Sidechat logo
Download TikTok Instagram X
Sidechat icon
Join communities on Sidechat Download
US Politics icon
👺
US Politics 22h

troybolton12

 Perfect example of misinformation getting spread here kid didn't even read the article
-11 upvote, 14 comments. Sidechat image post by troybolton12 in US Politics. "Perfect example of misinformation getting spread here kid didn't even read the article"
US Politics icon
US Politics 1d
Son what the fuck is this administration’s problem
116 upvotes, 21 comments. Sidechat image post by Anonymous in US Politics. "Son what the fuck is this administration’s problem"
comment

14
upvote -11 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 21h

The specific wording is “engaged in beastiality” vs being victims of beastiality, there’s a clear difference.

upvote 23 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 21h

The 0.001% of FBI applicants who were coerced into sexual acts with animals are thrilled by this news, I’m sure

upvote 18 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 21h

Should we get rid of all requirements then in case people were forced to take drugs or commit acts of violence against their will?

upvote 5 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 21h

wtf kinda made up problem is this? It’s for people who want to work for the FBI who were forced to have sex with animals? Bruh 💀💀💀

upvote 4 downvote
👺
Anonymous 22h
post
upvote -3 downvote
👺
Anonymous replying to -> #1 21h

In the article the dudes talking about Patel clearly states it's for victims.

upvote -5 downvote
👺
Anonymous replying to -> #2 21h

I kinda doubt people who actively commit bestiality are applying to the FBI

upvote -6 downvote
👺
Anonymous replying to -> #3 21h

Acts of violence is a broad term forced to take drugs I mean I don't see why not

upvote -1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> troybolton12 21h

I know during the testimony he stated it’s for victims, however the new eligibility requirements do not distinguish between candidates who were coerced into sexual activity with animals, as opposed to those who engaged in such acts willingly.

upvote 1 downvote
👺
Anonymous replying to -> #1 21h

Yeah that's gotta get fixed then

upvote -3 downvote
👺
Anonymous replying to -> troybolton12 21h

I know we don't like assumptions here but my assumption is there was a case or something where this happened and someone made a bigger deal out of it then was expected and now they made this decision. I doubt it's cause the fbi are looking for animal fuckers tho. But that's just a theory ig

upvote -2 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> troybolton12 21h

Yeah absolutely, but I really think that should’ve been thought of prior to release of the new guidelines

upvote 1 downvote
👺
Anonymous replying to -> #1 21h

Nah I 100% agree with you definitely should have been

upvote -2 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> troybolton12 21h

Hahaha well they are now lmao

upvote 13 downvote