At this point, the disbelief that Donald Trump could actually win a primary has worn off. But worry still remains for many, especially after hearing about Trump’s support of waterboarding and other more severe forms of torture. Other candidates such as Cruz and Rubio were also in support of waterboarding in the most recent Republican debate. But these candidates’ desire to be tough on terrorism seems to only be a test of masculinity, leaving basic human rights unrecognized.

At recent debates, Ted Cruz spoke in support of waterboarding in an all-means-necessary approach to interrogation; Rubio took a similar approach. The collective opinions of these three candidates has ignited backlash from their own party, and again raises awareness of the dissonance within the Republican Party as its candidates endorse compromising measures. Senator John McCain had to distance himself from the words of these candidates, and remind them of the severe impact of torture. He responded to their statements in a Senate address, highlighting:

It might be easy to dismiss this bluster as cheap campaign rhetoric, but these statements must not go unanswered because they mislead the American people about the realities of interrogation, how to gather intelligence, what it takes to defend our security, and at the most fundamental level what we are fighting for as a nation.

One American already mislead by these comments is none other than Donald Trump’s son Eric Trump. In defense of his father’s torture stance, the younger Trump actually said that waterboarding was no different from hazing in frat houses across American college campuses.

These comments had several people doing a double take just to ensure he actually said those words. Eric Trump and these candidates want people to see torture as a sign of toughness, and candidates are able to capitalize off the fear and tragedy of Americans after terrorism attacks.

Infighting between the candidates over their toughness has occurred too–Donald Trump actually laughed when one of his supporters called Ted Cruz a pussy during his speech because Cruz’s support of waterboarding did not measure up to the strictness of Trump’s future plans for torture. After laughing, he went on to repeat the words of his supporter to his entire audience after laughing.

This long back and forth over the use of torture begs the question: is this a race for presidency or a contest in masculinity?

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Macho Enough to Torture?: Cruz, Trump, and Rubio All Weigh In appeared first on Law Street.

During the 6th (oh god, why?) Republican debate last night, there was a powerful moment when Canadian-ish Ted Cruz and sentient troll doll Donald Trump had a show-down about “New York values.” Cruz previously stated that Trump “embodies New York values” and then elaborated during the debate. Trump parried with arguably with his best moment to date; watch the entire exchange below:

Trump gave a compelling response to a clear attempt from Cruz to stereotype and insult America’s largest city–but New Yorkers still aren’t happy with Cruz’s generalizations and insinuations. The New York Daily News, which is well known for its biting covers, responded to his comment this morning with a somewhat cheap shot at Cruz’s Canadian birth:

Stop the presses! A new Page 1… DROP DEAD, TED: https://t.co/68hKgqmjBxpic.twitter.com/veDsxLYDTN — New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) January 15, 2016

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also released a statement, pointing out the hypocrisy of Cruz’s statement, given that his father is an immigrant, and stating: 

He doesn’t know what New York values are because New York is in many ways the epitome of what formed this nation and what keeps it strong. The Statue of Liberty is in our harbor.

Others took to Twitter to emphasize their frustrations with Cruz’s comments. 

Tip: if your spouse works on Wall St. and you hold fundraisers in Manhattan, maybe avoid complaining about “New York values”

— Emma Roller (@emmaroller) January 15, 2016

Uhhh. If New York values include tolerance, inclusion, and bodily autonomy for women, sure. Okay.

— roxane gay (@rgay) January 15, 2016

He even got some crap from Republican Congressman Peter King (although this was before Cruz explained what he meant by “New York values” last night). King stated:

Memo to Ted Cruz: New York Values are the heroes of 9/11; the cops who fight terror; and the people you ask for campaign donations. Go back under a rock

As a diehard “West Wing” fan, my first thought was this scene, when the implication behind a “New York sense of humor” was made as clear as day during the show’s pilot episode: it means Jewish.

Cruz’s comment was clearly an attempt to play on an us vs. them rhetoric that has existed ever since New York’s initiation as the cultural mecca of the U.S. It was a calculated political statement to be sure–Cruz knew that he probably wasn’t going to win New York anyways–probably not in a primary, and almost certainly not in a general–so why not pander to the Americans who see New York as a hotbed of immorality and run-amuck liberalism? It was dog whistle politics at its finest: “New York values” is a code word for immoral the same way that “San Francisco values” is a codeword for LGBTQ, or “urban” is a codeword for “Black people.”

Cruz’s risk came back to bite him in the ass, at least in the press, but I don’t know that it will hurt him in the long run. The idea that New York isn’t “real America,” is, to some conservatives, a valid concept. Erick Erickson, conservative pundit extraordinaire, made that loud and clear during the debate:

New York City is not America. Y’all keep defending it though.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) January 15, 2016

Let’s put it this way–it’s no secret what Cruz was talking about when he said “New York values”–New Yorkers got it, and so did everyone else on that stage. It wasn’t new, and it wasn’t surprising, but we’ll have to see if it makes a difference in Cruz’s fight to defeat Trump.

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 Ted Cruz Blasts “New York Values”: We All Know What that Means appeared first on Law Street.

One of the most notable themes of Wednesday’s debate was the outward hostility that the candidates expressed toward the moderators and the media in general. We often hear about politicians criticizing the media, but why exactly do they do it and why does it elicit such a positive response?

Before we get into peoples’ perception of the media, I first need to address the fact that existing research has found very little evidence of actual media bias. When I first wrote about the debate, I noted that a review of nearly 59 studies conducted over a long period of time did not find notable evidence of bias in newspapers or news magazines. While some bias could be seen in television news broadcasts, that amount was generally insignificant. It is important to note that general news coverage is different from editorials and commentators’ discussions of news events, which are decidedly more opinionated.

A general explanation for claims of media bias is the widely accepted concept of the “hostile media effect,” which involves people’s perception of media coverage that they disagree with. Particularly when it comes to those with very strong opinions on an issue, people tend to perceive media coverage as biased against them, even when no evidence of bias in the coverage exists. Put simply, people on both sides of the ideological spectrum can perceive the same coverage as biased against them.

The recent trend of distrust among conservatives may also be explained by their notable dissatisfaction with the mainstream media. According to the Pew Research Center’s “Political Polarization & Media Habits” report, conservatives are much more likely to consume and trust conservative media than any other source. People who are mostly and consistently conservative are more likely to watch Fox News than any other source while those on the other end of the spectrum consume news from a wider range of sources. Fox News is generally considered to be a right-leaning network, in its news coverage but particularly when it comes to the network’s commentators. I note this not to make a judgment of many conservatives’ media habits, but to point out the important differences between the sources of information conservative individuals trust in comparison to liberals.

Gallup’s recent trust in the mass media poll indicates that Americans in general have relatively low trust in the media. In fact, the most recent survey shows that only about 40 percent of Americans have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the mass media–a record low. While this is true for most Americans, it is particularly true among Republicans and Independents, as 32 and 33 percent expressed similar levels of trust in the media, respectively. In contrast, 55 percent of Democrats trust the media a great deal or a fair amount. These results also mirror a larger trend in public opinion, as Americans are generally less trusting of many U.S. institutions than in other points in history.

In the crowded Republican primary campaign, where candidates need to appeal more to the conservative base of primary voters than the general public, criticism of the mainstream media is particularly resonant. This trend could also be compounded by the conservative media’s general disdain for the mainstream media. An example of that is Ted Cruz’ post-debate interview with Fox News commentator Sean Hannity. In the interview, Cruz reiterated his claim of bias in the mainstream media and Hannity strongly agreed with his characterization. They both emphasized the hostile environment that the CNBC moderators created and noted how that reflects the media’s treatment of conservatives in general. Finally, Cruz called for a debate that would be moderated by outspoken conservatives like Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin.

One question that has not yet been answered is exactly why Americans, particularly conservatives, dislike the mainstream media. Is it because of repeated attacks from politicians, which happen on both sides of the aisle, or are the politicians merely reflecting public sentiment? That question may be impossible to answer, but it’s pretty clear that both the public and elected officials are playing off of each others’ distrust in the news media. As the distrust grows continues, the trend may not bode well for the press’ ability to hold elected leaders accountable.

Read More: Comedy or Cable: Where do Americans Get Their News?

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 Why Do Politicians Attack the Media? appeared first on Law Street.

Like most elections in recent history, the hot button topics politicians use to illicit an emotional response from voters include education, immigration, and healthcare. Yes, we’ve all heard about Trump wanting to build a wall along the Mexico border. We have developed hope for Bernie Sanders’ plan to decrease student loans.  We have heard one Republican after another decry Planned Parenthood for its supposedly illegal and morally questionable actions.

But the issue is bigger than Planned Parenthood. For many people, Planned Parenthood is a safe, reliable, and cost-effective solution that provides necessary men and women’s healthcare. It performs safe, legal abortions, yes, but more than that provides counseling, exams, pre- and post-natal care to pregnant women, as well as more general healthcare needs.

Again, the issue here is not what Planned Parenthood does or does not do. It’s a deeper problem of government bodies thinking it is okay to prevent women from having control over their own bodies and healthcare. It is not the job of Congress to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. That should be between her and her doctor WHEREVER she chooses to receive healthcare. Why should women who choose Planned Parenthood as their primary source of healthcare be denied these very beneficial services because some people in the government disagree with one of those services?

Protesters of Planned Parenthood think the organization should not receive federal funding because it performs abortions. Yes, it receives money from the government. As do all other non-profit, public health services. Planned Parenthood receives over one-third of its yearly funding from federal sources, but none of that can be legally allocated to abortion services, so that argument falls flat. Any money it receives from the government goes toward the very real need for reliable and affordable healthcare.

Republicans and Pro-Lifers like to cite the recent smear campaign videos that came out about the Planned Parenthood clinics. Carly Fiorina even used those videos as support for her arguments during the last debate.  Unfortunately for Fiorina, the scenes she talked about don’t exist, and the videos have been doctored. Planned Parenthood is not illegally harvesting and selling fetal tissue. But that truth has largely been ignored.

Let me repeat: those videos were discredited. Yet, they keep coming up. Why? Because they cause a reaction, and politicians know that a majority of people will go with emotions first and check facts later.

But we must check facts, because otherwise organizations that help people–like Planned Parenthood–die out, and thousands of women will suffer the consequences.

Next time someone decides to justify taking funding away from Planned Parenthood by citing its abortion services, which aren’t even funded by their federal grants, tell them the facts. Abortion services are only a small percentage of the many healthcare options the clinics offer, and your tax money does not go to them. Think about the women who rely on those clinics to receive life-saving care, and remember that not everything that comes out of a politician’s mouth is true.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Planned Parenthood Debate is Not About Abortion, It’s About Women’s Healthcare appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI here are Law Street’s top trending stories from last week. The top spot went to a story about a 14-year-old boy from Texas who was arrested and accused of making a bomb after bringing a homemade clock to school. The number two story took a humorous look at the top moments from the second Republican debate, and number three covered a trend of suicide clusters in schools in both the United States and Japan. Check out all three below:

#1 #IStandWithAhmed: Because We Arrest 14-Year-Olds For Making Clocks Now

Ahmed Mohamed is a 14-year-old living in Irving, Texas. His hobby is inventing and creating things–but when he brought in a homemade clock on Monday, he was accused of making a bomb, suspended from school, interrogated by the police, arrested, and taken to a juvenile detention center. America: land of the brave, home of stamping out creativity in young people. Read the full story here.

#2 Top 10 Moments from the Second Republican Debate

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. Read the full story here.

#3 Suicide Clusters: Collectivism vs. Individualism in Education

September 1 was just another day for most people around the world. For some students, it was the beginning of a new academic year. For others, it was just another Tuesday. In Japan, however, it marked a terrifying spike in suicides among young people. Seventeen-year-old Nanae Munemasa, who has struggled with bullying and resulting suicidal thoughts, credits this mysterious tragedy to the end of a jubilating summer break and a return to a school environment in which many students are emotionally and physically bullied. Read the full story here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week 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.

Last week at Law Street, our top stories included a look at the top 10 quotes from the first Republican presidential primary debate, Kim K’s latest legal troubles, and some familiar faces running for political office. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s top stories of the week.

#1 Top 10 Quotes from the First Presidential Debate

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. Read the full article here.

#2 Kim Kardashian’s Selfie Comes with an FDA Warning

Even though the world very well may be reaching its breaking point with how much Kardashian news coverage it can take, recent legal trouble between the family’s top breadwinner Kim Kardashian West and the Food and Drug Administration has warranted keeping the reality stars in the spotlight. Read the full article here.

#3 Celebrities Running for Office: Familiar Faces in the 2016 Races

Donald Trump is certainly dominating the news when it comes to the race for the 2016 Republican presidential primary. But “The Donald” didn’t get his start as a politician–he was a business mogul and reality television star before anyone ever saw him on a presidential poll. While that may seem weird to some, celebrities who have gotten famous through other means are consistently trying to join the political ranks. Here are five other celebrities running for office in 2016–and I’m betting they’re just the tip of the iceberg. Read the full article here.

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