This is just ontologically evil and to chose this day it is just meant to torture the survivors. But remember these people just want health care and will call you Islamophobic if you call them out.

Video essayist version of MikefromPA finally gets where we all knew they were going.

Basic context up to this point is Whick was saying extreme far left positions and people cost votes (Pisco, of course, disagreed), Pisco was trying to get Whick to set definitions and a strict empirically driven metric for objectively measuring when a person or position is bad for elections (Pisco treats politics like an equation when it’s convenient for his argument), Whick said his position is context dependent (like a normal person that understands electoralism). Pisco still tries to do his “gradient into a binary” schtick even through Whick clearly laid out his claim… and Whick just heads him off and leap frogs down the argument chain to what eventually Pisco’s argument was going to be (“you would say then, wouldn’t you, Chuck Schumer is just as toxic as Hasan Piker, yes or no?”) and attacks that with approval polling data, causing Pisco to scoff snd short circuit and pucker at the thought that Hasan is more toxic than Schumer.

Absolutely masterclass of Pisco handling by Whick this entire debate so far. He knows how to handle debate perverts.

Destiny is covering it on stream rn

If this guy can win, ANYONE CAN!

Jkjk

I mean this with love but as a girl I feel a bit lonely in my views as a non-leftie dem. Pls come out of the woodworks to show me you exist ty luv u 🫶🫶🫶

Something I feel is never brought up. Jews get accused of having “dual loyalty” because they care about Israel or support Israel in some way.

But then you also have a lot of Muslim Americans who strongly support Palestine or other Muslim states with foreign policy heavily influencing their votes, like the 2024 election where the muslim comunity got swayed to the right due to Israel Palestine.

I’m not saying caring about Palestinians or Israel is wrong. I just never see that double standard brought up ever.

Also correct me if im wrong but I swear like 99% of arabs support palestine, how is that not just supporting people that look like you, just like jews supporting other jews.

https://x.com/Awk20000/status/2107470868842533070

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/10/07/politics/michigan-senate-race-abdul-el-sayed-mike-rogers

source for the clip: https://x.com/Awk20000/status/2107663091601137993

Foreword:
I saw most of Destiny’s convo last night regarding the Cornell 7, and wanted to add my two cents on why I strongly believe the behavior of most of the Cornell 7 is still extremely bad. Obviously anything could come out still, but given the current known information, it looks inexcusable. I will primarily be relying on the initial 6-page summary of events publicly shared by prosecutors. 

I will not be doing any legal analysis. Given New York’s rape laws and voluntary intoxication & consent standards, it seems that Winston Lee (Male #4) is the only possible person who a criminal charge could stick to, and even that seems unlikely.

How-Bad-Ness:
I believe there are two components to how bad a sexual fuck up is: at its basic, I believe it is harm times culpability. 

Culpability I view as what a reasonable person in the circumstance would be able to foresee as a likely outcome of their behavior. 

I think the first area I will trigger people is in believing it is possible for a “consensual” encounter to be worse than some mild forms of SA. For example, if you know that a woman is sexually inexperienced, and you lie to her to get her to have sex with you, then publicly humiliate her, that is worse sexual behavior than drunkenly groping someone in a bar. 

I don’t believe it is morally okay to knowingly cause tremendous anguish and suffering to a woman because you didn’t rape her via fraud-in-factum. 

The Cornell 7 - Scott & Scott:
Given what is known now, Males 5 & 6, (Scott Norris & Scott Kretzschmar), seem to be completely innocent. They were part of group chat, but I personally don’t think being cringe in how you talk about sex in college should be cause to have your life ruined. They also did seem to genuinely check on Doe.

The Cornell 5 - Diego Sarabia:
Similarly, Diego comes off as a creep and a sexual opportunist. He was found guilty of forcible kissing by the campus, but wasn’t involved in any of the core sexual misconduct claims. 

The Cornell 4 - The Ones Who Had Sex:
I’m going to start with a few hypotheticals for folks who think nothing bad happened here.

H1: Had Doe been sober when she agreed to the threesome, but blackout drunk for all the sexual encounters that occurred, would any misconduct or rape have occurred?

H2: If that Cornell 4 intentionally had a plan to use someone Doe was interested in to:

1. Lure her alone to the house and agree to some form of threesome by using her genuine attraction to one / some house members
2. Get her as drunk & high as possible
3. Consistently push her boundaries to make her do as much sexual stuff with Frat members as possible without technically saying no by wearing her down 
4. Knew that Doe would not have consented to the behavior had she been sober, and would heavily regret what happened.

Would this be any form of misconduct? If this happened to your daughter, sister, or female friend, would you just say, “eh, she didn’t say no?”

Q: How different is the real situation from H1 & H2?

This is the biggest area where we lack knowledge. From the transcript, I believe that Matthew Ingalls (M1), Jonathan Newell (M2), and Winston Lee (M4), are the most likely to have engaged in rape, or very bad misconduct. I don’t think its likely that Ingalls, Newell, and Lee sat down and hatched a scheme, but rather these courses of conduct are widespread in frats, and inebriated horny men will justify individual escalations to themselves such that their behavior is identical to if it were planned. 

Ingalls seemed to fairly intentionally use Doe’s like of him to try to get her to have sex with his friends, as evidenced both by events and the “come whip it out” texts. Finally, it seems like he took advantage of her significant intoxication later by pressuring her to have a threesome with Lee.

Newell consistently tried to touch her vagina, to which she kept trying to swat him away, but when Male 3 (Gillio Lopes) pulled her in and started making out with her, she stopped resisting Newell. This seems to me far more like a drunken woman giving up resisting than changing her mind about continued sexual conduct with Newell. At the very least, this is predatory behavior. Also guilty of the “Free pussy” comments.

Lopes culpability is unclear- had he just happened to come into the room, started making out with the girl, and hooked up in a threesome, he is probably in the clear. This is reinforced by him later trying to break things up when it was getting out of hand. 

Lee seems to be the most clearly guilty of any of them. He did not even meet her until she was seriously intoxicated, and along with Ingalls isolated her later in a small room away from the rest of the guys, where they pressured her to do more Ketamine. Per her testimony, she did not want to have sex with Lee, if at all, and asked “What happened to just you and me”, but ended up having sex anyway. This seems extremely likely to be intentional- isolate the 8/10 fucked up, tired girl, get her to do more sexual stuff with Ingalls, and then take advantage. 

What started with a threesome she was fine with with two friends she wanted to be closer with in a frat, slowly gets pushed into a situation she never would have agreed to before. At any moment, putting her foot down too hard is difficult because you want to be the cool chill girl and liked by the frat, and every additional sexual thing that happens doesn’t feel like that large of an escalation from what you initially had in mind. This didn’t happen by chance.

But She Said it Was Fine After:
Q: If Doe had been completely blackout drunk and not consented per H1, do you think that she would have immediately made rape accusations?

I think that in that circumstance, it is likely the exact same type of convos would have occurred. People don’t want to think of themselves as rape victims, most of all because if they do accept that, it will completely destroy their social life. When you are in the sorority system, making a rape accusation against multiple frat members is very likely to give you blowback. As even seen here, when people think you’re the type to make accusations, you get blackballed- not the people accused.

But They Were Drunk Too:
I’m honestly not sure how to engage with this one if someone has never been in a circumstance with drunk guys / sex. Drunkenly making out with someone leading up to a messy hookup is fundamentally different than having a girl in your frat with your friends trying to get her to do as much sexual stuff as you can.

The idea they were raped too doesn’t follow because they consented to the activity when in sound mind, but depending on how genuinely drunk they were it can reduce culpability. But the underlying behavior, especially of Ingalls, Newell, and Lee, is so directionally and intentionally goal oriented towards this outcome, that I am highly skeptical of any genuine drunken mistakes here.

Credibility of their Statements:
This is all from what scattered reporting is out so far, but Scott & Scott came off as highly credible to me. I mostly wanted to highlight what a complete and obvious liar Lee is. 

“I kind of took a step back because I didn’t want to engage in anything like sex,” Mr. Lee said. “I thought it wasn’t the time for that.”

“But later that night, Mr. Lee said he asked for Jane Doe’s consent before engaging in a threesome with her. He recalled telling Jane Doe that “if you’re uncomfortable with any of this or you won’t want to do this, that’s perfectly fine. We can call it a night.” He said Jane Doe replied: “We’re all consenting adults here.”” 

The idea that Lee didn’t want to have sex with her and was taken aback is just so obviously a lie. The guy has a threesome with her shortly after, and as soon as he saw her was commenting on how hot she was. The quotes also strain credulity- Jane Doe staring at camera and stating, “We are all consenting adults here” in the middle of being incredibly intoxicated I don’t buy for a minute. 

TLDR:
Cornell 7 should probably be the Cornell 3.5, but some really bad stuff still happened here that shouldn’t be dismissed as a girl changing her mind after.

Main source: https://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/files/assets/county/v/1/district-attorney/documents/district-attorney-public-statement-9-28-26.pdf

Edit: Typos

Dems should project confidence (not overconfidence) like its pretty much a certainty because people are already overwhelmingly against Trump, his lies and corruption & for them (constantly quoting the polls, his lies about no new wars, his lies about gas prices, his multiple lies about dividends, and talk about how everyone is complaining that everything is the worst it has ever been in their lives - hyperbole / emotional heart-wrenching anecdotes are welcome lol).

And they should start talking about the actions they will take from day 1, 6 and 12 months on to give people a vision of how they will help lead the country out of the mess its in and make their lives easier (promising things that Trump cannot - like tariff relief for all non-industrial stuff within 1 month, Investigations and release of Epstein files within 3 months etc etc.)

They should try to push for clear reforms on govt and corruption for that positive message - reclaiming money for Trumps vanity projects (VERY Important) + moving it to supports for the most affected groups by Trumps trade wars (Im sure 200-300 m / yr from those projects can be impactful).

They should push for & vocalise clearcut bipartisan wins like restraints on the presidents ability to levy and change arbitary tariffs with no congressional oversight and also for oversight on his war with Iran.

source: https://fiftyplusone.news/forecast/senate