NSFW Hunter Biden sex tape leaked. Proof(?) that the allegations about Hunter and Joe are true.

[FrothySolutions]

Courtesy of some group called "New Federal State of China." I only post this because I think it's important I don't want it lost. I'd rip it and save it if I could, but I don't know how. If you do, you should.

BREAKING: China's GTV Releases Videos of Hunter Biden Sex Tapes while Smoking Crack | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

WARNING!

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Spoiler: Sex footage

G-TV

gtv.org

You probably don't wanna watch it, so I'll just tell you what happens. In a dark room, a man that appears to be nude Hunter Biden receives a footjob from an unknown woman. It's hard to understand him, but early in the video he says something like "Look at that. That is totally-" and I don't understand the last word. "Professional" I think? Then it sounds like he says "I haven't seen that in there." He gestures behind himself into what might be another room. He continues "Look at that. Oh my God. Holy shit." Periodically he stops to oil up his cock/her feet. The lady says "Didn't know my foot could do that!" They continue to talk. The man that appears to be Hunter says something about "10 cents from a million views? That's 100,000 dollars."

He then lights... a joint, I think? Calling @FrailPaleStaleMale for analysis. What's strange to me is this is being filmed. Who is this for? What's stranger is, Hunter takes his phone and starts filming the footjob up close. By 9:20 Hunter decides to feebly jerk himself off. The video ends with a message from the leakers of the video.

​

But you know what's particularly sad? This is (allegedly) a look inside the shady world of dark room deviants. Where the people who pull the strings from the shadows gorge themselves of carnal delights. A footjob in a dark room, then tugging yourself off? This is the best they've got? This guy is rich off the dirtiest money in the world, I was expecting harems and shit.

 

[Ecstasy]

The sad thing is that you already have to be "woken up" to these kind of things to actually believe in it without outright denying or ignoring it.
I can't believe how there are still normies who think that the politics, economy and media elites of the world (and especially the USA) want anything good for us.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Lmao Twitter won't even let me Tweet the link. The fix is in.

 

[Deleted member 20790]

Lmao Twitter won't even let me Tweet the link. The fix is in.

View attachment 360738

Wow... The fix is indeed in..

 

[FrothySolutions]

My bad, what was it exactly you wanted my input about? Im a bit slow atm.

What is Hunter smoking from in that video? Is it a joint? Is it a crack pipe? It doesn't have the bulb at the end like a crack pipe does, but it doesn't light up like a paper joint does.

 

[Mr Joyboy]

Democracy manifest.

 

[FrothySolutions]

My bad, what was it exactly you wanted my input about? Im a bit slow atm.

It's at about the 3:50 mark if you don't wanna sit through 3 minutes of footjob.

 

[Deleted member 27495]

its so over for america is biden wins

 

[ilieknothing]

idk what is so incriminating. I am certain all politicians do this, Trump probably does this even more.

 

[FrothySolutions]

idk what is so incriminating. I am certain all politicians do this, Trump probably does this even more.

If this video is real, that means the other evidence is also on the laptop.

 

[Pixycel]

its so over for america is biden wins

Its been over for America for a long time.

 

[FrothySolutions]

POTUS and the Senate had 4 years to do something about big tech censorship but never bothered besides writing letters and subpoenaing.

It wasn't until now that they were doing stuff like this.

But as much as I hate this, Twitter has as much right to ban content they don't like as Incels.co does. It's just Twitter is very very big. Does being big mean you lose the right to have your own Terms and Conditions of Service?

 

[FrothySolutions]

I don't think or want that billionaire jews in silicon valley should completely control public discourse. "Private company" is BS. The big oil companies were private companies but the government broke them up and didn't allow them to become monopolies. The government turned the telephone into a public utility, they can do the same with social media.

Antitrust laws are about economic competition. You can't have monopolies because that starves other companies of money, they don't say anything about starving other companies of pure popularity.

Also, I don't think the government can buy "social media" as a whole. They can buy telephone lines and stuff and make it a public utility, but how would they do that with social media? Buy Twitter? Buy Facebook? What if someone makes a new Twitter? Would they just own any and all social websites?

 

[FrothySolutions]

Google, facebook and twitter collude with each other which is against anti-trust. They work together against smaller competitors like gab (dissenter addon was banned from google play and firefox totally reworked how addons worked so that dissenter couldn't be used by its users), and deplatform individuals in sync. Their size affords them many benefits unavailable to smaller competitors like gab.

This could be a violation of antitrust because it prevents competitors from playing a fair and square game. It's not really about "You're not letting people say what they want," it's more about "Gab and Parler can't run a business thanks to you."

The government didn't "buy" telephone companies, they regulated them. ATT exists and is a private company providing the public utility of telephone and ISP services. If they made social media a public utility they would regulate twitter and the like that they couldn't openly violate first amendment rights.

Then what counts as "social media," and what counts as a "First Amendment violation?" Is Incels.co social media? Would the government be able to tell Incels.co to stop telling us not to say certain things?

 

[Deleted member 27204]

Then what counts as "social media," and what counts as a "First Amendment violation?" Is Incels.co social media? Would the government be able to tell Incels.co to stop telling us not to say certain things?

I think @PPEcel has brought up this point before when some here are quick to say social media needs to be more regulated tbh

 

[Deleted member 29001]

its so over for america is biden wins

It's over for America either way. Just sit back and watch those retards burn.

 

[FrothySolutions]

"Social media" would have to be narrowly defined rather than broadly to the point where forums are included. It could also have to meet a certain scale or popularity. The spirit of the law would be to open public discourse rather than allow silicon valley jews complete control over it, and not to stifle the rest of the internet.

These are really tough things to define though.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Then make it have to meet a certain threshold of popularity, because the main thing is that most people use facebook, youtube, twitter and little of the rest of the internet, and billionaire jews totally manipulate the discourse and outright censor. Do you think that is a good thing, or acceptable because they are "private companies"?

Like a certain number of members? A certain number of users per month?

The thing about antitrust laws is, they're supposed to punish companies that knowingly play unfair, not companies that just happen to be very successful. So if you say to a website "If you have a certain number of members, you're in violation of antitrust laws," you're basically punishing websites/companies for being successful. Google is being sued right now, but not just because it's successful. The DoJ is making a case that it's playing unfairly. When Disney bought Fox, that wasn't controversial just because Disney was very successful, it was because Disney is playing unfair by buying up a certain amount of the competition. If a bunch of people choose to sign up for Twitter, someone would have to prove that it's because of some unfair action Twitter took to make things impossible for the competition.

 

[PPEcel]

I think @PPEcel has brought up this point before when some here are quick to say social media needs to be more regulated tbh

I've had the same discussion with @Uggo Mongo before and everything I say goes in one ear and out the other. @FrothySolutions' concerns are right for once. Ironically, telling a website owner that they can't control what gets published on their own website would be a violation of their own First Amendment rights.

First of all, there is no First Amendment right to post anything you want on social media. If you consider yourself to be a conservative, and you believe in originalist jurisprudence, that is the natural conclusion you would have to arrive at.

The First Amendment says,

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...

The First Amendment doesn't say you have a positive right to freedom of speech, it only says that you have a negative right in that Congress, (and, by extension, other parts of the federal government) can't deny you your right to freedom of speech. And after Gitlow v. New York (1924), the free speech clause was incorporated to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

But social media companies aren't state actors. They aren't parts of, and do not act on behalf of, any government. So it's not a First Amendment violation for you to get banned from Twitter.

Second off, with social media companies, we -- as in the general public -- aren't customers. Advertisers are. There is no antitrust issue concerning social media companies as far as deplatforming is concerned (I mean, there is no antitrust issue when you have no economic relationship with the party in question), and there is no issue with companies attaching terms and conditions to a service, especially one they are offering free of charge. Companies having large market share don't necessarily mean they are anti-competitive -- why, do you guys want to turn Coke and Pepsi into public utilities as well?

Public utilities are regulated either because they are essential or because there are little or no alternatives to it (or nearly impossible to set one up). That's not the case for social media platforms; you don't have to have a Facebook or Twitter account. You don't need a social media platform that respects the First Amendment in its entirety to participate in society. And you can set up alternatives to them -- which is what our forum is when r/incels got shut down, which is what Parler and Gab are. Not that Parler and Gab are free speech platforms; they have pretty strict content policies of their own, far stricter than the First Amendment requires. The only reason they're unpopular isn't that there is "collusion", but because they're a haven for far-right nutjobs who everyone else simply wants to ignore.

Add to the fact that the United States isn't the only country in the world, and that if social media were treated as public utilities, there'd be a whole bunch of cross-border regulatory, privacy, and civil liberties issues. Do American standards apply everywhere? Are Americans, then, allowed to use platforms hosted outside the U.S.?

I wonder if you guys think that a large shopping mall would be obligated to let protestors stage a protest right inside and tape posters everywhere, since it's a public square and protestors have First Amendment rights too, no? Even if their mere presence is deterring everyone else from shopping?

The "spirit" of the law isn't what matters, its the regulatory consequences of it. And this is pretty badly thought out.

Is it bad that a handful of billionaires get to shape public discourse? Yes, but they're not infringing on anyone else's rights, and preventing them from doing so would be a violation of their own rights. What would be legal -- if you are so concerned about the undemocratic nature of Silicon Valley shaping public policy -- would be to have the United States government set up its own social media platform, propped up by taxpayers, run by an independent agency like the USPS is run. Then that platform would have to oblige by the First Amendment.

 

[Deleted member 27204]

Is it bad that a handful of billionaires get to shape public discourse? Yes, but they're not infringing on anyone else's rights, and preventing them from doing so would be a violation of their own rights. What would be legal -- if you are so concerned about the undemocratic nature of Silicon Valley shaping public policy -- would be to have the United States government set up its own social media platform, propped up by taxpayers, run by an independent agency like the USPS is run. Then that platform would have to oblige by the First Amendment.

But at the very least couldn't you get the government to tell the companies to change their content policy so that they could no longer pretend they are unbiased platforms for free speech? Because right now that's exactly what these platforms are doing. They want to hold onto their advantage of applying uneven terms and enforcement to any content they deem fit but at the same time pretend they are social media outlets for you to post whatever is on your mind and express yourself.
Those arguably dishonest terms of use are fooling a lot of people.

For example with reddit regularly pinning anti-Trump stories, BLM related content on its frontpage and twitter fact checking and locking certain people out of their accounts selectivity based on their politics like whether or not they criticize a democrat it's obvious that these companies only want to broadcast a pro neoliberal identity politics message and aren't being honest about this and pretending to be neutral.

 

[Deleted member 17889]

pass me the crack pipe son

 

[Deleted member 22572]

I don't wanna watch the video. Is it clear that it is him? Cuz it could be a deepfake u know

Also how much do normies know about this?

 

[FrothySolutions]

But at the very least couldn't you get the government to tell the companies to change their content policy so that they could no longer pretend they are unbiased platforms for free speech? Because right now that's exactly what these platforms are doing. They want to hold onto their advantage of applying uneven terms and enforcement to any content they deem fit but at the same time pretend they are social media outlets for you to post whatever is on your mind and express yourself.
Those arguably dishonest terms of use are fooling a lot of people.

For example with reddit regularly pinning anti-Trump stories, BLM related content on its frontpage and twitter fact checking and locking certain people out of their accounts selectivity based on their politics like whether or not they criticize a democrat it's obvious that these companies only want to broadcast a pro neoliberal identity politics message and aren't being honest about this and pretending to be neutral.

I wonder if they could, but this I definitely think needs to be done. That's people's main gripe with Reddit, for instance. That they started out allegedly being a bastion of free speech, but now they wanna revise history and say "We never founded Reddit to be a bastion of free speech" despite there being numerous quotes you can point to that contradict that.

If you can enforce COPPA, there's probably gotta be some kind of "Are You Really Free Speech" enforcement you can hold websites to.

I don't wanna watch the video. Is it clear that it is him? Cuz it could be a deepfake u know

Also how much do normies know about this?

It's at 2.58 million views right now. And it's known enough that Twitter has blocked people from talking about it.

 

[Deleted member 22572]

I wonder if they could, but this I definitely think needs to be done. That's people's main gripe with Reddit, for instance. That they started out allegedly being a bastion of free speech, but now they wanna revise history and say "We never founded Reddit to be a bastion of free speech" despite there being numerous quotes you can point to that contradict that.

If you can enforce COPPA, there's probably gotta be some kind of "Are You Really Free Speech" enforcement you can hold websites to.



It's at 2.58 million views right now. And it's known enough that Twitter has blocked people from talking about it.

So why is this bad? What has Joe Biden got to do with it? All it exposes is that hunter does cocaine and hookers I swear

 

[FrothySolutions]

So why is this bad? What has Joe Biden got to do with it? All it exposes is that hunter does cocaine and hookers I swear

It lines up with the other claims about the content on the laptop. If this video is on the laptop, the other content is on the laptop. And the content proves that Hunter is not only scheming for secret foreign money that Joe "The Big Guy" Biden is also in on, but also collects child pornography.

 

[Deleted member 22572]

It lines up with the other claims about the content on the laptop. If this video is on the laptop, the other content is on the laptop. And the content proves that Hunter is not only scheming for secret foreign money that Joe "The Big Guy" Biden is also in on, but also collects child pornography.

I hope that this will deter people from voting for Biden..

 

[SkramzHandz]

What does his son fucking and smoking crack have to do with Biden? If one of trumps kids was on tape doing some shit and dems were doing this, conservatives would say it was unfair. Politics is so retarded lol And are we really operating under the belief that Trump is clean as a whistle? Are people forgetting before the presidency he was a Grade A grifting piece of shit who was hemorrhaging money.

 

[FrothySolutions]

I hope that this will deter people from voting for Biden..

Alas, 50 million people have already voted, probably before they knew any of this stuff.

What does his son fucking and smoking crack have to do with Biden? If one of trumps kids was on tape doing some shit and dems were doing this, conservatives would say it was unfair. Politics is so retarded lol And are we really operating under the belief that Trump is clean as a whistle? Are people forgetting before the presidency he was a Grade A grifting piece of shit who was hemorrhaging money.

It lines up with the other claims about the content on the laptop. If this video is on the laptop, the other content is on the laptop. And the content proves that Hunter is not only scheming for secret foreign money that Joe "The Big Guy" Biden is also in on, but also collects child pornography.

 

[CrackingYs]

its so over for america is biden wins

Imagine how bad all this censorship is going to be when the media is on the same side as a puppet Democrat president. It's gonna be straight up 1984 Ministry of Truth.

 

[PPEcel]

Not what I said. I said they would be regulated, as in they would have to provide service to people regardless of political views. Making these websites public utilities is in the public interest. And regardless they already punished companies for being too successful, EG Standard Oil



Social media has become an essential part of the public discourse with the power to substantially sway elections. It is nearly impossible to set up a viable alternative, especially because of collusion with payment processors such as MasterCard and Paypal. MasterCard makes it essentially impossible for political dissidents to do any kind of financial transactions.



All of these companies are clearly colluding to police speech. "Private company" argument can suck a dick. Also it's wonderful how the constitution is no longer a "living document" as soon as that argument could negatively impact the unfair advantages of leftists.

Already did with public utilities, as in the Communications Act of 1934. ATT cannot deny you telephone service based on your political views, or listen in on your calls and deny you service based on how you use their service.



Currently. However, if congress were to make them public utilities as they did with telephone services?

Also are you incapable of brevity?

PS my final word on the subject:
"" The First Amendment doesn't say you have a positive right to freedom of speech "
View attachment 361074

View attachment 361077

Spoiler

Even though I don't follow these same ideas or concepts you must because you are "conservative"

The 21st century analogue of the telegraph would be internet service providers, not social media websites and message boards.

Good luck trying to take on Mark Zuckerberg though

 

[FrothySolutions]

Not what I said. I said they would be regulated, as in they would have to provide service to people regardless of political views. Making these websites public utilities is in the public interest. And regardless they already punished companies for being too successful, EG Standard Oil

Standard Oil was punished for not playing fair. All the old timey railroad & oil and steel barons did things that are now against the laws of fair competition.

 

[Unsaveable]

He was getting a footjob?!

Haha that's something i didn't expect to see.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Aha, well I dont recall many people, if any smoking weed out of a straight glass pipe. thats more suited to crack or freebase without a doubt.

But is it a glass pipe, or rolled up paper? Because I don't see a bulb at the end. So I was wondering if glass pipes come in non-bulb form, and if so, how do you smoke the crack without a bulb?

 

[InMyCellInHell]

Why do so many rich kids turn to drugs? @PPEcel you'd have insight into why rich kids love drugs (not that you personally do them)

 

[PPEcel]

Why do so many rich kids turn to drugs? @PPEcel you'd have insight into why rich kids love drugs (not that you personally do them)

poor kids do drugs too

idk why richfags like drugs

xanax and adderall was a part of my boarding school experience. not xanax specifically but benzos in general

 

[MuslimCell]

at first it was the great state of Britain then now is the great state of America and Tomorrow it will be the great State of Israel . mark my words .
it's all the anti christ playing and pulling the strings of the world .

 

[Words2_live_bye]

its so over for america is biden wins

 

[FrothySolutions]

BTW one week later the acting secretary of the DHS and jew journalist glenn greenwald (on the joe rogan podcast) essentially rehashed what I said in this thread.

It's probably most people who hate Big Tech's unwieldy overreach. It's just it's hard to define what makes it "unfair" or "illegal" without punishing Twitter for being successful, and punishing Twitter users for making the choice to be on Twitter.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really care about the law. If there's some way the powers that be can take us back to a pre-YouTube Internet where we aren't all beholden to a vocal minority of liberty-biberties on a handful of websites, I'll do whatever I have to do to help that happen. I just don't see how they can legally get away with it.

 

[FrothySolutions]

They have insane amounts of influence, and social media has become an intrinsic part of public discourse. Regulating them as a public utility does not punish twitter users, because the individual block feature would still exist same as with a telephone service. It helps the users that have been unfairly silenced for their beliefs, in this case not even obscure beliefs but ones shared by half the USA.


Congress could enact legislations or the POTUS could write an executive order. There is precedent for turning such services into public utilities. It's not a stretch at all. Once a social media website reaches a certain threshold of popularity and influence, they should be regulated. Thus smaller "social media" like web forums wouldn't be affected, but huge and powerful websites such as twitter and facebook would be.

Wouldn't you then be punishing Twitter for being successful? You'd be saying "Once you become popular, you are no longer free." How does Twitter maintain their freedom?

 

[Deleted member 27204]

@Robtical

 

[FrothySolutions]

So?

How do telephone companies and ISPs maintain their freedom?

But that's all telephone companies and ISPs. It doesn't just affect the "big" ones because "big" is a matter of opinion. They're affected because of the Communications Act, and subsequent interpretations of it. The Communications Act doesn't punish you for being big, it punishes you for being communications infrastructure.

 

[Robtical]

@Robtical

I heard there's videos of him fucking jb's too.

 

[Deleted member 27204]

I heard there's videos of him fucking jb's too.

I was summoning you more because of the debate between @Uggo Mongo and @FrothySolutions about whether social media companies should be made public utilities.
You have said no. I wanted to know what you thought about this debate tbhngl

 

[Robtical]

I was summoning you more because of the debate between @Uggo Mongo and @FrothySolutions about whether social media companies should be made public utilities.
You have said no. I wanted to know what you thought about this debate tbhngl

No it shouldn't because the "public" that will control them are cucked, and go against the interests of uncucked men. So it would be better to let the online social media market run itself, without the cucked government getting involved.

 

[FrothySolutions]

No it shouldn't because the "public" that will control them are cucked, and go against the interests of uncucked men. So it would be better to let the online social media market run itself, without the cucked government getting involved.

But the cucked government lets me visit Incels.co because, at least up until recently, there were laws saying my ISP couldn't tell me what websites I can/can't visit.

 

[Robtical]

But the cucked government lets me visit Incels.co because, at least up until recently, there were laws saying my ISP couldn't tell me what websites I can/can't visit.

You could have done it without the governments permission anyway if we had a free internet market, screw their permission.

 

[FrothySolutions]

You could have done it without the governments permission anyway if we had a free internet market, screw their permission.

I don't think that's so. That's why everyone is so afraid of the end of net neutrality. Why should companies give me freedom if they can make me pay for freedom?

 

[Deleted member 27204]

 

[Robtical]

I don't think that's so. That's why everyone is so afraid of the end of net neutrality. Why should companies give me freedom if they can make me pay for freedom?

I had to look that up.

How much internet service providers charge is only a problem now because only the major companies are able to comply with all the regulations. If there's no government intervention we'd have more choices because there would also be less regulations that are a barrier to entry for many potential internet service providers. Plus I rather have freedom and pay a little more for something.

 

[FrothySolutions]

I had to look that up.
View attachment 365671

How much internet service providers charge is only a problem now because only the major companies are able to comply with all the regulations. If there's no government intervention we'd have more choices because there would also be less regulations that are a barrier to entry for many potential internet service providers. Plus I rather have freedom and pay a little more for something.

It's not just how much they charge, they can charge whatever they want. What they can't do is say "Oh I see you're on Incels.co. No, we don't want you to visit that site. But if you buy 'Internet Premium' we'll let you see it." Or at least they couldn't up until recently. I don't know, Ajit Pai did something to the net neutrality laws.