The third and final debate in Las Vegas, Nevada began with a notably different tone compared to previous debates. Chris Wallace, the moderator, guided the candidates through the predetermined categories to address a few of the substantive issues that have gotten little attention throughout much of the election season. But the formality that we saw in the beginning quickly subsided as the questions turned to the legitimacy of the elections and the candidates’ past records.

Here’s a quick rundown of the highlights:

The Show Started Before the Candidates Took the Stage

The circus surrounding the debate got started well before 9 PM on Wednesday when news about debate guests started circulating. Trump’s guests included Malik Obama, President Obama’s half-brother and a Trump supporter, as well as Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, who was killed in the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. In light of Trump’s similar efforts to shake up the second debate, the Clinton campaign moved to make sure guests and families did not cross paths when entering the stage, which was approved by the debate commission.

But while talk of guests took up much of the attention going into Wednesday’s event, they appeared to have little effect on what happened on stage. While most expected Smith’s attendance to force the issue on Clinton’s response to the Benghazi attack, the topic hardly came up.

Trump Doesn’t Commit to Respecting the Election Outcome

When asked about his recent rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims that the election is “rigged,” Trump continued criticism of incomplete voter registration data, going so far as to indicate that the election may be mishandled. But when Chris Wallace followed up and asked if he would accept the outcome of the election, Trump refused to say yes, responding with “I will look at it at the time.” He later added, “I will keep you in suspense.”

This is a significant reversal from his response to the same question at the first debate and was probably the most striking moment at the entire debate. His response was also striking in light of his statements at the second debate, when he promised to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton and indicated that she belonged in prison. Both of these comments amount to a significant departure from established democratic norms to promote the peaceful transition of power and the nonpartisan rule of law.

Rukmini Callimachi, a New York Times foreign correspondent, has heard that notion before:

8. Trump refuses to say he’ll accept results of election. “I’ll tell you at the time.” (I heard that a lot covering African elections)

— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) October 20, 2016

Striking Disagreement on the Economy

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are running on vastly different economic platforms and some of those differences made their way to the forefront in Wednesday’s debate. Trump’s plan to cut taxes, particularly for the highest earning Americans, stood in striking contrast to Clinton’s plan, which would modestly raise taxes for those at the very top. Clinton highlighted her plan to use those new revenues to invest in infrastructure and working families while Trump claimed that his massive tax cuts would unleash unprecedented economic growth. He later dodged questions on his plan’s consequences for the deficit and the national debt, claiming that they wouldn’t matter with all the new jobs he plans to create.

Still No Questions on Climate Change

For the final point here, I’ll highlight something that was missing from tonight’s debate, as well as the two that preceded it. Climate change is an issue that the Democratic Party and nearly all governing parties throughout the rest of the world have agreed is one of the most significant problems facing the world. But in an election to determine the next president of the United States, and arguably one of the most influential people in global climate policy in the next decade, barely any time was devoted to discussing it. President Obama has said of climate change, “No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” but if you are a voter worrying about how the candidates plan to address it, you were left waiting.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 4 Highlights from the Third Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Never has the United States seen a powerhouse debate quite like…Senator Tim Kaine and Mike Pence–two people that most of the United States don’t really care about.

But that’s kind of the point–a big part of tonight’s debate was trying to get to know the two VP candidates, who have thus far been overshadowed by their significantly more famous ticket-mates. So here were the five most defining moments of tonight’s debate:

No One Played Nice…From the First Question

From almost the first moment of the debate, Kaine and Pence went after each other. The two started squabbling early, beginning with disagreements over Hillary Clinton’s record, and the way that her campaign has been run. Pence said: “Well, let me say first and foremost that, Senator, you and Hillary Clinton would know a lot about an insult-driven campaign. It really is remarkable.”

Just a few minutes later, Kaine went hard against Trump over the tax return issue, pointing out that by not paying his federal taxes, he’s not supporting the military. Pence tried to brush it off, but Kaine got some punches in too.

Put simply: these two VP candidates brought the fire, and we finally started to see a hint of their unique personalities.

Pence Put his Foot in his Mouth on Racism and Implicit Bias

Pence tried to give a compassionate answer about police shootings in the United States, and claimed that implicit bias isn’t really something we should be caring about. He said:

Donald Trump and I both believe that there’s been far too much of this talk of institutional bias or racism in law enforcement.

For a lot of people, that kind of broad-brushed, and frankly pretty inaccurate, claim sat very poorly with a lot of people:

KAINE: there’s bias in the system

PENCE: what about when black cops shoot black people

this isn’t even a joke this just happened

— tc (@chillmage) October 5, 2016

Mike Pence has clearly never spent any time thinking about race. Like at all. #VPDebate

— Zerlina Maxwell (@ZerlinaMaxwell) October 5, 2016

Bringing up the race of a black officer to argue there isn’t “implicit bias” in policing shows you don’t know definition of “implicit bias”

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) October 5, 2016

Mike Pence Didn’t Talk that Much About Donald Trump

Mike Pence stayed away from talking a lot about his running mate, Donald Trump. Instead, Pence went on the offensive, going after Clinton and Kaine’s records, as well as President Barack Obama’s two terms in office.

That was probably a smart call. Mike Pence had a job to do tonight–look like the adult in the room. And by not trying to defend some of Trump’s more indefensible positions, he didn’t have to try to look like an adult purely at the expense of his running mate.

Tim Kaine Really Liked his Zingers…and the Tax Return Point

Whoever writes the one-liners and zingers for the Hillary Clinton campaign has perhaps been slacking a bit. Tim Kaine had some good jabs at Trump and Pence, but also had some that fell a little flat.

Kaine: “Donald Trump has a Mt Rushmore” of world dictators. Pence: “Did you work on that a long time?” Mocks Kaine zingers. #VPDebate

— Jennifer Griffin (@JenGriffinFNC) October 5, 2016

No zingers are worse than zingers from old debates.

— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) October 5, 2016

But for as many zingers as Tim Kaine tried to put out there, he also make a lot of comments about Trump’s tax returns. He brought almost every point back to it–and don’t get me wrong, it’s a powerful slam against Trump. But Kaine brought it up perhaps a few times too many, to the point where it became almost ineffective.

A Faith Question for Both Candidates

Kaine is a Catholic who has worked with Jesuit missionaries in South America; Pence is an Evangelical Christian who has long been a social conservative. A conversation about their faith led to a discussion on abortion, and it became one of the most substantive exchanges of the two debates so far.

This year’s election has been in some cases more about personal attacks than about the real ideological divides between the Democrats and the Republicans. While Kaine and Pence didn’t manage to totally avoid personal questions, some substance did shine through in tonight’s debate, and it was a welcome change.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Five Most Defining Moments of the Kaine-Pence VP Debate appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday September 26, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will go head-to-head in the first presidential debate. The debate starts at 9 p.m. EST and will air on all major news networks and stream live on Twitter. Make sure you’re following Law Street on Twitter and Facebook for live debate coverage and commentary. Here’s everything you need to know heading into round one.

The Participants

Clinton and Trump are the only two participants in Monday’s debate, which will take place at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. But what about the Green Party’s Jill Stein and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson? The Commission on Presidential Debates, which has been sponsoring debates since 1987, invites only those candidates who receive at least 15 percent support in an average of five national polls. Clinton (43 percent) and Trump (40.4) averaged far above the 15 percent bar, while Johnson (8.4) and Stein (3.2), did not.

After months of scathing tweets and abrasive stump speeches, Monday’s debate will be the first direct engagement between Clinton and Trump of the 2016 campaign season. Expect both to make an attempt at softening their images amid historically low favorability ratings.

The Moderator

The man in the middle for debate number one is NBC’s “Nightly News” host, Lester Holt. In February 2015, Holt replaced Brian Williams as anchor after Williams was dropped for embellishing his war-reporting experiences in Iraq.

Holt, 57, has decades of journalism experience and is known for diving into the thick of a story, rather than reporting on it from the periphery. A week before the debate, Trump let loose a pre-emptive missile toward Holt by calling the debate “rigged.” “Look, it’s a phony system, said Trump in an interview Monday with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. “Lester is a Democrat. I mean, they are all Democrats. Okay? It’s a very unfair system.”

Holt is not, in fact, a Democrat, but a registered Republican.

The Topics

The format for the debate is as follows: there will be six topics touched on for 15 minutes each for a total of 90 minutes. The three main topics chosen by Holt are: “America’s direction,” “Achieving Prosperity,” and “Securing America.”

In her primary debates, Clinton projected a substantive, detail-oriented posture, largely free of insults and the noise that so often dominated the Republican primary debates. She’ll likely do the same on Monday, spending her allotted time fleshing out her policies as much as possible. Trump might take a different tack. A formidable showman, Trump branded his Republican opponents with catchy nicknames in the primary debates, turning nearly all of his opponents into laughing stocks and caricatures.

But perhaps America will see a new Trump come Monday. “I think this, if she treats me with respect, I will treat her with respect,” said Trump during his interview with O’Reilly.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the First Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

“Government should have lawful access to any encrypted message or device.” That was the resolution at the center of a debate between CNN’s Fareed Zakaria and Edward Snowden, former NSA contractor and infamous (or famous, depending on your opinions) leaker of classified information.

The Sides

Zakaria, the host of CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” and Washington Post columnist, supported the resolution, arguing that no one should be able to have a “zone of immunity,” and that with due process, all information should be accessible to law enforcement. Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor responsible for an unprecedented leak of classified information about the agency’s surveillance programs, took the opposing position, arguing that computer security is the preeminent challenge of our time and that making it possible for the government to access devices makes everyone’s information less safe.

The People and the Place

The debate, which took place in the New York Times Building just steps away from Times Square, was co-hosted by the Century Foundation and NYU’s Wagner School for public service. Zakaria stood before the audience in New York while Snowden was teleconferenced in from Russia.

Fareed Zakaria and Edward Snowden debate encryption. [Image courtesy of Kevin Rizzo for Law Street Media]

With the help of moderator Barton Gellman–a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who broke the story after Snowden’s leak and current Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation–the debaters managed to debate the merits of encryption. Although discussion of encryption often becomes abstract, with talk of backdoors and impenetrable walls, Snowden and Zakaria got to the crux of the issue: when possible, should companies be forced to comply with court orders to release information when law enforcement cannot access it?

The Fuss Over Encryption

Encryption tends to quickly polarize people. On one hand there are people like FBI Director James Comey who has said that one day, law enforcement officers will need to get into an encrypted device to save a kidnapped child, and without the ability to do so, someone might die. On the other are privacy advocates, who say that weakening security by making every device accessible to the government, or creating a so-called backdoor, will make devices insecure for everyone, criminals and upstanding citizens alike. But the reality is often more complicated.

Drawing from his unique position as a former NSA contractor and current privacy advocate, Snowden noted that nothing is completely protected. If someone can access their device, then it is possible for others to access it as well. He used examples from his time at the NSA, saying that he was able to get around encryption. He also cited the FBI’s success in arresting Ross Ulbricht, the man behind the infamous Silk Road website–an online black market that often facilitated illegal activity. The FBI managed to arrest Ulbricht and access his encrypted information because agents physically took his computer while he was logged into Silk Road at a public library.

But Zakaria shot back arguing that getting around encryption like that is very difficult and often extremely expensive. He noted the recent battle between the FBI and Apple, in which the FBI ended up paying more than a million dollars to break into a phone used by one of the San Bernadino shooters. Zakaria asked why wealthy law enforcement agencies should be able to break into the phones of murderers while similar crimes go unsolved in Harlem and the Bronx.

Eventually, Gellman, the moderator, raised a question that got to the heart of the issue. He noted that the messaging service WhatsApp has, based on available evidence, managed to create comprehensive end-to-end encryption for its users–meaning that even the company cannot read its users’ messages. Gellman asked Zakaria if such services should exist, noting that a bill in the Senate would require companies to be able to decrypt their customers’ data with a court order, making impenetrable encryption against the law.

Zakaria conceded that if a company was able to create a system that the company itself could not decrypt, then they would not be held liable. “If WhatsApp says we literally do not know how to write this code—WhatsApp could demonstrate to a court that they don’t have to do it,” Zakaria said. But he maintained that if uncovering the data is possible, the government should be allowed to do so with a court order.

At that point, the disagreement became clear–Zakaria, and the pro law enforcement camp in general, believe that when it is possible (and it often is) the government should be able to gain access to devices if they obtain a court order. But Snowden, technologists, and privacy advocates, counter that making companies exploit their own systems to gain access to devices makes everyone’s information less safe.

A Welcome Focus on Realism

While strong disagreement between the two sides remained at the end of the event, they managed to discuss the issue based on its merits without exclusively dealing in abstract hypothetical situations. The debate boiled down to the tension between cyber security and law enforcement’s ability to get information, echoing the larger battle between preserving privacy and providing safety. While the debate remains far from settled, Snowden and Zakaria’s discussion of encryption should help shape the conversation going forward.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fareed Zakaria and Edward Snowden Debate the Limits of Encryption appeared first on Law Street.

Bad Lip Reading features one of the simplest yet most entertaining concepts on the internet. A Youtube channel run by an anonymous creator, it takes videos of celebrities, politicians, and movie trailers and dubs in ridiculous things for the speakers to say. Bad Lip Reading has long been spoofing this year’s crazy cast of presidential candidates, but its rendition of Bernie Sanders’ and Hillary Clinton’s last debate in New York is one of the best yet. Check it out below:

One of the highlights is when Bad Lip Reading graduates from just dubbing in silly things for Sanders and Clinton to say, and moves on to spoofing Sanders’ hand motions as well, by having him play a game of charades called “Time to Act.” Prompts included “you ask the waiter for the check” “you see a bee” “prostate exam” “timid Napoleon” and “your hand is a baby bird, your fingers are the beak.”

In the spot, which features more Sanders than Clinton (perhaps because of his more characteristic charisma and hand gestures) the Vermont Senator also takes a break from the debate to sing a quick song, “Why is it creepy to juggle in bed? When God gave us hands, and God gave us balls, and God gave us beds?”

Bad Lip Reading has certainly been having plenty of fun this election cycle, like with this interpretation of Republican hopeful Ted Cruz’s words:

Or this nonsensical version of the first Republican debate back in the summer of 2015:

As the primary contests yield nominees who will inevitably face off many times  before the general election, Bad Lip Reading will probably have even more fantastic fodder. I, for one, can’t wait.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bad Lip Reading Takes on Latest Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

The upcoming race for New York’s 13th Congressional District marks the first time that there’s an open seat to represent Harlem since WWII. Charlie Rangel has held the spot for years, and there’s a lot of history there–before Rangel was Adam Clayton Powell Jr., the first black man elected to Congress in New York and the fourth black Congressman in the United States. Powell was first elected back in 1947 and his son, Adam Clayton Powell IV, is one of the seven candidates vying for the open seat. But he’s not the only one vying for the seat in Harlem. Put simply: this is a race to watch.

The Democratic primary will be held on June 28; the winner will almost certainly go on to win the general election. The New York 13th district is one of the most solidly Democratic districts in the nation, with over 90 percent of the vote going to President Obama in each of the past two elections.

The Silicon Harlem Debate

In a district that has seen just two representatives in almost 70 years, the Silicon Harlem debate was held last week on April 7 as the district shifts to meet the fast-changing demands for the 21st century. The debate was hosted by Silicon Harlem, a nonprofit organization seeking to reinvigorate Harlem by expanding technological innovation in the neighborhood. The organization started back in 2013 and has been working with local government officials and tech startups to bring new opportunities to the Harlem community. Silicon Harlem’s founder, Clayton Banks, kicked off the event by introducing Representative Rangel, the candidates, and the moderators, who were led by MSNBC’s Richard Lui.

When most people think about innovation they typically think of tech giants in California, but Harlem’s debate shows that innovation can be a plan for economic growth at a very local level. Harlem and its surrounding areas have been working for years to create a tech hub in Upper Manhattan. Under Mayor Bloomberg, the city embarked on a plan to provide free and fast internet to a 95-block area including Harlem, the largest plan in the country. While the candidates and the crowd expressed their dissatisfaction with the plan’s progress, the area has had several success stories when it comes to incubating new tech companies.

Silicon Harlem’s debate marks a further shift in that direction. The first ever technology-focused debate highlights the area’s larger plans for development in the area. It shows that the New York 13th District’s next representative will need to make technology a significant part of their campaign and that once elected, he or she will need to pursue policies and programs to foster growth both nationally and in the district. In a time when most politics feels so national, the Silicon Harlem debate refocused the conversation on the district itself.

At the debate, the candidates touched on topics ranging from the need for a stronger focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education to the government’s role in regulating Uber. The central question was which policies will help spur growth in the district and what role should the government play in promoting local growth. The candidates all agreed that the government should be active, if not aggressive, when it comes to encouraging growth on the local level. But arguably its most important role is to expand access to new technology and high-speed internet. Closing the digital divide is of paramount importance when it comes to ensuring that everyone is able to benefit from new technology.

The Candidates

With seven candidates participating, the debate featured a range of experience and personality. Suzane Cook served as the Obama Administration’s Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. Keith Wright and Guillermo Linares currently serve in the New York State Assembly and Adam Clayton Powell IV was an assemblyman from 2001 to 2010. Senator Adriano Espaillat currently serves much of the northern part of the 13th district in the state senate. Clyde Williams served as a Domestic Political Advisor for President Clinton and as the National Political Director for the Democratic National Committee. Mike Gallagher is a stay-at-home father of four who grew up in the community. He’s running because he feels that the district’s current representatives have failed their constituents.

The Future

Although much of the debate focused on positive policy proposals, there was an underlying fear that Harlem, Washington Heights, the northwest section of the Bronx, and the rest of the New York 13th district would not reap the benefits of the technological revolution. That, coupled with the feeling that both Congress and the local government have not done enough to ensure its development, created a sense of urgency for those on stage.

State Senator Espaillat echoed this sentiment when he spoke of a two-tiered New York, saying, “and this debate is really about that as well: whether we can bring our communities to benefit from the innovation economy.” Cook noted the lack of minority and female participation in the technology industry, something that she argued would need to change for everyone to benefit in the future.

I spoke with Williams, a candidate and a former Clinton adviser, after the debate. He reiterated his plan to expand STEM education through after-school programs and initiatives to get children to start school at a younger age. He said that in order to ensure that Harlem and the New York 13th is competitive in the digital age, education needs to take a more holistic approach, starting earlier and engaging students during and after school hours. In the debate, Williams said, “but because we’re so far behind the eightball, as far as black and brown communities, we need to start educating our kids much earlier and we can expose them to technology at a much younger age.” It will be up to the candidate who wins to make that vision a reality.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Historic Congressional Race in Harlem: Technology is Key appeared first on Law Street.

This weekend, the remaining GOP candidates had what felt like the 876th debate of this election cycle (it was actually the ninth). The first two primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire, did their job and made the field much smaller, leaving just Donald Trump, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, Governor Jeb Bush, Dr. Ben Carson, and Governor John Kasich. But the smaller field didn’t lead to a smaller amount of BS being flung around the debate stage; check out the top five craziest moments of this weekend’s GOP debate below:

Everyone Was Confused About Supreme Court Nominations

Saturday’s debate was certainly affected by the fact that just a few hours earlier, the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was announced. It’s obviously a sitting president’s job to nominate a replacement, but that’s not what Senator Mitch McConnell said after Scalia’s death was announced:

The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.

So, naturally, the candidates were asked about what they thought of Obama nominating a replacement. Every candidate on the stage essentially said that Obama shouldn’t nominate a new justice–despite the fact that that would guarantee an empty seat on the bench for at least a year, and there’s not some footnote in the Constitution that says that a President can only nominate a Supreme Court justice when he’s not a lame duck president. That didn’t stop multiple Republican candidates from speaking incorrectly about the U.S.’s history when it comes to nominating SCOTUS candidates. For example Ted Cruz incorrectly stated that “we have 80 years of precedent of not confirming justices in an election year,” despite the fact that Justice Anthony Kennedy was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and confirmed in 1988, while Reagan was a lame duck president.

This Confusion Led to Fact Checking by the Moderator

.@jdickerson tries to correct Cruz on Kennedy appointment, gets booed by audience for facts. #GOPDebate pic.twitter.com/31bdGQoE7a

— Mashable News (@MashableNews) February 14, 2016

John Dickerson, the moderator, even pointed out that Cruz was wrong. The issue was that Cruz was conflating the terms nominating and confirming–and Dickerson sparred with Cruz over that issue, explaining that he just wanted “to get the facts straight for the audience.” At this point the audience decided to boo Dickerson, leading to a decidedly messy exchange all around.

But There Was a Lot of Booing on Saturday Night

Dickerson wasn’t the only one who got booed–much of the audience’s ire appeared to be aimed at Trump. Trump had a theory for why this kept happening–and turns out his theory might not be that off–that the crowd was packed with  “Jeb [Bush]’s special interests and lobbyists.” Turns out the crowd had a lot of moderate Republicans, due to the fact that the RNC gave tickets to local supporters, and people actively involved in RNC work are probably less likely to be big Trump fans. So, Trump got pretty heavily booed, but unfortunately it probably won’t diminish his still pretty solid poll numbers.

One of the Biggest Boos Was About 9/11

Jeb! Bush and Donald Trump had a pretty tense exchange over 9/11–Trump essentially blamed the terror attack on Bush’s brother, George W. Bush. Trump claimed that George W. didn’t keep America safe because he wasn’t able to prevent 9/11. Bush responded that he was pretty tired of Trump going after his family, and then to complicate things more, Rubio jumped into the mix to exclaim he was glad it wasn’t Al Gore in the White House during 9/11. The entire thing turned into a mess–check out the exchange: 

But One of the Biggest (and Weirdest) Fights of the Night was Rubio v. Cruz

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz got into an interesting spat over their shared Cuban heritage, stemming, as many criticisms of Rubio have, from his role in the Gang of Eight immigration bill. Cruz accused Rubio of contradicting his platform when he appeared on Univision and spoke in Spanish about immigration and amnesty. Rubio fired back by saying: “I don’t know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn’t speak Spanish.” So then Cruz responded in Spanish (although a bit shakily) to prove Rubio wrong:

WATCH: Cruz replies to Rubio in Spanish after Rubio said he “doesn’t speak Spanish.” #SCPrimary https://t.co/xGmJKNSzup — Good Morning America (@GMA) February 15, 2016

For a party that has taken an almost methodical approach to alienating Hispanic voters during this year’s election cycle, it was incredibly odd to see the debate devolve into a pissing contest over who speaks Spanish better.

A Final Takeaway

With Scalia’s recent death, it’s almost certain that the question of who will replace him will probably become cemented on the hot list of 2016 issues–immigration, Planned Parenthood funding, and how to deal with ISIS, among others. Saturday night’s debate has been referred to by many observers as the nastiest one yet, and given that the primaries are just starting to heat up, future exchanges will probably follow suit. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 5 Craziest Moments from this Weekend’s GOP Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Remember Louis Shenker, the young man who made waves by sneaking into the Democratic debate? Well this past week I had the opportunity to chat with the surprise guest of the debate held two weekends ago on January 17. As a quick recap, in case you didn’t hear about this wonderful feat, a 17-year-old from Longmeadow, Massachusetts managed to sneak past several levels of security and make his way on stage at the debate, shook each of the candidates’ hands, and appeared on national television. The story originally surfaced on Twitter when people called out Shenker, said teen, for his loud silk jacket and seemingly out-of-place presence. Shenker then posted a blog describing the whole experience in nearly comedic detail–the whole thing seemed like an elaborate sitcom plot.

How I Snuck into the South Carolina Democratic Debate https://t.co/000EQUYXqH pic.twitter.com/CbRjmCkQMF

— Louis Shenker (@Louis_Shenker) January 21, 2016

In attempt to learn a little more about this daring experience and figure out just what it takes to make it onstage at a nationally viewed event, my fellow editorial intern, Sean Simon, and I talked with Louis over the phone this past Friday. It started off as your average interview conversation; Louis told us about how he is a junior in high school, how he works at a local Chinese restaurant, and how he plays guitar and didgeridoo (not to mention the fact that he has created two didgeridoos himself, one out of cardboard and one out of PVC pipe). I’d also like to take a hot sec to acknowledge the fact that this young man has actually opened up for Hoodie Allen on the didgeridoo, and, if that doesn’t scream accomplishment, I don’t know what does.

The Inspiration

Once we got into the swing of things, we asked Louis a little bit about what prompted this whole string of sneaking into debates, and this is what he had to say about the first debate he snuck into:

On Thursday, I saw on Snapchat that there was a GOP debate filter and I had no idea that that was even happening, and so I thought that that would be fun to try to see how debates ran and stuff like that. So, I thought it would be fun to try to sneak in, to try to get in there, see what it’s like, meet the candidates, see what all the hubbub was about.

Looks like Snapchat can be informative and educational–take that, mom! So, after asking around about some details and for some opinions, Shenker decided to seize the opportunity and head to the GOP debate, even after being told not to go by both his siblings and his dad. The GOP debate was apparently the perfect practice for sneaking into the Democratic debate a few days later; Shenker gave some insight into what he learned the first time and how that helped him out:

I learned a little bit more about how they ran, what the situation was and stuff like that, so by the time the Democratic debate rolled around on Sunday, I had a pretty good understanding of the workings behind the scenes and stuff like that. What would be good to say, what would be good to do, how to act, how to dress and that kind of thing. And so I tried my luck and, yeah, I was pretty lucky.

When it finally came time to talk about the debate that was on all of our minds–the one where Shenker ended up onstage shaking Hillary Clinton’s hand–we started off by asking him if he had any clue at all that he was going to end up on national television that day. His response? He hadn’t even thought he was going to get into the debate because of how small the venue was in comparison to the GOP debate a few nights before. He said that once he got in, he figured he had to see how far he could take it and try to “roll with it” a little bit. Shenker claims that by the time he was in the front row “there was really only one thing left to do, and that was to be on stage.”

Nerves and Stage Fright?

Of course, we asked the million dollar question of the interview: when were you most concerned about being caught? Interestingly enough, Shenker claims he was never even really worried about it, though there was a point when he was trying to get on stage where he had a little bit of stage fright himself:

I guess I was the most nervous when I was trying to walk backstage onto the platform for the debate because thats where I thought there’d be the most security. Either that, or just getting into the debate itself. Once I was in the debate I was pretty much in good standing.

Shaking Hands and Taking Names

Nerves or not, Shenker made it all the way to shake hands with the candidates, but those three weren’t the first potentially presidential hands he had shaken. Believe it or not, Shenker told us that he has traded handshakes with all of the presidential candidates except Ben Carson and Donald Trump. We asked him to rate his top three and (in this specific order) they included Bernie Sanders, whose handshake was firm; Jeb Bush, whose hands were pretty soft; and Martin O’Malley, who had a nice strong grip. Shenker also volunteered details about his handshake with Hillary Clinton (which, might I add, was caught on national television), saying it was pretty cold, which he attributed to potentially poor circulation. After some quick research thanks to a tip from Sean, I found that, yes, Clinton does suffer from both hypothyroidism and seasonal allergies.

Spoiler Alert: This kid’s jacket won the democratic debate. pic.twitter.com/PwKa0AVA6h — Blue (@8lve) January 18, 2016

On the other end of the spectrum, with the worst handshakes, Shenker listed John Kasich and Ted Cruz, claiming that they just weren’t that special or memorable. To the candidates’ credit, Shenker noted that all of their handshakes were really pretty above average, probably thanks to the years and years of practice they have all had as politicians.

Confidence is Key

What does Shenker have to say about the candidates’ presence in person? Well confidence is key; he said they all just exude confidence and personality, especially his pick for the Democratic nomination, Senator Bernie Sanders. He said to keep in mind that these candidates are real people, not idolatrous figures or greater powers, and said that that realization was one of the biggest changes to his viewpoint after meeting them: they’re real. On why he likes Sanders specifically, Shenker said,

Ever since I came across Sanders about three years ago, even before this whole election cycle started, I thought that he was a good guy. A lot of people were like ‘oh that’s just cause he’s Jewish’ but you know that’s not really the only reason that I support him. I think that a lot of his view points that he’s expressing with the struggle of money and politics as a huge issue, I think it is a tremendous issue that is really corrupting the system. He is very genuine. He seems like he cares more about people… There’s also something about liking an underdog…Having someone who sees the importance of education and infrastructure and all the social changes that resonate pretty strongly with me and my generation, I feel like he’s the candidate who gets the most.

Pretty perceptive of him–looks like it’s not just the millennial women jumping on the Sanders train!

Louis’s Advice

Last, but certainly not least, we asked Shenker to tell us when he knew he had made it and if he had any last words of wisdom for us–he hit us with some seriously existential thoughts:

I wouldn’t say [I feel] famous. I always like having cool stories and I thought this would be a cool opportunity for a story. But, once I knew I was on TV for a moment, I mean, my friends were all texting me, calling me, and stuff like that, was kind of when I realized, oh, maybe there’s something a little more to this… In ten days no one will care, no one will remember, but for now it’s fun.

And his final thoughts on the whole shebang were pretty inspirational:

People need to understand that you can’t let opportunities pass you by, or at least that’s the way I view things. Whenever there’s an opportunity, whether it’s something at school, or a dance or a concert or something, just go to it. Have fun… Too many people sit inside their house watching TV or staying on their phones and they don’t get out and actually do things… I think something important to learn is that, when you’re stagnant, you’re really just not actually living life to the best potential, and I think it’s wrong to let opportunities pass you by.

Overall, it’s pretty clear that Louis Shenker had his own one-of-a-kind experience. So, with that in mind, and opportunities ahead, go out and sneak into your own Democratic debate–or whatever your version of that may be. You never know what may be waiting for you.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Louis Shenker: How Did a 17-Year-Old Sneak into the Democratic Debate? appeared first on Law Street.

Primary season is upon us, and it seems you can’t scroll through your TV guide without passing a televised political debate. For political junkies, the primary debates are equivalent to Sunday Night Football, with fans watching eagerly for stand-out moments, which can be alternately career–defining, or campaign–destroying. It’s easy to feel saturated with the political back-and-forth, especially considering the GOP candidates will debate seven times in the first three months of 2016.

Amidst all the chaos of these events, however, there are some regulations the campaigns and candidates must follow. Each of the two major parties lay out a schedule and a list of restrictions–if you want to be their nominee, you have to play by their rules. Both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions forbid candidates from performing in sanctioned debates if they participate in an un-sanctioned debate. This means that the debates organized by the party are the only debates a candidate can participate in, if they want that media coverage.

When it comes to scheduling there are stark differences, however, between the parties. The DNC announced that it would organize a total of six debates from 2015-2016, down from 26 debates in the ’07-’08 election. The RNC also reduced the number of debates, from the 20 between 2011-2012 to twelve debates this season.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the chair of the DNC, has received criticism for limiting the number of official debates, and for scheduling the debates for time slots with low viewership. Critics of Wasserman-Schultz see the debate schedule as support for Hillary Clinton, as Clinton is a more familiar candidate, while Bernie Sanders might benefit from more airtime to introduce himself to voters and put his message forward.

One loophole used by candidates on both sides is to join a “forum” or “town hall.” These events still involve candidates answering questions live on television, but are distinct from debates in that the candidates take turns, and don’t interact with or respond to each other. The Democrats and Republicans each have four forums scheduled.  As for other debates, MSNBC and The Union Leader newspaper are considering hosting a separate, unsanctioned debate, which could disqualify participants.

Thursday’s Republican debate is already drawing headlines for the candidate who won’t be there–none other than the chief headline-drawer himself, Donald Trump. Trump asked followers on Twitter whether he should attend the debate, and eventually his campaign stated he will refuse to participate due to his discontentment with Megyn Kelly’s position as moderator. A move like this might spell trouble for the RNC’s ability to control its already anti-establishment candidates. This does not, however, bar him from participating in other official debates.

Fox News representatives fired back at Trump’s refusal, poking fun at his decision to poll his millions of Twitter followers.

We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings

Trump didn’t take too kindly to the barb:

The statement put out yesterday by @FoxNews was a disgrace to good broadcasting and journalism. Who would ever say something so nasty & dumb

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2016

Following this refusal, Ted Cruz, Trump’s biggest rival in the Iowa caucus, challenged Trump to a “mano a mano” debate between the two. This sort of event would be right in Cruz’s wheelhouse, as during his undergraduate years he shined on Princeton’s extemporaneous debate team. But such a debate would be against the RNC’s rules, and would forbid either candidate from participating in future RNC debates.

While leadership from each party has control over the sanctioned debates, we may see more town hall forums spring up throughout primary season. If rebukes like Trump’s become more common, the control of the parties might begin to slip away, leading to an even more unpredictable primary season.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Debate Drama on Both Sides in 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Amidst commentary on how Hillary Clinton has ramped up, pointed attacks on Bernie Sanders, and Sanders’ constant mention of how well he is polling, you may have missed one of the most interesting points of the Democratic debate this past weekend: a 17-year-old boy in a handmade silk jacket who–although he didn’t seem out of place–certainly wasn’t where he was supposed to be.

Louis Shenker, a 17-year-old from Longmeadow, Massachusetts was seen on national television as he walked on stage to shake hands with the presidential hopefuls, but that definitely wasn’t the most exciting part of Shenker’s night. In a blog post written by the teen himself this Thursday, Shenker talks all about the pains he went through to get on stage that night, which include some pretty impressive feats. From claiming to be Martin O’Malley’s son to worming his way into the debate hall, this kid may have just pulled off one of the most impressive break-ins of the century.

So, how did he do it? According to Shenker, the recipe for success–when it comes to making your way on stage with some of the country’s most important people–is apparently comprised of a couple of white lies, a slightly above average knowledge of attendees of the Democratic debate, and a hell of a lot of confidence. Or at least, that’s what he claims in his blog post. Apparently Shenker had also snuck into the Republican debate less than a week before, though, he made less of a splash there and mostly hung in the shadows.

The teenage hero–and supposedly qualified didgeridoo player–started his evening by walking up to the gates of the Gaillard Center and claiming he was told he would receive a ticket to the event at the gate. He mentioned he was a representative of several Jewish organizations and was quickly swept up in the crowd, given a staffer pass, and whisked away to help direct people arriving at the event’s entrances. He then weaseled his way inside the media room by announcing he was writing an article for the World Jewish Congress. Finally, Shenker made his way to the main room of the debate by telling security he was a seat filler–could this guy get any more ballsy? In a last ditch attempt to secure the world’s most impressive fake-out, Shenker made it on stage after the debate, writing in his blog that his motivation was as follows:

At this point I said to myself fuck it I was going to get on stage with the candidates. So I followed the families of the candidates through the side exit to backstage and past many secret service agents none of which stopped me. Then I was onstage.

The cameras went live, and there he was, on almost every TV in the nation, immediately gaining attention for his stylish fashion sense and youthful looks. Shenker said his phone was immediately blowing up with snapchats, texts, and tweets from his friends back home who were shocked when they saw his face, front and center, shaking Hillary Clinton’s hand. Some people questioned Shenker’s presence on stage (and his choice of jacket) at the end of the debate, taking to the internet to voice their opinions and surprise:

Did anyone else see this child at the #DemDebate ?? Like a Thanksgiving themed jacket?? pic.twitter.com/e9MsQR6Mzu

— David Lew (@davidlew) January 18, 2016

 

Gonna need to know more about this jacket. #DemDebate#TheRealIssuespic.twitter.com/wjPMxUDSnb

— Kyle (@semiserious) January 18, 2016

Honestly, this had to have been a pretty cool night and an experience we can all probably be jealous of. Shenker met countless celebrities, was featured on national television in a suave, retro jacket, and pulled off a pretty magnificent stunt. His blog has gone viral and he has gained almost instant fame–Killer Mike even gave him a shoutout on Twitter.

The moral of the story? Take some risks, I guess. Don’t be afraid to shoot for the stars because, sometimes, you may literally be able to reach them. As cheesy as it sounds, we can all probably take a page out of Shenker’s book and follow his words of advice:

 If there is one thing this experience has taught me it is if you act like you are supposed to be somewhere people will believe you.

As the new year keeps rolling in, I know I’ll be keeping this advice in the back of my mind. And, hey, maybe if the presidential candidates start acting a little bit more like they belong in the White House, they too can achieve their dreams.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post What We Can Learn from the Boy who Snuck into the Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

In Tuesday night’s Republican debate, the candidates focused most of their attention on foreign policy, specifically what needs to be done to protect the American people. While the candidates ended up agreeing on many ideas, the clearest sense of unity on the stage was behind the notion that the United States needs to be tougher. We need to have a tougher immigration policy, we need to move away from the “feckless weakling president” in the oval office, and most importantly we need to be “tough” on ISIS.

Senator Ted Cruz started off by upping the standards for toughness. When asked about his previous call to “carpet bomb” ISIS, Cruz doubled down. He referenced the first Persian Gulf War, noting that the United States conducted around 1,100 airstrikes a day. But when Wolf Blitzer, the debate’s moderator, pressed Cruz on how that would affect civilians, he gave a rather bizarre response:

You would carpet bomb where ISIS is, not a city, but the location of the troops. You use air power directed — and you have embedded special forces to direction the air power. But the object isn’t to level a city. The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists.

Now on its face, that might sound like a sensible policy; few people would argue against a decisive bombing campaign that only killed terrorists. But that’s simply not the reality on the ground. There isn’t a huge group of ISIS soldiers standing around in the middle of the desert. They are deeply embedded in civilian populations, primarily in cities where indiscriminate bombing campaigns would kill massive amounts of civilians.

Cruz faced questions like that before, yet he has maintained his view that his policy wouldn’t kill civilians. In a recent interview with NPR, Cruz even noted that “no reasonable military endeavor targets civilians.” But looking at the reality in Iraq and Syria, what Cruz is calling for would have a massive civilian casualty toll. There are only a few conclusions available here–Cruz is either fine with more civilian deaths than he is letting on, doesn’t actually realize how ISIS is operating, or is intentionally misleading people–all three seem troubling.

Not to mention that carpet bombing, a term Cruz has repeatedly used when talking about ISIS, hasn’t been used since the Vietnam war. As Politifact points out, the main tenet of carpet bombing is that it is indiscriminate and not targeted. Even in the Gulf War, which Cruz regularly cites as an example, the military used targeted bombs. Moreover, the practice of carpet bombing may also violate the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention. What is true about carpet bombing? It sounds tough.

To be sure, the current U.S.-led bombing campaign has caused a large number of civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria despite taking some precautions. While that is, by itself, worthy of debate, the debate on Tuesday night changed the way foreign policy is discussed in the Republican campaign. It seems as if the proposed policies are no longer about helping solve an already impossibly complicated situation, rather they are simply a way to display America’s, and by extension the candidate’s, toughness.

So what exactly does this toughness entail? Toughness, while often vague and said without further explanation, means being willing to act regardless of the consequences. That concept was even baked into the questions given to the candidates. Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt questioned whether being a kind, evangelical neurosurgeon would prevent Ben Carson from doing what ‘needs to be done.’ Hewitt asked,

We’re talking about ruthless things tonight — carpet bombing, toughness, war… Could you order air strikes that would kill innocent children by not the scores, but the hundreds and the thousands? Could you wage war as a commander-in-chief?

In response, Carson reflected on the tough decisions he had to make as a surgeon, noting the firmness with which he dealt with his patients. “You have to be able to look at the big picture and understand that it’s actually merciful if you go ahead and finish the job, rather than death by 1,000 pricks,” he said. But what he was saying did become clear until his next exchange with Hewitt:

Hewitt: So you are OK with the deaths of thousands of innocent children and civilian? [The crowd boos]

Carson: You got it.

Carson was not alone in his disregard for civilian casualties. The sentiment was largely popularized by the Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, who recently said that the United States should go after terrorists’ families. My colleague Anneliese Mahoney has already noted that Trump is, quite plainly, advocating for war crimes, but he pressed on in Tuesday night’s debate. He said, “I would be very, very firm with families. Frankly, that will make people think because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.” Trump later asked, “So, they can kill us, but we can’t kill them?” He was seemingly arguing that the U.S. response should play at the same level as the Islamic State.

By the end of the night, only Rand Paul managed to create a compelling contrast to his competitors:

If you are going to kill the families of terrorists, realize that there’s something called the Geneva Convention we’re going to have to pull out of. It would defy every norm that is America. So when you ask yourself, whoever you are, that think you’re going to support Donald Trump, think, do you believe in the Constitution? Are you going to change the Constitution?

Paul’s questions, and the extent to which we are okay killing civilians, are worth further consideration from the candidates and voters alike.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Debate: Candidates Fight Over Who is the Toughest appeared first on Law Street.

The Republican field is about to have its fifth (but feels like 275th) debate of the 2016 primary season, hosted by CNN. Given that the field is still depressingly crowded, the last debate of 2015 promises to be a contentious one. Here’s a rundown of what you need to know before tomorrow night’s debate:

Participants:

It’s no secret that the Republican field has been so crowded this time around that we’ve needed two debate stages to hold them all. CNN is following the format of the first four debates, with a “JV” table consisting of Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham ,and former New York Gov. George Pataki.

The main debate will feature nine presidential hopefuls–according to CNN:

Businessman Donald Trump, the front-runner for the nomination, will again be center stage flanked by retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson on his right and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on his left, CNN announced Sunday. The six remaining participants in the prime-time contest will be Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

The moderator will be Wolf Blitzer, with CNN’s Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash joining Salem Radio Network talk show host Hugh Hewitt as questioners.

Seating Arrangements

The podium arrangement, which places higher-polling candidates front and center, will look like this:

.@CNNPolitics releases lineup, podium arrangement for final GOP debate of 2015 https://t.co/flm7OnriN0pic.twitter.com/ke1uPuRo2s

— Allison Wisk (@allisonwisk) December 13, 2015

Where’s the debate?

It’s going to be held in Las Vegas, at the Venetian hotel. It’s hosted by CNN, so if you want to stream it from the comfort of your own living room while playing a drinking game (no judgment) check out CNN.com’s live stream.

Will there be any feuds?

Given that we’re getting closer and closer to primary votes–the Iowa caucuses will be held in February–candidates are starting to get a bit nastier with each other. For example, Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz–two of the frontrunners, are almost certain to attack each other, most likely on foreign affairs issues. Cruz is painting Rubio as a centrist who can’t be trusted, while Rubio’s gripe with Cruz is that he’s weak on security-adjacent concepts like surveillance.

We may also see some squabbles between Cruz and Donald Trump. Trump has gone after Cruz hard in recent days. On “Fox News Sunday” Trump called Cruz a “little bit of a maniac” when discussing his career in the Senate. Cruz’s response was surprisingly even-tempered, as he tweeted a reference to “Flashdance” at Donald Trump:

In honor of my friend @realDonaldTrump and good-hearted #Maniacs everywhere: https://t.co/KOPIi4XTVt

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 13, 2015

Whether or not Cruz will take the bait on the stage remains to be seen. 

What will they talk about?

Unlike the last few debates, tomorrow’s doesn’t have a specified theme. So, what the candidates will talk about could encompass a wide range of issues, but there are a few topics that it’s very safe to bet will be discussed. For starters, national security will be a hot topic. A lot has happened since the last debate on November 10, most visibly the horrific terrorist attack in Paris, France, that sparked conversations about the fight against ISIS, Syrian refugees, terrorism, and the status of Muslims in the United States. Additionally, the shooting in San Bernardino, California set many Americans even more on edge, leading to calls from Trump to stop allowing Muslims into the United States. Questions about gun control may also come up, as well as the economy and Planned Parenthood. 

Law Street readers: are there any topics you want to see discussed? Let us know the in the poll below:

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Do You Want to Hear About in the Next Republican Debate? appeared first on Law Street.

Last night was yet another installment of the GOP circus–also known as a Republican primary debate. Hosted by Fox Business, the debate was supposed to be focused on economic issues, with a bit of domestic and international policy thrown in. This debate field was smaller than the last three–Governors Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie were moved down to the kiddie stage. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t still plenty of crazy to go around–check out the top seven funniest, strangest, and most memorable moments from the 4th GOP debate below:

Is China Part of the TPP?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the TPP, has been a hot topic in the political sphere as of late. Check out Law Street’s explainer on it here, if you’re not caught up. Last night at one point, the discussion on stage devolved into a talk about the TPP, and Trump went on a nice ramble about how the deal is “designed for China to come in as they always do through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone.” Senator Rand Paul was quick to interject, pointing out that China isn’t part of the deal. It was an embarrassing moment for Trump, to be sure.

Everyone Was Kind of Mean to Philosophers

Last night, “philosophers” became a weirdly maligned group of people. It started when Marco Rubio talked about a need to destigmatize  trade education, arguing that “welders make more money than philosophers.” Then, Ted Cruz called the Fed “philosopher kings.” Then, John Kasich, when talking about economic concerns, stated: “philosophy doesn’t work when you run something.”

I’m not sure why everyone was being so mean about philosophy, but it’s worth noting that Carly Fiorina was a philosophy major.

Kasich Gets a Little too Excited about our Friendship with Jordan

John Kasich got a little too into the King of Jordan last night, when he stated: “Jordan, we want the king to reign for 1,000 years.” While he might have just been being a little hyperbolic, it seems pretty extreme. I don’t know that we should be wishing immortality on any other country’s leader.

Literally No One Paid Attention to the Bell

Fox Business’s poor “time is up” bell-ringer was the least respected person on stage last night. The bell was constantly rung to signal “time is over” and every candidate completely ignored it. While that meant that the candidates had a more open discourse than the previous debate, it was still pretty pathetic that no one even tried to stay within their allotted time.

The World’s Biggest Over-Simplification of Israeli-Palestinian Relations

We need someone who knows diplomacy, not name-calling & green rooms #DonaldTrump #RepublicanDebate #GOPDebate #Putin pic.twitter.com/yrjPcyPojp

— Law Street (@LawStreetMedia) November 11, 2015

When talking about a desire to build a wall on the American-Mexico border, Trump brought up the wall between Israel and Palestine on the West Bank. This is an incredibly controversial project, which was at one point ruled to have violated international law, so maybe not something that a presidential candidate wants to compare their future strategy to.

Jeb Bush Thanks Trump for Letting him Talk

Jeb! proved he can’t “fix” his debate performances last night, all epitomized by a fantastically awkward moment in which he thanked Trump for letting him talk. After a messy back-and-forth involve Kasich, Bush stated: “Thank you, Donald, for allowing me to speak at the debate. That’s really nice of you. Really appreciate that.” Jeb, unfortunately, total passive-aggression isn’t going to help with your quickly falling poll numbers.

The Department of Commerce: So Bad, We’ll Get Rid of it Twice

If you’re from Texas and decide to run for President, never try to explain what departments you’d cut during the debate, because y’all are 0/2 in recent years. When talking about his tax plan, Ted Cruz stated:

$500 billion in specific cuts — five major agencies that I would eliminate. The IRS, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and HUD — and then 25 specific programs.

That’s right, he mentioned the Department of Commerce twice. While it was less noticeable and embarrassing than Rick Perry’s “oops” moment back in 2012, it would have been nice if he could have really told us what five agencies he wants to eliminate.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Seven Most Memorable Moments from the 4th GOP Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, the Republican presidential hopefuls took the stage again, and boy, was it a mess. From angry exchanges between candidates, to accusations that the moderators were biased, to a lack of focus on economic questions in a debate supposedly centered on economics, no one was particularly happy with the end results. Check out some of the funniest reactions to the craziness on Twitter below:

There Were Attempts to Actually Discuss the Economy

“Look. I’m a small business. My mother was a smaller business. My father was a change machine…” – everyone on stage #CNBCGOPDebate

— Sean Crespo (@SeanCrespo) October 29, 2015

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Tweets from the #CNBCGOPDebate appeared first on Law Street.

Last night was the first Democratic debate of the 2016 primary elections. Unlike the Republican field, which had to be split into two parts in order to accommodate the insanely large group, the Democrats have a small collection of political veterans vying for the nomination. There’s Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner; Bernie Sanders, the surprise challenger; Martin O’Malley, the other normal candidate that everyone keeps forgetting; Lincoln Chaffee, the weird metric system guy from Rhode Island; and Jim Webb, who probably exists.

In a lot of ways the Democratic debate felt a little flat, and a little too early. While there were some really great moments of legitimate and important discourse, the Democratic field is just a bit more subdued and unified on a lot of key issues than its Republican foil. But, that didn’t keep some funny, wtf, and badass moments from sticking out. In fact, here are the top five moments from last night’s Democratic debate.

Best Shot on Donald Trump: Martin O’Malley

Donald Trump, the inexplicable Republican frontrunner, received a pretty sharp jab from O’Malley, who called Trump “that carnival barker in the Republican party…”

Given the flashiness and “look-at-me” attitude that Trump has used to gain supporters, this classification isn’t that far off, and made a powerful point about his attitude toward immigrants.

Best One Word Answer: Hillary Clinton

It wasn’t surprising, but one of the biggest criticisms against Hillary Clinton to stick so far–the kerfuffle over her emails while she was Secretary of State–was a point of contention at last night’s debate. Lincoln Chaffee made a not-so-veiled reference to the email scandal, saying “I think we need somebody with the best and ethical standards as our next president. That’s how I feel.” Clinton was asked if she wanted to respond, and her answer was short, sweet, and made it clear she was tired of political grandstanding over the issue: “No.”

Second Most Uncomfortable Moment: Lincoln Chafee and Anderson Cooper

Cooper, who was by all accounts, a strong and fair moderator, went after Lincoln Chafee on his earliest Senate vote–the Glass-Steagall Act. Chafee gave a weird answer: it was his first vote after being appointed to his recently deceased father’s spot. Cooper followed up–asking if he wasn’t defending his vote because he was saying he didn’t understand what he was voting for. That led to really awkward exchange, that certainly could have been handled better by Chafee.

It also wasn’t the only moment where Chafee struggled to defend his record as a Senator–questions about his vote for the Patriot Act also seemingly tripped him up.

Most Uncomfortable Moment: Jim Webb’s Enemy

Jim Webb, who served during the Vietnam War, was asked what enemy he’s the most proud to have made. While his competition gave fun predictable answers such as Republicans and the NRA, Webb focused on his military experience, saying the enemy he’s most proud of making was “enemy soldier that threw the grenade that wounded me, but he’s not around right now to talk to.” While Webb was an incredibly impressive and heroic soldier, sans important context and with awkward delivery, the entire thing came across very strangely.

Best Moment Overall: Bernie Sanders and Clinton’s Emails

Sanders said exactly what we were all thinking the umpteenth time that Hillary’s emails came up last night: enough is enough. It’s time to talk about the real issues. And he was damn right.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 5 Moments From the First Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

The second Republican primary debate of the year was aired last night by CNN and took place at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. It was a three hour debate that left me with more questions than answers–for example, did they really all go that entire stretch without having to use the bathroom? But, tradition dictates that we boil down those three hours into some gifable snapshots, so without further ado, check out the top ten moments from the second Republican debate.

10. Mike Huckabee Appealed to Millennials with a Reference from the ’80s

Mike Huckabee referred to the Republican field as the “A Team” and decided that Donald Trump was Mr. T, saying:

I think we are in fact The A-Team. We have some remarkable people. We even have our own Mr. T, who doesn’t mind saying about others, ‘you’re cool.’

Pop culture references are a great way to appeal to the masses–and if he had picked something less than 30 years old (we’re not counting the horrible 2010 remake) it might have been successful.

9. Marco Rubio Made a Fun Reference

One of Marco Rubio’s early introductions to the national stage was when he gave the Republican response to the State of the Union back in 2013. During the speech he took a fantastically awkward sip of water:

But last night, Rubio paid homage to that really awkward moment by bringing his own water to the debate. It was a sweet and dad-joke like, but I’m not sure how much of a splash it made.

We’re entering the next phase of the #GOPdebate. Anyone need refreshments? http://t.co/tdQhhyEBDb pic.twitter.com/ki3fr601BE

— Guardian US (@GuardianUS) September 17, 2015

8. Donald Trump Proves his Mature Rhetorical Mastery

Trump, on immigration: “First of all, I want to build a wall-a wall that works. We have a lot bad dudes, from outside, in this country.” So eloquently put, Trump, although I do have to admit “bad dudes” is a bit more PC than calling swarths of the population “rapists.”

7. Carly Fiorina Makes Things Up

Carly Fiorina went on a weird, grisly rant about Planned Parenthood that would have been strategically powerful if it was in any way true. She stated–presumably in reference to the much-edited Planned Parenthood hit videos created by the Center for Medical Progress:

I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.

The videos were disturbing to be sure, even though they were patently fiction. But at no point did those videos even come to close to portraying a fully formed fetus kicking its legs–Fiorina at this point was over-exaggerating exaggerations in an incredibly upsetting way. It’s one thing to be anti-choice, it’s another thing altogether to use lies and fear-mongering to prove your point.

6. Everyone Got Handsy with Donald Trump

Donald Trump was flanked on stage by Ben Carson and Jeb Bush, and at various points he exchanged really awkward high fives/handshakes with each of them. First was Ben Carson, who was very reluctant to get involved in the entire situation: But Jeb Bush got a little too enthusiastic, and actually appeared to make Trump flinch: 

Here you go Twitter pic.twitter.com/9wfzAQGftg — Brandon Wall (@Walldo) September 17, 2015

5. Winner of the Happy Hour Debate (Literally): Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham had my favorite quote of the earlier happy hour debate, which featured the candidates who aren’t polling well enough to make it to the main stage. Graham, who has his priorities in order, stated: “That’s the first thing I’m going to do as president. We’re going to drink more.”

He was referring to Ronald Reagan’s tradition of drinks with Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, but it still makes for an awesome one-liner, and I wholeheartedly approve.

4. Chris Christie Gets Fed Up

Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina got into a spat back-and-forth about their business records, and Christie got really damn tired of listening to it. He eventually said:

 The fact is that we don’t want to hear about your careers. Back and forth and volleying back and forth about who did well and who did poorly. You’re both successful people. Congratulations. You know who is not successful? The middle class in this country who’s getting plowed over by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Let’s start talking about those issues tonight and stop this childish back and forth between the two of you.

While I’m normally not a Christie fan, and I don’t agree with the claims in his comment, here’s some well-deserved applause for shutting up that annoying Trump and Fiorina spat:

3. Jeb Bush Tries to Prove He’s a Cool Kid

Jeb Bush attempted to get some street cred in the lamest way possible–by admitting he had smoked  marijuana 40 years ago and his mom doesn’t approve:

So, 40 years ago, I smoked marijuana, and I admit it. I’m sure that other people might have done it and may not want to say it in front of 25 million people. My mom’s not happy that I just did.

 

2. Fiorina Takes Down Trump

You can watch this one yourself:

.@CarlyFiorina responds to @realDonaldTrump‘s comment about her face #CNNDebate http://t.co/jcEf6bW9ja #GOPDebate http://t.co/m0eDU5NvhT

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) September 17, 2015

Ok, now we actually do have a bad ass over here.

1. Some Really Lame Answers to the “Which Women You’d Put on the $10 Bill Question”

As a fun, easy question toward the end, the moderators asked each of the debaters “Which woman would you put on the $10 bill?” Some answers were fine–Susan B. Anthony,  Rosa Parks, Clara Barton, and Abigail Adams are all admirable American women. But some of them were flat-out ridiculous. For example, three of the candidates–Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson–all cited female family members. Huckabee chose his wife, Donald Trump chose his daughter, and Ben Carson named his mother. While those are nice answers and may have been good responses to “who inspires you,” they’re also total cop-outs and a bit insulting. Women have done so many great things for this country and none are included on our paper currency–yet three of the eleven candidates couldn’t even name one.

Then, Jeb Bush gave arguably the weirdest answer all night–put Margaret Thatcher on the $10 bill. Alright Jeb Bush, please do remember that if you want a fighting chance, some American women will have to vote for you. Although at this point, I haven’t the foggiest why we would.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Moments from the Second Republican Debate appeared first on Law Street.

The second of what will be many Republican debates takes take place tonight at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. Following the “happy hour” debate at 6 pm, the 11 leading candidates will take the stage at 8 pm to debate foreign policy, domestic issues, and politics. In light of Donald Trump and Ben Carson’s recent popularity, many of the candidates have their work cut out for them. Here are five things that we can look for tonight:

1. It’s all about Trump

This may be obvious and/or very upsetting, but it’s true and will shape the way the other candidates conduct themselves tonight. Not only did Donald Trump survive the last debate, he has continued to gain ground since then. While many of his competitors initially dismissed him and his rising poll numbers, they now perceive him as a legitimate threat–attack ads have been launched and lead Republican donors are getting annoyed. In the first debate, most candidates simply thought he would implode or embarrass himself. But now, we can expect to see Trump’s challengers confront him directly.

Jeb Bush will have a chance to challenge Trump’s “low energy” claim (he’ll be standing next to him tonight), and Carly Fiorina will also want to get her fair share of shots in after Trump made pretty offensive comments about her appearance.

While it’ll certainly be interesting to see who gets into it with Trump, it will also be interesting to see which non-Trump candidates start a feud. We saw a small spat between Chris Christie and Rand Paul in the Cleveland debate, but seeing as the format this time around is set to encourage the candidates to talk to each other, this is something to watch.

2. Look For Tough Questions

Jake Tapper, CNN’s Chief Washington Correspondent, will moderate the debate along with Dana Bash, the network’s Chief Political Correspondent, and well-regarded conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt. Going into the debate all three moderators have expressed their interest in finding areas where the candidates disagree. Tapper recently told the New York Times, “My goal is more about: Let’s draw the contrasts between the candidates, and have them fight it out over these policies.” Viewers should also look out for some challenging questions from Hewitt, who recently gained some recognition for tripping up Donald Trump with detailed foreign policy questions.

While the Fox News debate forced many of the candidates to address challenging topics, this time around the moderators may be able to narrow in on their positions and how they differ from the rest of the pack. CNN has historically run into trouble with controversial debate questions, but if the moderators seek to push the candidates to address each other they may manage to avoid a similar fate while also sparking some controversy. While the format may help foster these arguments, it is also important to note that trying to keep 11 presidential candidates in line is no easy task.

3. Watch for Current Events

In addition to the conventional debate topics: the economy, foreign policy, and mainstream social issues, we can expect the candidates and the moderators to address some more recent developments. The events that the candidates choose to address will likely say a lot about their positions and what they stand for. We can expect Kentucky clerk Kim Davis to be referenced by Mike Huckabee and possibly Ted Cruz to try and leverage support from the party’s conservative base. Planned Parenthood will likely come up as well, especially while Ted Cruz is working to shut down the government in order to get rid of the organization’s federal funding. This could pose some issues for some candidates who want to avoid a shutdown but don’t want to appear as if they favor Planned Parenthood. We’ll have to see whether any of the moderators will force the issue.

4. Trump May Actually Win

In light of all of this, it’s pretty clear that most of the candidates are going to confront Trump and try and knock him down a bit. But we also know that previous attempts haven’t really worked. In fact, the more people talk about Trump, even when criticizing him, the better he seems to do in the polls. The other candidates may now find themselves at a crossroads in terms of how to respond. They can either try and attack Trump or even gang up on him, but that generally keeps fueling his media attention. On the other hand, they could try and stick out in their own right to get noticed without including Trump, but that could also lead to the candidates embarrassing themselves (i.e. Chris Christie calling for FedEx to keep track of immigrants).

5. Get Ready for Reagan

The debate is taking place in Reagan’s Presidential Library and the candidates will be standing directly in front of the 40th president’s Air Force One. Being a Republican debate, Reagan was bound to come up several times regardless of its location, but we can expect the candidates to lay it on strong at this one. Be sure to watch out for the ways that Reagan’s legacy is used and misused tonight.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Five Things to Look For in Tonight’s Republican Debate appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday night, the top ten Republican presidential candidates gathered in Cleveland, Ohio to duke it out on stage for the GOP nomination during the first primary debate of the year. Candidates were asked questions on a wide range of topics, from what they believe is the best approach to combat ISIL in the Middle East, to whether or not God has influenced their decisions to run for President. The panel of men, 90 percent of whom are white, debated women’s health care issues as well as the #BlackLivesMatter movement, and argued about who among them was the most average, the most American, and who hates Hillary Clinton the most. The riveting debate had hundreds of quotable moments, but here are the top ten quotes, one for each of the presidential hopefuls, in the order of the candidates’ standings in the polls.

1. Donald Trump: “If it weren’t for me you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immigration.”

America runs on Trumpin.

2. Jeb Bush: “They called me Veto Corleone. Because I vetoed 2,500 separate line-items in the budget.”

Jeb! will make you an offer you can’t refuse. Literally. You can’t refuse a veto.

3. Scott Walker: “I defunded Planned Parenthood more than four years ago, long before any of these videos came out…”

Scott Walker: destroying women’s health centers before it was cool.

4. Ben Carson: “I’m the only one to separate Siamese twins.”

So if you ever elect a Siamese twin to public office, Carson can help to make your vote count twice.

5. Mike Huckabee: “The military is not a social experiment, the military does two things: kill people and break things.”

How strong? Army strong.

6. Ted Cruz: “Well, I am blessed to receive a word from God every day in receiving the scriptures and reading the scriptures. And God speaks through the Bible.”

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz is the chosen one by divine right.

7. Rand Paul (to Chris Christie): “I don’t trust President Obama with our records. I know you gave him a big hug, and if you want to give him a big hug again, go right ahead.”

Don’t ever think we don’t notice all of your awkward hugs, Christie.

8. Marco Rubio: “Well, first, let me say I think God has blessed us. He has blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.”

Velma might find her glasses before the Democrats can find a good candidate, #AmIRight Rubio? High five!

9. Chris Christie (in response to Rand Paul wanting to get warrants before tapping into Americans’ phones and emails): “Listen, senator, you know, when you’re sitting in a subcommittee, just blowing hot air, you can say things like this.”

Look at all of these hot air balloons emanating from Cleveland during the debate!

10. John Kasich: “I’m an old-fashioned person here, and I happen to believe in traditional marriage…. And guess what, I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay.”

(Read: “I HAVE GAY FRIENDS I SWEAR.”)

Jennie Burger  and Maurin Mwombela also contributed to this story.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Quotes from the First 2016 Republican Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Laura, a 24-year-old woman without a terminal illnesses, is making headlines after she qualified for euthanasia in Belgium. Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve them from a form of suffering. Although Laura does not have a life-threatening sickness, she has qualified for this procedure due to the depression she has dealt with for several years. We typically do not hear of stories like this occurring in the U.S. because there are very few states that have legalized euthanasia and there are strict regulations, including that the patient has to be terminally ill. However that’s not the case everywhere, and while the date of Laura’s death has not been decided yet, her story has raised many questions about the ethics of euthanasia worldwide.

Laura’s argument is pretty straightforward. She has been a patient of a psychiatric institution for the past three years and stated that she has tried to kill herself on multiple occasions. During both her childhood and adult life she suffered from “suicidal thoughts.” She told journalists, “Death feels to me not as a choice. If I had a choice, I would choose a bearable life, but I have done everything and that was unsuccessful.”

Although most states in the U.S. have not legalized it, seven out of ten Americans back euthanasia. The U.S., and other developed countries, can learn from the proliferation of the practice in various European nations. In 2002 Belgium became only the second country to legalize euthanasia, following the Netherlands. This allowed Belgian doctors to help patients end their lives if they expressed a wish to die to relieve suffering. Any competent adults and emancipated minors can request this procedure if they feel that what they are dealing with is beyond any medical help. In February of 2014, the Belgian Parliament passed a bill also allowing euthanasia for terminally ill children, although any children must have parental concent. This makes Belgium the first in the world to have legalized euthanasia without an age limit.

The country has had a large increase in euthanasia cases over the past few years. In 2013, 1,807 deaths were recorded as opposed to 2012 when there were 1,432 deaths recorded. More than half of the patients were over the age of 70, but recently younger patients have been requesting this procedure more frequently due to depression. Dr Marc Van Hoey, a general practitioner and president of the Right to Die Association in northern Belgium, is an open supporter of the law. Van Hoey told the Independent newspaper that he believes that sometimes this procedure is the kindest option. He stated,

I’ve seen quite a lot of persons dying in – how do you say in proper English – agony?…I never saw that when I gave someone euthanasia he or she asked for.

Although euthanasia is considered acceptable to many, there are people who are not in favor of this law at all. Carine Brochier, a project manager with the Brussels-based European Institute of Bioethics, believes that this law is leading to too many young people in Belgium dying. “Euthanasia is not the answer to all human suffering,” Brochier says. “We need to develop better palliative care for people,” something she believes Belgium is not currently doing. Opinions on euthanasia vary, but majorities have been supporting the law for the past two decades.

Euthanasia should be legal, should be about quality of life not sanctity of life. It shouldn’t be illegal if you want to stop the suffering

— Mark Bowden (@markbowdn) May 26, 2015

Euthanasia should just be made legal, no one should have to suffer in their own bodies not being able to do anything about it

— michael cum thru (@hurrymgc) December 14, 2014

No, euthanasia should not be legal and God owns your life. Believer or not, it’s the truth #ontopictalkshow

— Sema. (@Sema187) May 31, 2015

In contrast, in the U.S. euthanasia is legal in four states. Montana requires those seeking the procedure to be a “terminally ill, competent patient.” Oregon, Washington, and Vermont have also legalized euthanasia but require patients requesting it to be 18 years old or older and a resident of the state. The patient must also be capable of making and communicating health care decisions for himself and have been diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months.

This has been a particularly controversial debate because it’s impossible to truly analyze how someone is feeling. In a case like Laura’s, it seems to go against accepted norms to not work with her to treat her depression. Detractors from euthanasia worry that it gives the doctor too much power and romanticizes death. On the other hand, advocates argue that allowing euthanasia gives people control over their own lives. Whether or not we’ll see euthanasia become legalized in the U.S. to the same extent as Belgium any time soon is questionable, but Laura’s story certainly sparked many questions.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Euthanasia Without Terminal Illness: Should it Be Legal? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s only May 2015 and already the Republican field vying for the 2016 presidential nomination feels awfully crowded. In anticipation of this very crowded field, various outlets that host the presidential debates are already taking steps to limit the number of candidates who will be able to participate in the nationally televised debates. Given the notoriety and celebrity status required to win the nomination in this day and age, this could sink some candidates’ campaigns before they even really begin.

In terms of candidates who have already declared, we have Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. There’s also former Governor Mike Huckabee, Dr. Ben Carson, and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina. It’s also speculated that some combination of former Governor Jeb Bush, former Governor Rick Perry, former Senator Rick Santorum, Governor Scott Walker, Senator Lindsey Graham, Governor Chris Christie, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor John Kasich, and business mogul Donald Trump will declare at some point relatively soon. At my count that could be well over a dozen candidates, and I’m sure there are at least a few I’m missing or who will come out of the woodwork to declare.

In light of this potentially huge field, both Fox News and CNN, who are hosting debates in August and September, respectively, have declared that they’re only going to allow the top ten candidates on stage to duke it out for the GOP nomination.

Those announcements, of course, raised plenty of questions, because there’s no good way to determine who the “top ten” candidates are before a single vote is even cast. According to Fox News, the candidates have to “place in the top ten of an average of the five most recent national polls, as recognized by Fox News.” CNN has announced that it will be using a slightly different metric:

The first ten candidates—ranked from highest to lowest in polling order from an average of all qualifying polls released between July 16 and September 10 who satisfy the criteria requirements … will be invited to participate in ‘Segment B’ of the September 16, 2015 Republican Presidential Primary Debate.

Either way, Fox and CNN are both taking steps to ensure that the candidates that they allow on stage for the debates are ones who have a fighting chance–although when considering the crowdedness of the field, this may come down to a few percentage points between candidates who make the cut and those who don’t.

With that in mind, apparently CNN has also announced that it’ll give candidates who don’t make the cut for the main debate but who are polling about 1 percent in three national polls the opportunity to speak in a different segment of the September debate.

Given the sheer craziness that was trying to watch the Republican debates in 2012 and the Democratic debates in 2008, both of which had plenty of candidates (although less than 10), it makes sense that the news outlets want to limit the amount of candidates speaking. If they were to go above ten, there would be hardly enough time for each candidate to be able to say anything useful about his or her platform. That being said, missing out on national exposure will end up hurting the lesser-known candidates, and could end up culling the field on the earlier side than past election cycles.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You’re Not Invited: Republican Candidates Vie for Debate Spots appeared first on Law Street.

While you were grinding away last week, you might have missed these three great articles. The #1 story of the week came from Anneliese Mahoney with her take on Fox News guest Steven Emerson’s totally fabricated “facts” about Muslim residents of Birmingham, England; Alexis Evans made her debut with the #2 article of the week–a smart takedown of rapper 2 Chainz debate with TV host Nancy Grace over marijuana policy; and the #3 article of the week came from Morgan McMurray’s coverage of anti-Muslim sentiment on Twitter. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 No Surprise: Fox News Just Makes Up Facts Now

We all know that Fox News interprets the second part of its name very loosely, but it hit a new low this weekend when it allowed guest Steven Emerson to blatantly make stuff up. Read the full article here.

#2 2 Chainz vs. Nancy Grace: Rapper Wins Debate Over Legalizing Pot

Is this real life? HLN viewers were gifted TV comedic gold the other night in the form of a marijuana debate between the always controversial Nancy Grace and “Fed Watching” rapper 2 Chainz. Grace, whose Wikipedia controversy section alone is cause enough for pause, brought 2 Chainz, who was arrested in 2013 for possessing a weed grinder, on her show to discuss the legalization of marijuana. Funnily enough, it was 2 Chainz who upstaged Grace with actual valid points while she rebutted by showing him irrelevant videos of parents forcing toddlers to smoke pot. Read the full article here.

#3 J.K. Rowling Has Perfect Response to Anti-Muslim Tweets

We are now nearly two weeks into the new year and have already had a heavy dose of tragedy. Unless you have been cut off from internet and television over the past few days, you’ve heard about the Charlie Hebdo shootings. Regardless of what your opinion is of that publication, the murder of those people was an act of terror and an infringement on their rights as humans and French citizens. Read the full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Is this real life? HLN viewers were gifted TV comedic gold the other night in the form of a marijuana debate between the always controversial Nancy Grace and “Fed Watching” rapper 2 Chainz. Grace, whose Wikipedia controversy section alone is cause enough for pause, brought 2 Chainz, who was arrested in 2013 for possessing a weed grinder, on her show to discuss the legalization of marijuana. Funnily enough, it was 2 Chainz who upstaged Grace with actual valid points while she rebutted by showing him irrelevant videos of parents forcing toddlers to smoke pot.

Watch a clip from interview below, and here’s the long version if you want to see it.

For those of you who don’t have time to watch the entire interview, it went a little something like this.

Grace: Was clearly surprised that the weed smoking rapper was capable of graduating college with a 4.0 despite presumably being in a constant purple haze.

2 Chainz: Argues you can’t blame the entire “stoners” community for a few irresponsible parents forcing kids to smoke pot. (Sounds fair.)

Grace: Doesn’t want to be thrown into a pot and stewed. (Okaaaay?)

Grace: “While I have you, why the 2 Chainz?” (She’s getting to the really hard hitting questions now.)

2 Chainz: Explains why his breastfed youth gave way to the family nickname and former rap name Tity Boi.

Grace: Awkwardly quotes 2 Chainz lyrics in the whiniest voice possible.

2 Chainz: Argues in defense of keeping weed out of a child’s hands; feels everyone has the ability to govern their own household and have structure.

Grace: “I hear you. I hear you 2 Chainz. I hear you.” (Do you though?) Quickly shows yet another parent-forcing-baby to smoke video to further prove point.

2 Chainz: Thinks said parent is a bone head and may have mental issues deeper than a joint. (You tell her, 2 Chainz.)

Grace: Implies that if pot is legalized, unlimited access for child-abusing pot heads will bring about the end of the world.

2 Chainz: Informs Nancy that everyone already has the ability to get their hands on pot whether it’s legal or not. Argues legalization will minimize overcrowding in prisons and will help users be able to obtain loans, homes, and jobs.

Grace: “If you want to qualify for a home, why don’t you just not smoke pot! Why don’t you just not get arrested!” (I don’t think they wanted to get arrested.)

2 Chainz:  Sees legalization as a means to curb the national deficit and free up taxpayers’ money that can be better spent on potholes than pot smokers. Tells tour bus grinder arrest story, the charges of which were later dropped, and schools Grace on what a waste of taxpayers’ money it was.

Grace: Doesn’t disagree. Shows yet another baby smoking pot video. “Look. Look. Look. Look. Look. Look.” (Really, he’s looking.)

2 Chainz: “This kid may need marijuana when he’s about 16 because he may have some other things going on.” (Grace doesn’t know what he’s talking about.)

Grace: Demands to know why 2 Chainz doesn’t want his kids to sell pot like him. Shows yet another kid smoking pot video.

2 Chainz: Educates Grace on pawn shops and crack. Thinks the parent in video was high on crack. Wants to call the dude up and find out. Questions if it was even him or maybe a babysitter, an uncle, or a brother. (Creates reasonable doubt.)

Grace: Wants him to know she has a problem with his lyrics “Smoking California weed with California whores.”

2 Chainz: Truuuuuuuuuuuu.

 Obviously Twitter found the whole thing hilarious, including Grace’s ridiculous hashtag: #pot2blame.

NANCY GRACE: Why do you breastfeed your children marijuana? 2 CHAINZ: What? GRACE: Hey what is a 2 Chain? 2 CHAINZ: Well– GRACE: No. Wrong.

— Dan Ozzi (@danozzi) January 14, 2015

Nancy Grace: “Smokin California weed with California hoez.” 2 Chainz: “TRUUUUUU” This seriously happened on national television.

— Demetrius (@fergoe) January 14, 2015

This is beautiful. I would watch a 24-hour network of just Nancy Grace/2 Chainz. http://t.co/EEMXtCJJc6 pic.twitter.com/9xuSmIty80 — Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) January 14, 2015

thanks to @NancyGraceHLN ive finally realized that #pot2blame for all my problems. dunno how it took me so long

— Nadeska Alexis (@neweryork) January 14, 2015

Having @NancyGraceHLN on in the home regularly might be more detrimental to a childs brain development than pot legalization. #Pot2Blame?

— Mike Groseclose (@mikrofusion) January 14, 2015

Is another debate in the works? We should only be so lucky. Both 2 Chainz and Grace gave fans hope on Twitter, showing there’s no bad blood between the two.

.@2chainz you’re on. I’m gonna talk u out of this pot thing. Ps. I don’t think that’s a real rolex u have on. #Pot2Blame?

— Nancy Grace (@NancyGraceHLN) January 14, 2015

After the recent legalization of marijuana in Oregon and Alaska, and the vote to legalize it in Washington D.C., the country’s opinion on marijuana has started to turn a corner. It’s the crackpots like Grace, with their ultra-conservative babble and highly irrelevant baby smoking videos, that are only delaying the inevitable. Until people are willing to accept the facts on marijuana, myths and paranoia will remain supreme.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2 Chainz vs. Nancy Grace: Rapper Wins Debate Over Legalizing Pot appeared first on Law Street.

Here’s my Public Service Announcement of the day, and it’s going out to our politicians: everyone hates you. Seriously. President Obama, you have an approval rating around 40 percent. Governors, some of you are doing OK, but some of you really suck. Congress — you people are currently clocking in at roughly 14 percent. Really, you are all screwed, Americans really, really hate you. The question is, do you even know that?

In light of what happened last night, I’ve got to imagine that at least a few of you haven’t gotten the memo, particularly those of you running for Governor in Florida. For those of you that haven’t seen Fangate, a.k.a. Governor Rick Scott’s really weird mental breakdown a.k.a a trio of debate moderators wishing they were anywhere else, here it is.

Politicians. This, this right here is why people hate you so much.

Let’s break this down. First of all, Charlie Crist, stop being so into your fan. I get that it’s Florida, which is basically a giant swamp. I get that feeling warm while public speaking is pretty much the worst thing ever. I too easily get overheated, and it’s gross. But never in my life have I looked so proud of a fan. And that’s exactly how Crist looks — really proud of himself and this weird fan attachment he has. He’s obviously loving this. Scott is being a whiny little baby, and he gets to call him out on it, but he still comes across as creepy and really into a fan that’s aimed at…his knees? New campaign slogan: Charlie Crist, vote for me, my knees are nice and cool.

And then there’s Rick Scott who is throwing a temper tantrum worthy of a four year old. I get that they decided the rules of the debate beforehand, and Crist broke one. But is that a real reason to not walk out on stage for a debate? The fan literally has no effect on you Rick Scott, this isn’t a political version of “The Butterfly Effect.”

So back to why people hate you two, and politicians in general. You are running for office to be the Governor of our fourth most populous state. You would be directly in charge of policies that affect just shy of 20 million people. Florida has serious problems when it comes to crime, education, health care, and immigration. Then there are all the issues that a Florida governor would have to deal with that are not necessarily currently affecting Florida, but in a fully globalized world are still relevant: the spread of Ebola, sending troops to war, natural disasters, trade. And here, the two top contenders for this job are fighting like children over a fan.

This is why so many of us hate politicians. How can you relate to a single mom who goes to a minimum wage job with a fever because she needs to provide for her kid when you can’t deal with having your fan off for a few hours? How can you relate to a young man who is shot for holding an ice tea and a bag of skittles when your privilege allows you to prolong walking out on stage as long as you want because your opponent brought an accessory you don’t approve of? How can you talk about personal responsibility when you can’t even compromise with your opponent about something as innocuous as a fan?

Politicians, this is why everyone hates you. Because you’re out of touch asshats.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Politicians: We All Hate You appeared first on Law Street.

The Social Security program was enacted in 1935 to provide post-retirement income security for workers and their families. Since then, it has grown to become the world’s largest government program with a total expenditure of $768 billion in fiscal year 2012. Americans are seriously concerned about the sustainability of Social Security, which has led to questions about whether privatizing the system could be wise. Read on to learn about Social Security privatization efforts, and the arguments for and against such a move.

The Current Status of Social Security

Social Security isn’t in great shape right now. Various reports have estimated different dates at which the entitlement program may have difficulty paying out full benefits to those who should receive them, but the current most cited year is 2033. One of the big reasons for why Social Security is in big trouble is because of our changing demographics and health statistics. When Social Security was first introduced pre-World War II, people did not live nearly as long as they do today. In addition, the post-World War II Baby Boom led to a glut in our population size. Social Security’s forecasting methods weren’t able to accurately predict the situation we’re in now, where there are many healthy people retiring who will live longer than ever before. To put this into context, in 1960, there were about 5.1 workers paying into the system for every retiree; now the ratio has shifted to under 3:1.

What does “privatizing” Social Security mean?

Given Social Security’s current state, there have been solutions suggested to try to fix it. One of the most popular is privatizing the system. That would most likely mean creating individual private accounts for the workers. Those private accounts will be subject to more control by those who are paying in, and would be able to interact with the private market. The funds could be invested in things like private stocks, which advocates point out would boost workers’ rate of return.

The proposition of its privatization came into the limelight when George W. Bush proposed the Growing Real Ownership of Workers Act of 2005. The bill aimed at replacing the mandatory payouts from workers’ checks with voluntary personal retirement accounts. In 2010, Paul Ryan, a major supporter of privatization, attempted unsuccessfully to reignite interest in the idea in his Roadmap for America’s Future budget plan.

What are the arguments for privatization?

Proponents of privatization argue that the current program significantly burdens fiscal debt and will lead to increased debt and taxes for future generations. They claim that privatizing it will keep the program from collapsing in the future. It would actually lead to higher post-retirement earnings for workers or, at the very least, keep earnings at a relatively stable rate. Additionally, it would empower workers to be responsible for their own future.

Advocates for privatizing social security also point out that in the past, funds in Social Security have been diverted to pay for other things the government has needed to pay for, and then replaced in time. If Social Security was privatized into individual accounts, the government wouldn’t be able to take such actions. According those who want to privatize Social Security, doing so would also help minimize the bureaucracy involved in the process.

Case Study: Chile

Chile’s post-privatization success is used as an example that the United States can learn from. Chile transferred to a new program in which  workers put 10-20 percent of their incomes into private pension funds. When the worker retires, an insurance company gets involved to help with the dispensation of money, but even at that step the Chilean worker has a lot of choice and flexibility. Although long term effects of the plan have yet to be discovered, the short term effects are positive.

What’s the argument against privatizing the Social Security system?

Opponents worry that privatizing social security will lead to risk and instability in post-retirement earnings and cause significant reductions in the same. They argue that privatization can also potentially place minorities at a disadvantage, as well as anyone who doesn’t have the time, knowledge, or desire to effectively manage their account. Many also claim that the media has exaggerated the program’s financial demise and that its balance is currently in surplus with most Baby Boomers currently in the workforce.

Those who argue against Social Security privatization have also expressed concern about the financial and logistical resources that would be needed to start a privatized Social Security program. They also believe that a move toward privatization would create more, not less bureaucracy, because of the complexity of private markets. Several groups and individuals, such as the Center for American Progress and economist Robert Barro oppose the idea.

Conclusion

It’s no secret that Social Security is currently struggling, and if something is not done, it will continue only get worse. There’s no easy answer, but privatization is one frequently suggested option in the public debate. Exactly how privatization would occur, what its benefits and downsides would be, and its overall effectiveness are still up for debate, but for now it’s definitely an idea that we can expect to see on the list of possible solutions for the foreseeable future.

Resources

Primary 

Social Security Administration: A Program and Policy History

Social Security Administration: The Social Security Act of 1935

Social Security Administration: Fast Facts & Figures About Social Security, 2012

Social Security Administration: The 2013 Annual Report of the Broad of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds

Social Security Association: Privatizing Social Security: The Chilean Experience

Additional 

Daily Signal: Social Security’s Unfunded Obligation Rises by $1 Trillion

CATO: Still a Better Deal: Private Investment vs. Social Security

Safe Haven: Privatize Social Security Before I Spend Your Pension

Sun Sentinal: Privatization Would Help But Liberals Resist Changes

Independent: Privatizing Social Security the Right Way

Freedom Works: Chilean Model of Social Security

NCPSSM: The Truth About Privatization and Social Security

Economic Policy Institute Report: Saving Social Security With Stocks: The Promises Don’t Add Up

Fortune: Privatizing Social Security: Still a Dumb Idea

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: What the 2013 Trustees’ Report Shows About Social Security

CATO: Speaking the Truth About Social Security Reform

AARP: In Brief: Social Security Privatization Around the World

National Bureau of Economic Research: Social Security Privatization: A Structure for Analysis

NEA: Social Security Privatization: A Bad Deal for Women

Salome Vakharia

Salome Vakharia is a Mumbai native who now calls New York and New Jersey her home. She attended New York School of Law, and she is a founding member of Law Street Media. Contact Salome at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Social Security Privatization Debate appeared first on Law Street.

To blog about such a controversial topic like the use and possession of guns in the United States is something I want to tread carefully with. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion surrounding the debate, but this week I could not help but question the legality of guns when coming across two particular cases.

On Thursday, Don Spirit killed his six grandchildren, aged from three months to 10 years old, and his daughter before turning the gun on himself. Spirit, whose case has been described as a murder-suicide, was someone who had already been involved in the criminal justice system. According to Fox:

In 2001, Spirit pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, after he fatally shot his 8-year-old son in the head in a hunting accident. Spirit, who also was convicted in 1998 for felony possession of marijuana, was sentenced to three years in prison for the shooting.

The details of the investigation are still in the very early stages, so it is hard to understand the motive — if there was one — the facts surrounding Spirit’s mental health, and his relationship with the victims. Aside from knowing these facts, I cannot help but wonder how Spirit even managed to have a gun after being convicted of a shooting in 2001? Gun accessibility legislation for ex-convicts really needs to be reconsidered in light of this case.

What I feel a lot of people fail to recognize is that the most common method of suicide in the United States is through the use of guns. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2011 there were 39,518 deaths by suicide. An overwhelming amount of these deaths (19,990) were the result of firearms.  If we are a country that aims to protect our citizens and the rights of others, surely we should look out for ourselves just as much? If we have such easy accessibility to the weapons of our choice that could end our lives, should we not reconsider the laws surrounding them? Do not get me wrong, I am more than aware that the black market for firearms is an ever-growing underground business, but if we cannot efficiently manage the legal selling and keeping of licensed handguns, we have no hope to stop the illegal sales and handlings.

My point needs to be extended to the safety of those living with others who have access to guns. On the same day as the tragic deaths resulting from Spirit’s heinous act, a fifth grade boy was arrested in Michigan after being found to have stolen his grandfather’s pistol. Not only was the boy found with the gun, but he had also created a list of names in the back of his homework book of people he allegedly planned to harm. As a result of this discovery, the boy has been suspended from school for ten days, and could face possible expulsion. Again, this could be my criminological thinking coming out, but I cannot help but wonder whether this punishment will actually solve the problem of what the boy intended to do? I certainly do not think he should be given jail time, or any formal sentence, but I do think that he needs to be aware of just how serious his actions were. Why? Because if he is not aware of it, what is to stop him doing it all over again, and just being more careful.

I fear that in a culture where are part of normality, when conflict arises in such intense situations, sometimes the only resolution seems to be in the form of violence via the use of weapons. I personally do not think this reflects on the attitudes and actions of those involved in this violence, I think it is the instinct that they have been taught their entire lives, to protect themselves in an extremely lethal way. In order to enact firmer laws that protect our safety, we have to start working on understanding the reason for such laws. As someone who is British, and not used to the debate on the use of guns, one of the main things I have come to realize is that it is a right for US citizens to own a gun, and by restricting this right through legislation, essentially the country contradicts all it stands for. As hard as it is to stand back from what an entire population believes in, more awareness needs to be raised toward the consequences of guns, not just for now, but for the future.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Auraelius via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Two More Disturbing Gun Cases Beg the Question When Will We Change? appeared first on Law Street.

I’ve never been the biggest fan of hashtags. Cognitively, I guess I understand their use, but to be honest I’ve always thought of them as the annoying little sibling of captions; they give you some information about what you’re looking at but they’re too small to do much more. They help you find other similar posts or tweets, but I’m too lazy to really use that feature.

But this year, hashtags pleasantly surprised me. Maybe I’m just paying more attention, or maybe they’re getting more sophisticated, but over the course of 2013 hashtags were used to start some legitimately interesting sociopolitical discussions.

A few weeks ago, the GOP tweeted:

Today we remember Rosa Parks’ bold stand and her role in ending racism. pic.twitter.com/uxIj1QmtkU

— RNC (@GOP) December 1, 2013

The entire internet proceeded to make fun of this blithely ignorant tweet, myself included. But out of that internet backlash emerged something really interesting.

How I imagine people type when there’s new material to be mocked on the internet.

The hashtag #RacismEndedWhen was born. And everyone weighed in. Some responses were funny, some were angry, and some were just silly, but for the most part, they were thought-provoking.This wasn’t a hashtag dedicated to showing off a fun brunch entree, or explaining that the photo you just posted had #nofilter. It was genuine discourse, albeit through a relatively shallow medium.

#RacismEndedWhen doesn’t stand alone. In August of this year, #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen started trending after a user named Mikki Kendall used it to explain how she believes minority women have a history of exclusion in the feminist movement. Again, it sparked valuable debate and discussion.

Earlier this week, Suey Park launched the hashtag #NotYourAsianSidekick to discuss Asian-American stereotypes and feminism. And as with the other discussion-based hashtags, people chimed in. Park explained her motivation for starting the discussion to Buzzfeed, “My dear friends and I have had growing critiques of how patriarchy in Asian American spaces hurts, while white feminism leaves much to be desired, so we created this space instead. We talked about queerness, disability, immigration, multiracial/biracial issues, compulsory coalitions, challenging anti-blackness, mental health, body image, and all things feminism. It was all of the things we were told to never talk about.”

Complacency is easy. It’s easy not to have the difficult discussion. Social media has often been lauded as a lighter part of the internet — I don’t go on Facebook when I’m looking to expand my horizons or read a serious news article. I go on Facebook when I want to see funny pictures or observations about my friends’ lives.

That being said, I’m happy about this new use of hashtags. I’m happy that we’re having those difficult discussions. As a generation, we spend a lot of time online. It’s estimated that we each spend five hours a day looking at a laptop, TV, or smartphone.

The kinds of discussions that we’re now having within the confines of these hashtags are the kind of discussions that used to take place with a big group of friends at bar, or around a dinner table, or maybe in a classroom. But one of the benefits of our constant connectivity is that these conversations can happen a much larger level. We are no longer limited to our friends, families, and people who are like us, and I can’t help but think that’s a pretty great thing.

Moreover, as Park hoped, these hashtags and resulting discussions can help connect people. They can create safe spaces that allow people who thought they were alone in a problem, feeling, or grievance to connect with others who are experiencing something similar.

So, thought-provoking hashtags, I hope you continue into 2014. People who utilized those hashtags in 2013, keep going. Keep pushing the envelope. Keep using social media to engage in difficult conversations. Keep creating new forums to discuss the tough stuff. As technology changes the way politics, society, law, and people interact, this is a pretty cool new way to talk about it.

Here’s to you.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Michael Coghlan via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #Cheers to the Hashtag appeared first on Law Street.