Florida bank says it has closed Trump's accounts

[Tim101]

Early in the trump admin. Bannon tweeted a bitcoin address. Chances are he’s been riding the bitcoin bus this whole time.

[Natsuu]

Early in the trump admin. Bannon tweeted a bitcoin address. Chances are he’s been riding the bitcoin bus this whole time.

Bannon is not necessarily involve in everything about Trump's financial. Chances may dictate that bannon's tweet is regarding his own personal BTC address and not having to do with Trump. Plus, Trump is somehow not a fan of crypto just like Jeff Bezo.

[lixer]

New York's crypto-friendly Bank (SignatureBank) and Deutsche Bank, two A-level financial institutions, also refused to do business with Mr. Trump. The situation of our former Mr. President is not very good

Well, this is one of the most unfortunate things in politics and mind you I hate Trump but ones the position is lost the people who used to work under you, now try and make you feel down which is not healthy politics. Just because he is not more the president should not determine whom he should do business with and who should work with and against him.

Although that said, I hate him so much that I don't mind him facing some harsh reality because he was too big a bad mouth when he was in power and sometimes you have to pay for the nonsense you did during your reign.

[bryant.coleman]

Another difference that has been neglected is that being a rich white asshole is not a protected class like being gay. As for the actions of the bakery and the bank, I don't agree that either actions are wrong. I don't think a business should be be forced to do business with someone they don't want to. But you have to look at who the "left wing nuts" (as you term them) and the "right wing" (apparently not nuts?) target with their actions. The "left wing" is always acting to protect classes that have historically been marginalized, and the "right wing" is always punching down against marginalized groups. So while I don't agree the bakery should have been fined, I understand the impetus to protect a class of people that has historically been marginalized and not had equal protection under the law.

OK.. let me traslate that to simple words - discriminating against "gays" is not OK, since they are a "marginalized group". On the other hand, discriminating against Trump is OK, since he is a heterosexual white man. You could have posted this in simple words rather than beating around the bush. As far as I am concerned, if discrimination is bad, then both the cases are bad. I don't give preferential treatment to any group just because they claim that are "marginalized". Being marginalized doesn't give anyone any special privileges. Law should be equal to everyone.

[SquallLeonhart]

The difference here is that the cake shop which refused to bake the gay anniversary celebration cake was fined a huge amount and was forced to declare bankruptcy. On the other hand, the bank which terminated Trump's account will never face any action. I am not justifying anyone here. For me, both the actions are wrong. My issue is that when the left-wing nuts harass someone, it is regarded as a "revolutionary move" and when someone from the right-wing does the same all of a sudden it becomes an expression of xenophobia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_v._Oregon_Bureau_of_Labor_and_Industries

Okay let's tackle that one by one. Here we are, seeing a shit ton of people who think Florida bank did a wrong move, they do talk about them like they are so small they could be bought, and they will be closed because all republicans in Florida will take their money away from there.

So, as you can see "cancel culture" is quite apparent in republicans as well, the "left-wing" hates trump and they have every right to, not just because he is a bad person, but because it is a human right to hate someone and if something bad happens to someone you hate you find that awesome. But, you think that is different in republican places? If this Florida bank bankrupts today, tomorrow there will be celebrations, you see it HERE how people hate the bank already.

So, left or right, both find moves great, that cake shop owner was seen as a hero by republicans at the time, this bank seen as hero by left now. If bank will be sued just like cake shop did, please do so, its everyone's right to sue if they feel unjustified.

[Febo]

The guy can still bank with other banks of florida bank seems or finally decides to block him. He could even own a foreign account in another country which no one knows about. And I also feel he will invest in cryptocurrency in the future, thats if he has not purchase any and stored it already.

USA have influence over many countries. Yes he can have account in North Korea or China or few other countries but not in most. If somehow USA government want to sanction Trump they will be very successful doing that.

It's illegal in the US to have a bank account in North Korea or do any business with North Korea because of sanctions against the North Korean government.

Well in case we are talking he would leave USA. What would be the point to have money in North Korea and himself be locked in prison?    My point was that going abroad cant really save him unless he pick countries that are not very friendly with USA.

[aesma]

Another difference that has been neglected is that being a rich white asshole is not a protected class like being gay. As for the actions of the bakery and the bank, I don't agree that either actions are wrong. I don't think a business should be be forced to do business with someone they don't want to. But you have to look at who the "left wing nuts" (as you term them) and the "right wing" (apparently not nuts?) target with their actions. The "left wing" is always acting to protect classes that have historically been marginalized, and the "right wing" is always punching down against marginalized groups. So while I don't agree the bakery should have been fined, I understand the impetus to protect a class of people that has historically been marginalized and not had equal protection under the law.

OK.. let me traslate that to simple words - discriminating against "gays" is not OK, since they are a "marginalized group". On the other hand, discriminating against Trump is OK, since he is a heterosexual white man. You could have posted this in simple words rather than beating around the bush. As far as I am concerned, if discrimination is bad, then both the cases are bad. I don't give preferential treatment to any group just because they claim that are "marginalized". Being marginalized doesn't give anyone any special privileges. Law should be equal to everyone.

Trump isn't being discriminated against by banks. Banks have been avoiding doing business with him for decades, because he borrows money, then goes bankrupt and never pays back. These latest banks to dump him have just figured the risk wasn't worth it.

[Sithara007]

Trump isn't being discriminated against by banks. Banks have been avoiding doing business with him for decades, because he borrows money, then goes bankrupt and never pays back. These latest banks to dump him have just figured the risk wasn't worth it.

That is inaccurate. If you look at the OP, then the reason being given by the banks is:

Signature Bank notably took a strong stance against Trump and his allies in Congress, calling for him to resign and saying it would not conduct business with lawmakers who had objected to certifying the presidential election.

So it is very clear that the refusal of the banks have nothing to do with any potential default, and it is clearly politically motivated. In simple terms, the banks closed down his account, because he refused to certify the elections. I am not saying that Trump's refusal to certify the election was a valid move. But who are these banks to decide that? Have they done the same, if a Democrat politician was on the other side? It is not the duty of some private bank to decide what the president should do. There is a reason why they have two houses of the parliament in the United States.

[kotajikikox]

Early in the trump admin. Bannon tweeted a bitcoin address. Chances are he’s been riding the bitcoin bus this whole time.

Bannon is not necessarily involve in everything about Trump's financial. Chances may dictate that bannon's tweet is regarding his own personal BTC address and not having to do with Trump. Plus, Trump is somehow not a fan of crypto just like Jeff Bezo.

Who can tell that a Person that talks against crypto all the time is really not involving in crypto? Remember that we are in Decentralized and Anonymous community (though not totally anonymous) so Either Trump or Biden does not have Bitcoin ? or other cryptocurrencies .
We are a crypto People and the silence majority maybe politicians or celebrities ? No one knows.

[Vishnu.Reang]

Who can tell that a Person that talks against crypto all the time is really not involving in crypto? Remember that we are in Decentralized and Anonymous community (though not totally anonymous) so Either Trump or Biden does not have Bitcoin ? or other cryptocurrencies .
We are a crypto People and the silence majority maybe politicians or celebrities ? No one knows.

It is not easy for politicians to own some asset and stay anonymous. I don't know about the situation in the United States, but in countries such as Ukraine it is mandatory for the politicians to declare all their assets, including cryptocurrency. This is to make sure that there is no conflict of interest. But there is an ongoing debate whether the politicians should declare their assets or not, as it will increase their security threat. Here in India, all those who want to contest elections need to give written affidavit detailing all the assets they own.

[Vatimins]

     The things that are happening between trump and these banks are just natural. These are all just because of the recent events that took place. But despite this, money is still money, these banks may be just want to look good by making these actions. The hwat will probably just cool down with time and that would make way for trump. But even if not, there are still other banks who does accepts his money. So until he is really against the wall, I do not think he will be using bitcoins or any crypto currency unless he really has his back up against the wall. He hates these things and only trust the traditional way of earning. That's just who he is.

[jaberwock]

Who can tell that a Person that talks against crypto all the time is really not involving in crypto? Remember that we are in Decentralized and Anonymous community (though not totally anonymous) so Either Trump or Biden does not have Bitcoin ? or other cryptocurrencies .
We are a crypto People and the silence majority maybe politicians or celebrities ? No one knows.

It is not easy for politicians to own some asset and stay anonymous. I don't know about the situation in the United States, but in countries such as Ukraine it is mandatory for the politicians to declare all their assets, including cryptocurrency. This is to make sure that there is no conflict of interest. But there is an ongoing debate whether the politicians should declare their assets or not, as it will increase their security threat. Here in India, all those who want to contest elections need to give written affidavit detailing all the assets they own.

It is mandatory to declare whatever you own in many many nations, almost all developed high level nations have that, and so did USA as well as far as I know but Trump decided not to share his for the longest time, which took several years and a lot of court orders to reach his info, he didn't even give it to anyone, it was taken from the sources, which means if you want to you can still hide your things but then courts could sue you and get the info themselves.

Long story short, it is impossible to personally own crypto and hide it, however you could do like "tell my uncles sons wives cousins to buy some bitcoin" type of stuff, that is as "secret" as you can get, give someone cash, tell them to use it for buying bitcoin, but we are talking about president of USA, I am sure neither of them needed to do anything like that, nor ever felt the need to own bitcoin when they are in the most powerful position in the world.

[aesma]

So it is very clear that the refusal of the banks have nothing to do with any potential default, and it is clearly politically motivated. In simple terms, the banks closed down his account, because he refused to certify the elections. I am not saying that Trump's refusal to certify the election was a valid move. But who are these banks to decide that? Have they done the same, if a Democrat politician was on the other side? It is not the duty of some private bank to decide what the president should do. There is a reason why they have two houses of the parliament in the United States.

Actually in the US companies are people, and money is free speech, thanks to GOP lawmakers and justices, so a bank taking a decision based on politics seems normal.

Also, like all companies, banks rely on having certainty and stability, showing strong disapproval of politicians who are ready to start a constitutional crisis or even a civil war for no good reason is good business.

[Sithara007]

Actually in the US companies are people, and money is free speech, thanks to GOP lawmakers and justices, so a bank taking a decision based on politics seems normal.

Also, like all companies, banks rely on having certainty and stability, showing strong disapproval of politicians who are ready to start a constitutional crisis or even a civil war for no good reason is good business.

All this is fine. But only as long as the other side is also allowed to do the same. You want banks to discriminate based on political beliefs? You can say that they have the right to do so, since they are private business. OK. Fine. Perfectly agreed. But next time don't post sob-stories here when a Muslim or Homosexual face discrimination at a bakery or a bank. There can't be one criteria for one group, and another for a different group.

[jaysabi]

Like all things science and health related, trump's opinion on bitcoin shouldn't be taken seriously. Economics in general are a weakness for him (e.g., tariff wars are easy to win, or I'll pay off the national debt before I leave office). He just says things without the slightest inkling of meaningful thought. He's not gonna move bitcoin; he's no Elon.  

I would disagree with your observation. Trump received more than 70 million votes during the 2020 POTUS elections. He is perhaps the most popular GOP presidential candidate to this date. With such a huge support base, he can do wonders to Bitcoin and any potential impact would be much larger than what Elon Musk had. And I don't want to argue much about economy. But you can't ignore the fact that the stock market jumped by 70% under his presidency. And this happened despite the pandemic. He knew what he was doing, and the evidence is there. At least his approach was much more logical and sensible compared to the one from Biden, who is busy increasing the taxes left, right and center.

The stock market is not and never has been a good indicator of economic growth. When you look at actually growth in the economy, Trump was below average and nothing special.



Also, Biden hasn't been in office long enough to change taxes. I'm afraid your maga side is showing through.

That is not the full picture. The GDP growth during Trump's term was seriously impacted as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic (but it is still noteworthy that it ended up in positive). As you have mentioned, the annual GDP growth during Obama's term was 1.6% and during the term of GW Bush it was 2.2%. But in 2017 (Trump's first year at office), the GDP growth was +2.4%, which is much higher than what Bush and Obama managed. In 2018, this went up to 2.9%, slowing down to 2.2% in 2019. Everyone were expecting more than 2% growth in 2020, but the COVID pandemic destroyed those expectations. What you have done is distorting data and that is not going to work.

Yeah, there's always an excuse for the trump crowd. Now you want to strip out the effects of covid and only count the good years, but don't want to strip out the effects of the financial crisis from Obama and Bush?  And if you strip out the one-time negative effects, you have to strip out the one-time positive effects, like the temporary boost to GDP due to the tax cut and the boost to businesses racing to get ahead of the tariff war he started.  Be consistent.

If we look at only the best quarters, trump loses there too, beaten by Obama and Bush who had much higher quarterly numbers:

Skeptics noted that the numbers may have been bolstered by a temporary surge from the tax cut passed at the end of last year, and by farmers buying soybeans to get ahead of Trump's tariffs.

While Trump has taken a victory lap over the significant growth, he raised the bar with his prediction of 5 percent growth. Such a figure is not unprecedented, but is uncommon.

The economy expanded at a rate of 5.2 percent during the the third quarter of 2014 under former President Obama. Prior to that, it had not topped 5 percent since the early 2000s.

Interestingly enough, trump himself promised 5% economic growth, numbers reached by both Obama and Bush and never by trump. No matter what way you slice it, he was never as good for the economy as he duped you into believing.

[jaysabi]

Another difference that has been neglected is that being a rich white asshole is not a protected class like being gay. As for the actions of the bakery and the bank, I don't agree that either actions are wrong. I don't think a business should be be forced to do business with someone they don't want to. But you have to look at who the "left wing nuts" (as you term them) and the "right wing" (apparently not nuts?) target with their actions. The "left wing" is always acting to protect classes that have historically been marginalized, and the "right wing" is always punching down against marginalized groups. So while I don't agree the bakery should have been fined, I understand the impetus to protect a class of people that has historically been marginalized and not had equal protection under the law.

OK.. let me traslate that to simple words - discriminating against "gays" is not OK, since they are a "marginalized group". On the other hand, discriminating against Trump is OK, since he is a heterosexual white man. You could have posted this in simple words rather than beating around the bush. As far as I am concerned, if discrimination is bad, then both the cases are bad. I don't give preferential treatment to any group just because they claim that are "marginalized". Being marginalized doesn't give anyone any special privileges. Law should be equal to everyone.

I didn't beat around the bush, I was quite direct. And the great thing about marginalized groups is it's not dependent on your opinion. It's an objective fact.  When laws discriminate against a group based on sex, nationality, sexual orientation race, etc., that's marginalization. "Laws should be equal to everyone" is exactly the point, the fact that they weren't is what made the group marginalized.  Regardless, I said I support the bakery in not doing business with anyone they don't want to, the same as the bank.

Hope that was simple enough words for you.