rmnka447

Reportedly, the two lobbying firms identified in the indictment are a Republican lobbying firm (Mercury) and a Democratic lobbying firm (the Podesta Group). So both potentially face charges as unregistered agents of a foreign government.

You're conflating two separate items. Ultimately, the Clinton campaign/DNC provided the funding that was paid for the Trump dossier. If Fusion GPS had no previous Russian contact, that would be sleazy politics, at best. But isn't it still disingenuous that people claiming foul about an opponent's purported contacts/collusion with the Russians would be seeking to obtain information about what that same government has on that opponent? However, Fusion GPS had previously conducted a misinformation campaign against the passage of the Magnitzsky Act that was funded from Russian sources. At the very least, this funding could have come from some of the oligarchs to protect their status in Russia. At the worst, it could be a Russian intelligence disinformation operation. In that sense, it is possible that Fusion was potentially "accepting funds from Russian intelligence". In any case, it's enough to investigate potential Russian interference through Fusion GPS. I'm not claiming that there is definitely a connection, just that there's enough smoke that it should be investigated to assure we know the full extent of Russian interference in our democracy. You've previously denied that the Democrats would ever have anything to do with the Russians. But you need to understand that the Russians will definitely use any opportunity to interfere with our democracy, no matter who becomes their dupe. This is a laughable claim considering all the derogatory comments, slurs, and innuendo you've posted here about the President. We can agree on this, but it needs real evidence, not all the anonymous second or third party claims widely reported since the election. The usual overstatement of "facts", but there was enough smoke to justify the Special counsel to investigate. I'm waiting to see what they come up with before making any judgement. There's at least as much as substance as the initial claims of collusion by the Dems.

If Fusion GPS accepted funds from the Russian intelligence connected firm and did not register as an agent of a foreign government, they are in big trouble. The potential connection begs a lot of questions about them that should be investigated to assure no Russian interference with our democracy via the Democrats. What was the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Russians? Last fall, the analyst in his testimony before Congress indicated that it was common practice for the Russians to try to compromise people doing business with them in order to control them for future use. Did the Russians have any inkling that Clinton/DNC were looking for dirt on Trump with Fusion? If so, it presents a golden opportunity to feed disinformation to Clinton/DNC through Steele. How did Fusion find Steele? Could he be a Russian dupe? As for your OPINION that Trump acts guilty, it has been distilled from your viewpoint that Trump shouldn't be President and must have colluded, so no big surprise. But it is an opinion and not fact at this point. IMO, President Trump just seems very exasperated by what he sees as spurious claims of collusion in an attempt to undermine his Presidency.

Most middle of the road and conservative are certainly aware that "Hillary didn't win" and President Trump did. The problem is that progressives/liberals can't accept that reality and have spent a year trying to deny the result.

Cmon, Winnie. Be real. What stolen documents did the Trump campaign receive from the Russians? So far there's no proof of anything close to that happening. The latest tale you have is Cambridge Analytica, a data analysis firm for the Republicans, talking to WikiLeaks Julian Assaunge and being told by Assaunge to go fly a kite. So there's no information transfer or collusion identified there either. OTOH, somebody had to pay Steele/Fusion and the funds have been traced back to the DNC. I hardly think Steele/Fusion put the dossier together out of their own good will as a freebie. Or maybe, it was the legal firm that decided to seek the negative information on its own. Or were they acting as an agent/representative for the DNC and Hillary Clinton to find negative information on Trump? The purported millions paid for the dossier had to come from someplace.

Playing 2 ♣ with 2 ♦ waiting and cheapest suit 2nd negative, you might have the following auction: 2 ♣ - 2 ♦ (waiting) 2 ♥ - 2 ♠ (2nd negative) 3 ♦ - 3 ♥ Pass 3 ♦ is still a force, so the weak hand has to bid something. 3 ♥ fulfills that obligation and is about as weak a bid as possible.

Who paid for the content that Fusion promulgated? And where did the content come from?

I read all the denigrating comments you make about people who disagree with you and am really sad for you. When I do so, I keep coming back to the parable about the Pharisee and the Tax Collector -- This parable was directed to those convinced of their own self righteousness and who despised everyone else. Two men a Pharisee and a Tax Collector were praying in the temple. The Pharisee prayed "O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity -- greedy, dishonest, adulterous -- or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and pay tithes on my income." The Tax Collector would not raise his eyes to heaven, beat his breast and prayed "O God, have mercy on me a sinner." The latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, the one who humbles himself will be exalted. I'm surprised that this happens as I'm not much of a bible reader or person who wears his religion on his sleeve. But it just seems so apropos. Fortunately, I was taught to show respect to everyone one deals with and show them the dignity everyone deserves. I would urge you to do the same.

One very significant aspect of contracting with Fusion GPS keeps getting left out of the conversation. Last fall, when the British financial analyst testified before the Senate about the Magnitzsky Act, he also outlined a lot of details about the Russian oligarchy. He identified Fusion GPS as the firm that promulgated a disinformation and smear campaign against Magnitzsky to dissuade passage of the act. This campaign was financed by a Russian firm (bank?) that was closely tied to the Russian oligarchs and had former Russian intelligence personnel as its officers. He also made it clear that, in Russia, no one ever really becomes a former Russian intelligence officer. This is troubling that Fusion GPS, a firm that has not only done business with the Russians, but with potentially Russian intelligence connected Russians, is involved in "opposition research" for the Democrats. If such a connection were found with the Republicans, I'm sure the progressives would be screaming bloody murder.

deleted

I would also pass the South hand.

I think a 2 NT rebid is right on the hand. You can't strictly know if 3 NT or 4 ♥ is better at this point. But you may have agreements over the 2 NT rebid that let find out more about partner's hand to push you either way. Suit contracts usually make more tricks if the hand with trump shortness can ruff. With 4-4 fits, either hand can be the "short" trump hand. If partner has as flat a hand as you, 3 NT may be the superior contract. In the meantime, you've set it up so you declare at NT, so that the opening lead will come into your tenaces if that's where you play.

Thanks, LOL And the famous Yogi-ism "It ain't over til it's over" echoes in my ears.

I'd add that 3 NT can be a very iffy contract. With the fit jump showing 9+ cards in the black suits, it's more likely that partner will be short in ♥. If the opponents begin with the likely ♥ lead, then 3 NT will need to have 9 running tricks to be made. Since OP indicated that with a solid ♠ suit, other bids than a fit jump were available, there's no assurance those 9 running tricks exist.

4 ♠.

Without any special agreements, such as nige1 suggested, I pass.

Definitely terrible. You need some trick taking ability if you're going force the auction to the 3 level. This hand is about as bad as you can get in that regard. How would you like to be in 3 ♦ opposite your partner's doubleton small?

Note that opener could hold up to 5 cards in either minor. So neither minor appeals to me. A ♦ lead with something like H9 on the table could give up the suit. Partner has to have at least 6 (Responder bad 11, opener 14) up to about a max of about 13-14 where action would be taken in reopening seat. Responder probably doesn't have a 5 card major as with one and without enough to invite, 2 M (or transfer to 2 M) would be normal. I think I'm putting ♠ 8 on the table. Especially at MP, if the opponents are 4-4 in ♠, 2 ♠ making their way may outscore 1 NT.

I can understand putting Breitbart out there as a very conservative, far out site. I wouldn't read it either. Fox News does have a more conservative viewpoint, but in their news shows presents contributors from both sides of the political spectrum to discuss news stories. If you want to dismiss the "opinion" shows, such as Sean Hannity, I can understand that. Shepard Smith, I think, is especially good in the afternoon. Also, Special Report with Bret Baier offers a lot of insightful analysis albeit with a conservative slant. But there's no way that you should equate Fox News with Breitbart. All these sources have a definite strong progressive/liberal bias. Most of their news or comments could be press releases from the DNC. If you want to present them as "mainstream", then I would counter by saying its only fair and proper to say Fox News is equally "mainstream" only with a conservative bias. The objectively neutral newspaper of any these days is US Today. I can't comment as I haven't watched PBS News in a long time. However, I have listened to our NPR station on a regular basis and yet to hear a single conservative guess or viewpoint ever aired. That's not public radio, it's propaganda radio when it blows off about half the population.. Vox, Huffington Post, Mother Jones, and MSNBC are certainly the left wing equivalents of Breitbart. And how much time do you spend listening to the other side?

I agree a lot with your comments. Winnie does come up with some very solid arguments for his point of view. However, there are times that he simply engages in name calling and demeaning comments about conservatives and/or Trump supporters. There are also other times that he offers a lot of stuff that simply is people with a point of view just going through a series of logic to prove what they thought in the first place. To me, that stuff is sadly reminiscent of Captain Quigg from Herman Wouk's novel "The Caine Mutiny" sans the steel ball bearings. Like you, I'm no dummy. Not sure of the exact IQ number, but definitely well above 115, the top end of "normal" IQs.

Over here, I believe most people would play 3 ♠ as non-forcing/invitational. So that's a serious underbid. The good 7 card ♠ suit coupled with the gorgeous fitting honor doubleton in opener's first bid suit should prompt South to make a 2 ♥ FSF bid if that's available. The alternative would be an immediate 4 ♠ that would show the long ♠, but it could be made on the same size suit with a lot less values. Opener would continue the hand's description with 3 ♣. Then the auction depends on bidding agreements. If fast arrival is in force, then 3 ♠ is the strongest bid. If not, then 4 ♠ would seem proper. In any case, I think North should cue ♥ over the stronger ♠ bid. At this level, the ♥ cue should agree ♠ and show at least mild slam interest. I see the auction as something like 1 ♦ - 1 ♠ 2 ♣ - 2 ♥ (FSF) 3 ♣ - 3 ♠ 4 ♥ - 4 NT 5 ♠ - 6 ♠

But isn't that exactly what you are doing by your comments about Trump supporters. Believe it or not, there are many well principled, moral, and intelligent people who disagree with your liberal/progressive viewpoint. You choose to go low and label them with various terms that are nothing more than that old propaganda technique known as "guilt by association". So, in your own way, you're engaging in the very tribalism that your attributing to me.

Hand #1 - I agree with pass. It's a 9 loser hand, so worth less than its point count. A hand with 5 Qs/Js and only 1 A is overvalued by point count. Hand #2 - Opener might anticipate the rebid problem if a 2 ♣ rebid definitely promises 6. In that case, the opening might be 1 ♦ with a 2 ♣ rebid rather than a ♥ raise on Qxx. Normally, that opening and rebid should show 5 ♦ and 4 ♣. With a 1 NT rebid out because the hand is unbalanced, the "lie" emphasizes the minor nature of the hand. It's done pretty commonly these days.

Pray tell, Winnie, who removed Civics and History from our school curriculum? I don't think it was conservatives. It's more likely proponents of progressive education because they believe those subjects just aren't germane to the practical knowledge students need to get by in this world.

Yep, you're right, but the example I provided does concretely bring home the impact of those references. I thought about the Moysian problem after my first post. But I had other activities scheduled and couldn't immediately return to post about it. I scanned the new posts quickly when I was able to get back and missed the references. It's also important to point out that though 6 ♥ isn't a good contract even with the controls ala my example hand, 6 ♣ would be icy opposite it. OTOH, if opener's hand were ♠ 42 ♥ AJ10x ♦ Jxx ♣ AKxx either slam is fine opposite that hand. So in bidding slams, it can be very important to distinguish between subtle differences in these hands.