cowfodder

joined 2 years ago
[–] cowfodder 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

8 Gotta love them big naturals!

[–] cowfodder 5 points 2 months ago

Then what did you say? There seems to be some kind of major disconnect between you, the implications of the linked article, and why the FBI could be involved.

[–] cowfodder 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Do you think that grooming doesn't fall under child sex abuse? Do you think that the FBI wouldn't be interested in logs that may show prior knowledge of this abuse and would contradict prior statements that MrBeast was unaware? Do you think if he was aware of this abuse and didn't say anything that this wouldn't count as covering up child sex abuse, aka being an accessory to a crime?

[–] cowfodder 30 points 2 months ago (15 children)

Yeah! Why would the agency that investigates online child sex abuse be interested in chat logs that potentially contain information about online child sex abuse?

[–] cowfodder 7 points 2 months ago

Angelicfuckdoll

[–] cowfodder 18 points 2 months ago (10 children)
[–] cowfodder 5 points 2 months ago (18 children)
[–] cowfodder 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So, you're unable or unwilling to answer the question.

[–] cowfodder 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Ok, serious question. Do you honestly think Trump would be doing better?

[–] cowfodder 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] cowfodder 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're right, it is! You should take it off right now!

[–] cowfodder 2 points 2 months ago
view more: ‹ prev next ›