Florida bank says it has closed Trump's accounts

[bryant.coleman]

If a bank wants to not work with trump, that is fine, that is always fine, if a cake shop decides not to bake for gay people, then a bank can decide to not work with trump. Twitter CAN ban him, it is not freedom of speech issue, it is literally within their rights to not work with anyone they want. This is free market.

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

[1714061858]

1714061858

[1714061858]

1714061858

[jostorres]

I'm sure a stubborn person like Trump wouldn't want to seek liquidity in cryptocurrency, I'm sure Trump will find another solution. Trump before
becoming president of America was a successful businessman, Even now Trump is still a successful businessman with many networks in various
sectors. Including in the financial sector, I'm sure Trump will find another bank to do business with. Since Trump has been in business for so long,
there must be other banks that support Trump. I don't think this news will affect crypto societies, because it is not directly related to cryptocurrency.

ROFL.. Trump can easily purchase a few dozens banks if he want. On the other hand, this is the first time I am hearing about the two banks mentioned here (Banks United and Professional Bank). Trump probably don't care about all this and these bankers have their two minutes of publicity. But in case Trump decides to initiate legal action against them, then I am quite sure that the banks will find themselves in trouble.

How "rich" do you think Trump is? I mean if we are talking about one small tiny local bank he could do that but banks that are big cost a lot of money and a lot of scrunity from SEC as well and requires you to spend billion in purchasing them as well, on top of that you said dozens banks if he wants as well, which means we are talking about such a huge amount that even the richest people in the world would have to sell all their stock in their company just to be able to do something like that. Do not get me wrong, this doesn't specifically mean "trump" can't buy dozens of banks, it just means no one person can buy a big bank, usually when there is acquisitions of banks that happens with a huge company or an organization, which means a lot of people get together to do it.

So, only way trump could ever buy a bank would be to get investments and not by himself. Which is doable, but like I said not just by himself, he needs his supporters to pay for it.

[santiPOGI]

In my own assessment, I think Trump during the time he is President He was started to buy a lot of Bitcoin then Hold it until now perhaps.
This might be the reason why the bank of Florida closed, but not so sure about this just a thought only. But I am pretty sure Donald Trump was one of the Bitcoin whale holders

[Sithara007]

How "rich" do you think Trump is? I mean if we are talking about one small tiny local bank he could do that but banks that are big cost a lot of money and a lot of scrunity from SEC as well and requires you to spend billion in purchasing them as well, on top of that you said dozens banks if he wants as well, which means we are talking about such a huge amount that even the richest people in the world would have to sell all their stock in their company just to be able to do something like that. Do not get me wrong, this doesn't specifically mean "trump" can't buy dozens of banks, it just means no one person can buy a big bank, usually when there is acquisitions of banks that happens with a huge company or an organization, which means a lot of people get together to do it.

So, only way trump could ever buy a bank would be to get investments and not by himself. Which is doable, but like I said not just by himself, he needs his supporters to pay for it.

Banks are not that expensive. Donald Trump's current wealth is estimated at more than $3 billion. Obviously he won't be able to purchase the major banks such as JPMorgan Chase, which is having a market cap of close to $400 billion. I am talking about smaller banks, such as Blue Ridge Bankshares and Byline Bancorp, which are having market cap of a few hundred million USD. And most of the small private banks are not even listed in any of the stock exchanges.

[carlisle1]

In my own assessment, I think Trump during the time he is President He was started to buy a lot of Bitcoin then Hold it until now perhaps.

Your assessment ? so meaning is trump is a Liar? he keeps discouraging people about crypto and against Bitcoin but behind that he is the one whos Buying this ? then if that is the case then he is really a stupid and BS president of all time?

This might be the reason why the bank of Florida closed, but not so sure about this just a thought only. But I am pretty sure Donald Trump was one of the Bitcoin whale holders

Lol it is because He seems to be having a Wrong action this past weeks when the election ends so the Banks closed his account and even the social media do the same so they will prevent the spread of the Coup d'etat   or some revolution that might happen .

[SirLancelot]

Could Trump's 1st response be to seek out liquidity in cryptocurrencies. Or would he be more likely to simply seek out other banks to do business with?

Twitter stock trended downward after temporarily suspending Trump's twitter account.

Could something similar happen to Banks United, Professional Bank, Signature Bank and Deutsche Bank.

If they close Trump's accounts & barr him from doing business with the bank industry?

Does this news affect supporters of cashless societies for better or worse.

I am not entirely sure but I think what the bank is doing is totally wrong by closing his accounts, like seriously do the banks really have to take any side in a case like this? I don’t think the bank had any say in such situation, they have no other business than to just mind their business which offering services to customers, they shouldn’t be exercising rights and choosing who’s accounts to close or whatsoever, even twitter closing his account is totally wrong, these people have no business with that. Although it’s not like I’m supporting Trump, but what they did is totally wrong. I don’t know if Trump will go for decentralized cryptocurrencies, but we know he doesn’t like them.

[bits4books]

So the will of the people was such that Trump won. But everyone from elite decided to ignore the fraud and make Donald a clown and his electorate was naturally outraged. And seeing what their opponents did in 2020, they decided to respond with the same coin. And note at the same time that the entire business - small, medium, and large-suffered during the BLM protests, while only the Capitol environment suffered during the Trump Army rally. The first went against their environment and the second went directly against the authorities. Does this not mean that once again the conservatives have shown who has a head on their shoulders?

You can try to sugarcoat it however as you please, you can even show the capitol attackers as the heros of this story if you want to change the narrative but that will never happen in the eyes of the winners, by winners I mean the people who won the congress, the senate, the vp and the president of united states of America, there is literally nothing else you can win right now and democrats won it all, republicans are the losers in this story and will stay like that forever, there is no way to change that.

You want to know the reality of the situation? BLM attacked everywhere they can find according to you, instead it was proven that there was white supremacists that got jailed poised as BLM protestors to diminish the real movement, they were literally jailed for it and all BLM movement people got tear gassed and rubber bullets and even elderly were shoved to grounds and hurt, that is how everyone reacted to people protesting police brutality, the response was literally more police brutality.

You want to know what happened with "trump army" morons? They were attacking capital to zipt tie and take hostage elected officials maybe even worse, and wanted to take over the congress and wanted to appoint Trump as the president, which is a coup and they didn't want the real results of Biden winning to be accepted and they wanted Trump to hold power even after he lost, that is treason and I do not care how you want to name it, reality is treason.

I'm not saying that the people who captured the congress are heroes. I'm just saying that instead of breaking everything around like BLM, including innocent small businesses that have already sunk very much due to the pandemic. I'm saying that smashing up the city streets like you're fighting another tribe in your own damn Africa it's never cool. If you have a claim to the government then go to the government, and not to those people who live next to you and are also dissatisfied with a lot of things.

[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.

[jaysabi]

If a bank wants to not work with trump, that is fine, that is always fine, if a cake shop decides not to bake for gay people, then a bank can decide to not work with trump. Twitter CAN ban him, it is not freedom of speech issue, it is literally within their rights to not work with anyone they want. This is free market.

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

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.

[Lorence.xD]

If a bank wants to not work with trump, that is fine, that is always fine, if a cake shop decides not to bake for gay people, then a bank can decide to not work with trump. Twitter CAN ban him, it is not freedom of speech issue, it is literally within their rights to not work with anyone they want. This is free market.

The cake shop is bigot but the bank is not, that is the difference. Just because they both denied their services doesn't necessarily mean that they are similar, for me that is just a pathetic excuse of bigotry. The reason that business doesn't want to do anything with Trump is because they know that it will tarnish their reputation, the reputation of the bank whereas the case with the gay hating bake shop, it is the reputation of the owner whose mind is still living in the 1940s. If it is a free market then how come we are discriminating a customer/client?

[vintages]

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.

[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.

[redsun114]

If a bank wants to not work with trump, that is fine, that is always fine, if a cake shop decides not to bake for gay people, then a bank can decide to not work with trump. Twitter CAN ban him, it is not freedom of speech issue, it is literally within their rights to not work with anyone they want. This is free market.

Listen I sort of agree that if you provide a service you are free to offer whom you want and whom not to offer but the problem starts when you are open to all but a specific group of people. Imagine if the government decides they are not going to allow you to live in the country, is that okay for you? I mean they are the ones who have the power and they can decide whom they want to keep in their country and whom not, right? that is why you have to give a strong reason when you make an exception for someone or a group of people.

Its easy to laugh and make fun of people who are down and out but imagine the same happening with yourself and you will realize what the problem really is. It is similar to saying if someone got raped then it was her misfortune but the truth is that we need to improve not the person who suffered.

[jaysabi]

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.

[7788bitcoin]

If a bank wants to not work with trump, that is fine, that is always fine, if a cake shop decides not to bake for gay people, then a bank can decide to not work with trump. Twitter CAN ban him, it is not freedom of speech issue, it is literally within their rights to not work with anyone they want. This is free market.

The free market should have certain limits, if a bank does not work with a certain individual or business they need to have a concrete reason before closing down as long as they function under a regulation. If they have the authority to close down any accounts what happens if they start targeting other accounts as well. So i do not support these target propaganda as it can happen to you as well.  

[iamsheikhadil]

If a bank wants to not work with trump, that is fine, that is always fine, if a cake shop decides not to bake for gay people, then a bank can decide to not work with trump. Twitter CAN ban him, it is not freedom of speech issue, it is literally within their rights to not work with anyone they want. This is free market.

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

Twitter is a private company, and they can decide if someone broke their rules, and if they find that, they can ban anyone, with evidences of the broken rules obviously. When Trump incited a big protest and continued to fuel it, Twitter saw it as a violation of its policy which is inciting hate and hence they banned him. But I don't agree with when banks ban Trump, they just simply can't say, "We don't like what Trump is doing in politics, we are breaking all ties with him", they can't do it. But if Trump broke rules of the bank, then only they can ban him, else not.

[Dragonfund]

Trump isn't going to be the last person these banks deplatform. I imagine we'll have companies that spring up just for conservative with how "tolerant" the left is -- or this just makes the case for decentralized currency even more appeasing.

Fortunately for Trump, a bank would beg to keep his money within their institution.

The close of his bank account sound too polical to me. Who dares close the bank of one of the president of the United State if not the same opposition party, I have never be a fan but I just think the action was just too political interest and. Way to get back him.
He wasn't different from whatever they are doing to him currently, heis one and only president of the United States that talk arrogantly, believe everything is fake, don't like one's opinion and lastly a racist.
I just hope Biden doesn't end up deceiving the masses because too much of disappointment end up moat of the time as disappointment.

[AndySt]

Twitter is a private company, and they can decide if someone broke their rules, and if they find that, they can ban anyone, with evidences of the broken rules obviously. When Trump incited a big protest and continued to fuel it, Twitter saw it as a violation of its policy which is inciting hate and hence they banned him. But I don't agree with when banks ban Trump, they just simply can't say, "We don't like what Trump is doing in politics, we are breaking all ties with him", they can't do it. But if Trump broke rules of the bank, then only they can ban him, else not.

In general, everything has been overly politicized lately and sometimes there is a strong feeling that the whole world has gone mad and all the rules of the game in politics and business are no longer observed by the warring parties. However, regarding Trump, I would like to note that a certain irony lies in the fact that it was the former president who had a lot to do with violating unwritten rules in his activities as the first person of the United States and can be said to pay for it in a certain way.

[aesma]

How "rich" do you think Trump is? I mean if we are talking about one small tiny local bank he could do that but banks that are big cost a lot of money and a lot of scrunity from SEC as well and requires you to spend billion in purchasing them as well, on top of that you said dozens banks if he wants as well, which means we are talking about such a huge amount that even the richest people in the world would have to sell all their stock in their company just to be able to do something like that. Do not get me wrong, this doesn't specifically mean "trump" can't buy dozens of banks, it just means no one person can buy a big bank, usually when there is acquisitions of banks that happens with a huge company or an organization, which means a lot of people get together to do it.

So, only way trump could ever buy a bank would be to get investments and not by himself. Which is doable, but like I said not just by himself, he needs his supporters to pay for it.

Banks are not that expensive. Donald Trump's current wealth is estimated at more than $3 billion. Obviously he won't be able to purchase the major banks such as JPMorgan Chase, which is having a market cap of close to $400 billion. I am talking about smaller banks, such as Blue Ridge Bankshares and Byline Bancorp, which are having market cap of a few hundred million USD. And most of the small private banks are not even listed in any of the stock exchanges.

Banking is heavily regulated. I doubt someone under investigation for all kinds of things, including tax evasion and fraud, can be allowed to buy a bank. Also Trump's "wealth" if it exists is mostly in real estate, he doesn't have billions lying around to buy stuff.

[Sithara007]

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.