Some Thoughts On Hunter Biden, “The Big Guy”, and Those that Dismissed This…..

With all due respect, did you just crawl out o the turnip patch.

Everything you read has been discredited.

Good grief. Originally Posted by Jackie S

You might want to take another look. I don't think any of that has been discredited, and, on the whole, those particular points don't necessarily reflect badly on Trump.

The Waco Kid posed a question in another thread, do you think Putin would have invaded Ukraine if Trump were president. My answer was that an invasion would have been less likely if Trump were president. Trump's out-of-the-box strategy, in the way he dealt with Russia and NATO, might have avoided a war in Ukraine. As to Putin's hatred of Hillary Clinton and motivation to help Trump in 2016, that's a fact. She meddled in the 2012 Russian election and subscribed to the neocon belief that the USA and Russia had to be at each others throats.

Using WTF's new favorite word, Trump practiced realpolitik. Hillary Clinton was more interested in ideals.

You might want to take another look. I don't think any of that has been discredited, and, on the whole, those particular points don't necessarily reflect badly on Trump.

The Waco Kid posed a question in another thread, do you think Putin would have invaded Ukraine if Trump were president. My answer was that an invasion would have been less likely if Trump were president. Trump's out-of-the-box strategy, in the way he dealt with Russia and NATO, might have avoided a war in Ukraine. As to Putin's hatred of Hillary Clinton and motivation to help Trump in 2016, that's a fact. She meddled in the 2012 Russian election and subscribed to the neocon belief that the USA and Russia had to be at each others throats.

Using WTF's new favorite word, Trump practiced realpolitik. Hillary Clinton was more interested in ideals. Originally Posted by Tiny

Putin would have been wary about invading Ukraine if Trump was president just because Trump is a unpredictable wild-card. Putin most certainly hates Chilton (Bill probably does too lol) but as posted somewhere recently i don't think Putin fears Clinton or anyone else for that matter.


i myself do not think Putin really wanted Trump to win. while he certainly did not want Clinton Trump in her place isn't what he wanted either. what he wanted was "Any Democrat not named Clinton" or "Any RINO, not Trump".


excellent point that Clinton did interfere with Russia's 2012 election so is it any wonder they returned the favor? and for the rest of this esteemed forum's posters the US has very recent history in interfering with foreign elections. (of course it goes back much farther that than).


Obama famously tried to influence the BREXIT vote and illegally used US tax dollars to run ads against Benji Netanyahu when he ran for another term as PM.


in both cases this effort failed, BREXIT passed and Benji got re-elected.

anyone think only Russia tries to influence US elections?


bahahhahahaaaaaaaa

She meddled in the 2012 Russian election and subscribed to the neocon belief that the USA and Russia had to be at each others throats.

Hillary Clinton was more interested in ideals. Originally Posted by Tiny

those two notions are seemingly at odds with each other

and when i read the second one, the chortle sent my chivas regal out my nose....no sorry i looked and its pappy van winkle

... Hillary Clinton was more interested in ideals. Originally Posted by Tiny

Yeah, sure, you betcha. Hilary was only interested in enriching Hillary and her sycophants. That is not the definition of idealistic altruism.

Using WTF's new favorite word, WTF practiced realpolitik. . Originally Posted by Tiny

Putin wouldn't of had to invade Ukraine if Trump was President...Trump would have given it to him.

Putin wouldn't of had to invade Ukraine if Trump was President...Trump would have given it to him. Originally Posted by WTF

Hahahaha, I don't think Ukraine belongs to Trump. It doesn't belong to Putin either. But here we are witnessing an illegal land grab by Putin over Ukraine and there is a dummy in the White House, lol.

You might want to take another look. I don't think any of that has been discredited, and, on the whole, those particular points don't necessarily reflect badly on Trump.

The Waco Kid posed a question in another thread, do you think Putin would have invaded Ukraine if Trump were president. My answer was that an invasion would have been less likely if Trump were president. Trump's out-of-the-box strategy, in the way he dealt with Russia and NATO, might have avoided a war in Ukraine. As to Putin's hatred of Hillary Clinton and motivation to help Trump in 2016, that's a fact. She meddled in the 2012 Russian election and subscribed to the neocon belief that the USA and Russia had to be at each others throats.

Using WTF's new favorite word, Trump practiced realpolitik. Hillary Clinton was more interested in ideals. Originally Posted by Tiny

Putin wanted to sow discord within the American voters. That is a fact. That he wanted Trump to win because he thought he could control Trump or that Trump would "do as he commanded", is a fallacy but anyway you want to look at it, to the central issue, Trump did not conspire with Russia to interfere in the election. Mueller couldn't prove it and Schiff couldn't prove it.

Trump would have given Ukraine to Putin? Ah, Mr. President, if your goal is to give Ukraine to Putin, you might not want to send Ukraine those Javelin missiles you just did.

One of the worst things a defense attorney could do, is make comments about a conversation he didn't read. That is what 1bm1 just did. Not only did he not read the transcript, he intentionally, like Adam Schiff, mislead the jury as to what it said. Then the prosecutor reads the entire interview to the jury, pointing out the fact that the defense attorney just lied to you. You must ask yourself why? Is he just offering the best defense to his client? By lying? Don't think so but a guy like 1bm1, as he has demonstrated multiple times on this board, doesn't care about mis-representing the facts. Let's just hope for the sake of anybody foolish enough to hire such a man as his or her attorney, would get an attorney different than the one portrayed on this board. Maybe he wouldn't do anything in court room that he has done here.

Putin wouldn't of had to invade Ukraine if Trump was President...Trump would have given it to him. Originally Posted by WTF

And yet Putin had four years to do so but didn't... hmmm, it's almost as if he waited for the Bejing Biden administration to enter office before finishing what he started in 2014 when the Obama administration (which included Beijing Biden if you recall) was in office.

Using WTF's new favorite word, Trump practiced realpolitik. Hillary Clinton was more interested in ideals. Originally Posted by Tiny

those two notions are seemingly at odds with each other

and when i read the second one, the chortle sent my chivas regal out my nose....no sorry i looked and its pappy van winkle Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Yeah, sure, you betcha. Hilary was only interested in enriching Hillary and her sycophants. That is not the definition of idealistic altruism. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Gentlemen, I might have phrased that poorly. I was trying to express something closer to "the ideal" than "ideals." Anyway, would you rather have someone running American foreign policy who's practical, or someone who's pursuing that which exists only in the imagination, and is unlikely to become reality? I'd favor something in between, but closer to "practical."

Definition of realpolitik: a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.

Definition of ideal: existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality.

One of the worst things a defense attorney could do, is make comments about a conversation he didn't read. That is what 1bm1 just did. Not only did he not read the transcript, he intentionally, like Adam Schiff, mislead the jury as to what it said. Then the prosecutor reads the entire interview to the jury, pointing out the fact that the defense attorney just lied to you. You must ask yourself why? Is he just offering the best defense to his client? By lying? Don't think so but a guy like 1bm1, as he has demonstrated multiple times on this board, doesn't care about mis-representing the facts. Let's just hope for the sake of anybody foolish enough to hire such a man as his or her attorney, would get an attorney different than the one portrayed on this board. Maybe he wouldn't do anything in court room that he has done here. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Thanks for posting the interview. I should have saved myself the 7 minutes it took to read. As I thought though there is alot of Hunter said and I believe and ZERO Joe said or Joe did.

For someone that pontificates for paragraphs on end, your understanding is not worth shit. Bubbles is relaying what he thinks, not what he knows. Those are two totally different things. He claims that he was told by Hunter things, which is exactly what we call hearsay. some of it is hearsay of hearsay. but who cares about the legal and evidentiary value, lets look at the reality of it.

Hunter says "Big Guy gets 10%"
Bubbles says "Big Guy is Joe" How does he know. Well, "because I was there and everyone, meaning Hunter, says I have to meet Joe. He interviewed me. I met him on several occasions."
Nonetheless, there was no conversation between Bubbles and Joe that had anything to do with the business, any business. But Bubbles felt a vibe evidently.

How you read any of the extensive interview and got the idea that Bubbles was conveying something direct to Joe just further supports my thoughts that you dont know shit from shinola.

Thanks for posting the interview. I should have saved myself the 7 minutes it took to read. As I thought though there is alot of Hunter said and I believe and ZERO Joe said or Joe did.

For someone that pontificates for paragraphs on end, your understanding is not worth shit. Bubbles is relaying what he thinks, not what he knows. Those are two totally different things. He claims that he was told by Hunter things, which is exactly what we call hearsay. some of it is hearsay of hearsay. but who cares about the legal and evidentiary value, lets look at the reality of it.

Hunter says "Big Guy gets 10%"
Bubbles says "Big Guy is Joe" How does he know. Well, "because I was there and everyone, meaning Hunter, says I have to meet Joe. He interviewed me. I met him on several occasions."
Nonetheless, there was no conversation between Bubbles and Joe that had anything to do with the business, any business. But Bubbles felt a vibe evidently.

How you read any of the extensive interview and got the idea that Bubbles was conveying something direct to Joe just further supports my thoughts that you dont know shit from shinola. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

how do you know .. he doesn't know?

were you one of Hunter's business associates? is your laptop chock full of emails that prove Joe Biden wasn't involved? nope!


so how's NiorMan doing these days? gone silent? we all know why ...