitely still exists, and if we wound in a conflict on a broader global scale, we’d probably use one.

I’ll take the meta view here.

Medicare for all does, but what I’m talking about are the specifics of what that actually means. It’s such a broad catch all, and when you ask voters specifically what they are looking for, it winds up looking a lot like “Medicare”, the actual program, for everybody. Not true single payer. I think that, as we close…