A few of the previous threads on Lindell here:
++++++++++++++++++++++
Previous threads on him:
Mike Lindell......a complete nut job!
14 responses |
Started by metmike - Aug. 6, 2021, 7:41 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/73263/
More on this world class charlatan:
Snake Oil Salesman Mike Lindell
Started by metmike - May 13, 2021, 12:16 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69324/
mikelindells election tape
11 responses |
Started by mcfarm - Feb. 6, 2021, 8:58 a.m.
gotta admit, this is a new one, for a conservative to be cancelled from his bank. Seems Lindell has turned his life round and has some great products and large bank accounts and yet cannot bank because of politics. But the likes of Epstein, the Clintons and Avinati have millions are libs and can bank anywhere with open arms and lots of high priced parties to attend.
not like there are double standards or anything but its almost like because Epstein for example is hooked to libs his banks knew the prosecutors would be really slow and really careful how they handled him;;;;;;;;;;like decades slow
This is scarey stuff. Really scarey. If it does not scare you, you are clueless..
This is the cancel culture on steroids and if they are able to mess with your finances, what is out of reach?
What by far the most scary thing to me is that millions of people listened to this guy tell dozens of absurd lies and make the most insane predictions that all failed catastrophically............and support him with unwavering faith.
He's about to be held financially accountable (as he should) for damages in the role that he played in perpetrating the fake election steal and blatantly falsely accusing/blaming Dominion with completely conjured up videos that had manufactured data and scenarios that never happened and pushing it out to millions.
You don't remember that?
This was just the first one. After he got so many people to believe in it, he created a 2nd one!
mikelindells election tape
11 responses |
Started by mcfarm - Feb. 6, 2021, 8:58 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/65299/
Of course Dominion is going to take him to the cleaners. 99.99% chance that they will win massive damages from him.
Since when, is a bank or insurance company obligated to serve customers that they deem high risk.
Ever hear of people with DUI's or numerous car wrecks having their car insurance cancelled? Numerous claims on their house in a short period, having their house insurance cancelled?
It happens many thousands of times every year, maybe tens of thousands of times in this country when these for profit businesses determine that customers exceed the risk tolerance policies of the company.
Mike Lindell's bank is looking at the NON far right republican political view of him.
It's a no brainer that this guy is going down hard.
Everybody knows it............except for the people in his cult that want to believe his complete hogwash because that's what they want to hear.
You do still support the freedom of private businesses in making smart decisions absent the interfence of the government right?
https://www.sapling.com/7417212/would-decide-close-bank-account
"Reasons banks close accounts may include inactivity, low balances and instances where their customer's actions have been deemed as posing a specific risk to the institution. These risks include monetary losses, as well as the potential of fraudulent activity. However, banks also can close accounts at their discretion, even if the owner has kept the account in good standing."
https://www.businessinsider.com/mypillow-made-three-hour-film-about-election-trump-2021-2
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13989524/
metmike: This is almost all made up stuff. Everyone making it had to know they were making it up. In order to generate the fake data, they had to create fake data. They had to go outside the realm of applying real data for what it represented, which they would have to know, they intentionally contrived scenarios and misused data(or completely made it up) to lie about what was happening during the election.
Sources from other countries, according to them were taking control of our computers and election systems and massively changing the results to take away Trump votes and add Biden votes............all because of Dominion, that was in on it.
These systems were not even hooked up to the internet, which is how they show it being done!
In court, Dominion is going to obliterate Lindell financially for the massive damages which will result in him being responsible for far more money than he's ever made.
Anybody with any brains, connected with him financially knows this is coming. He's not being cancelled for lying or having the wrong political affiliation.
The bank is protecting their financial interests and reputation..........obviously.
good one MM. Lindell cancelled for lying and yet the Clintons....well just explain the Clintons and lying if you would
I understand why a drunk drivers insurance would be cancelled, but I can't imagine how Lindell's actions, regardless of what you may think of them, pose any risk to the bank.
He is being punished for having an unpopular opinion, and I can't imagine the thinking that goes into supporting that. And I find the implications very concerning.
I think any blind person knows what is going on here Tim and this is all about politics not lying. If it were about lying there would not be a politician in the world who could have a bank account
You can pretend that its all about lying, then use that to paint Lindell as a victim because his bank is making a smart risk aversion/reputational decision.
Since neither of you guys were ever high profile personalities, you don't get how it is in the world that surrounds them, including institutions that they do business with sometimes.
I was just a local celebrity in the town of Evansville IN in 1992 but got a sample of it with our car insurance company, American Family.
I did a U turn on Morgan Ave and stopped to allow a car to pass before completing it. The driver, stopped and waved me on, so I completing it and they suddenly rammed into me.
Afterwards, they denied stopping to wave me on, even though they had the right of way.
I fought it but lost and my insurance company had to pay out............then I got a call that our insurance policy was being cancelled. I was furious and made an appointment with a head honcho at their main office.
He told me that their risk department's entire decision was based on me being a tv celebrity. They probably didn't believe my story on the U turn but they were concerned that any incident involving me would be extremely high profile and they didn't want that potential risk that might damage the reputation of their company.
I filed a written appeal.........and was denied. It was a no brainer for them. They didn't even care about the U turn incident(according to them) or my driving record. They just didn't want to insure a high profile celebrity and take the chance of being associated with me if I was at fault in bad accident.
Is this the guy a bank wants to have their reputation associated with?
"We already have all the pieces of the puzzle. When you talk about evidence, we have enough evidence to put everybody in prison for life, 300-some million people,' the top ally of former President Donald Trump said. 'We had that all the way back in November-December, but what we have are these other things that had to happen,, which is evil revealing itself.'"
metmike: I'm asking this seriously. You guys honestly don't see the off the charts risk that this guy is to people and businesses that he's associated with? Would you be his bank and be part of his funding?
I could actually make many dozens of additional posts as evidence for why nobody, anywhere would want to be associated with him on anything.
His lying is more than just average politician lying. It's the most outrageous, collossal, blatant, proven lying that I know of in my life, that he's able to push with so much coverage because he has lots of money from people that send him money which goes into his bank. Some of them now, because they support his lies.
And because a bank doesn't want his in the sewer, (well deserved by every legit, objective standard)reputation to tarnish their reputation.........the bank is at fault and poor Mike Lindell is a vicim?
Do I have this right as that being your position?
https://www.businessinsider.com/will-dominion-own-mypillow-if-it-wins-defamation-lawsuit-2021-11
"Once the judge enters the jury's verdict — and if MyPillow loses on appeal or fails in arguing the damages down to a manageable sum — Dominion will have an opportunity to seize MyPillow's assets.
Dominion could go to Minnesota, where MyPillow is headquartered, and file what's called a writ of execution to the local courts. From there, the local sheriffs or courts would be able to freeze assets like bank accounts and hand over Lindell's MyPillow shares and the keys to his pillow warehouses.
"What you need to do is you need to go into all the states that MyPillow has assets. So they go into Minnesota where MyPillow is, and they file the judgment there," Eric Snyder, a bankruptcy attorney at Wilk Auslander LLC, told Insider. "And then they go to the sheriff and say, 'I want you to start seizing the assets of MyPillow — inventory, equipment, everything they own.'"
metmike: If you were Lindell's bank, would you want to be part of this?
Of course not. They are making the smart decision now, BEFORE this happens to avoid this from happening TO THEM and it tarnishing their reputation.
This has 0 to do with politics.
have it your way. its all about lies you say....for the third time has there in history ever been 2 bigger liars than the Clintons and how many times has their insurance been cancelled?
"its all about lies you say"
mcfarm,
Do you actually even read what I state?
It's NOT about lies for the bank!
For Dominion, it's all about his lies about them but this isn't about Dominion..........it's about Lindell's bank.
Dominion is about to bankrupt Lindell over his lies.
This is going to drag Lindell and all those associated with him into the mud and there will likely be a massive legal battle that goes on for years over his assets, including his accounts at this bank.
This bank doesn't want to be any part of that.
Prior to the banks making it an issue, did you know where Lindell did his banking?
Sorry, I am not buying the "He could damage their reputation" gambit. As McFarm pointed out, if that were valid criteria for severing ties, there'd be a lot of people without access to banks, some of them with a much higher profile than Lindell.
Lindell will be punished accordingly through law suits. This is somehting else.
this entire event is easily explained by Josie Wales...."don't piss down my back and tell me its raining"
Tim,
Interesting how you completely changed your position on this topic........because this is a republican being "victimized" by a private company but the previous example of the same thing was a republican (baker) private company exercising their 1st Amendment rights....so your position(interpretation of the facts) completely flipped to the opposite, depending on what side the republican was on.
Tribalism!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/65165/#65178
"But these are the same liberals who were screaming for that bakers head when he refused to bake a cake.
Anyway, there is a bigger question here. A baker can refuse service and the customer can go to the baker down the street. There are hundreds of alternatives within a short drive in most medium to large cities, even small ones."
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/65165/#65229
And yes, I do have a basic understanding of the constitution; and yes, the baker and Twitter do have the same rights.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/65165/#65230
BTW, in the case of the Baker, the court sided with him, (and I guess by extension, Me).
In any event, the current debate is just how much latitude a private company has to regulate it's customers, and I would geuss even you would agree that there's quite a bit.
Interesting how you completely changed your position on this topic...
I have done nothing of the sort. You seem to have trouble grasping the topic.
First, let's look at the flaws in your analogies so far.
1st, you compare this to a drunk driver having his car insurance cancelled.
In ths case, the insurance company is assuming liabllity for someone irresponsible enough to drive drunk. This is a liablilty that the ins company can reasonably reject and understandably so.
2nd, you compare a "celebrity" having his insurance cancelled. I can see where a celebrity may prove to be a liablity. People involved in an accident with a "celebrity" may be more inclined to sue. Even a frivilous law suit has to be defended and that can cost way more than the typical insurance premium, and the insurance company can understandably reject that liability.
Now here's the question.
What liability is the bank assumming in having Lindell as a depositor? If he gets sued, the bank will lose his deposits, something they appear willing to do already. But the bank will not lose any bank assest.
So, I hope you can see the fundamental and profound difference in the relationship between an insurance company/client and a bank/depositor.
Now, on to the next flawed analogy between a baker/customer and bank/depositor.
The baker refused to provide a cake as requested based on religious beliefs. He offered other cakes, but not the specific one requested. This went to court and they rightfully, IMO, sided with the baker.
You compared this to the banks dropping Lindell. Even though the baker did not refuse to do business of any kind, just a specific request. Even though Lindell had had a relationship with these banks, and I'm assumming a profitable one, for years. As far as I know, the only thing that changed was the bank(s) decided they didn't like Lindell's opinion.
In closing, I believe a business has the right to refuse business to just about anyone at any time for just about any reason. And based on that, Lindell has no, and should have no recourse. But that does not mean I agree with the reasons, which in this case, IMO, stink to high heaven. And the implications are, IMO, profoundly disturbing.
Thanks Tim!
Spin it however you want.
I'm just giving you my objective perspective, which will change if you provide me with an objective reason to change it.
So, no changes to my previous objective perspective.
Again, I'm not political, just an independent scientist not affilicated with either party trying to help some friends to see things objectively.........using truth based facts/data and evidence.
Since you've read me here for many years, you know that I take positions, sometimes very strong ones that support BOTH sides with 0 weighting on anything political.
If you guys want to back your party 100% of the time and spin everything so that it lines up with your political affiliation.........your choice.
I can learn by analyzing that type of behavior too! There's almost always something to be learned for an objective observer in situations that appear to be bogged down by 2 sides that seem determined NOT to learn anything from the other side.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/#79364
MM, you are anything but objective, and there is no spin anywhere in my previous response, assuming you read it objectively.
So, without further ado..
:-)
"MM, you are anything but objective"
Thanks Tim!
I have a long history of taking the side of different parties, depending on the issue.........which is entirely determined by the data, facts, evidence and science........and truth. I never consider the politics........other than to analyze why people using politics are behaving like this do.........this case is the quintessential example.
You think we're having a debate............I'm analyzing your behavior based on political affiliation.
You have a perfect record. You take the republican side on every issue, no matter what the issue is.
When I agree with you.............I see things clearly.
When I disagree with you...........I'm anything but objective.
Neither political party has a franchise on the truth.
If you believe one party all the time......................you will believe in lies some of the time.
Thanks for the continued chuckles MM. I really enjoy them with my morning tea :-)
You feel that taking inconsistent views on issues based on whims is proof of objectivity. Nice one :-)
I won't go into the many many examples of your lack of objectivity. Who has the time?
But one of my favorites....
"Autopsy results are flimsy evidence" during a Murder trial where you had formed your opinion before you saw much of the evidence, the strongest of which, were the autopsy results. But since they conflicted with your preconceived notions, they become "flimsy".
This is nearly the exact opposite of "Objective".
But that's OK. It's human nature to jump to conclusions. We all do it. The hard part is to realize that you have done it and take corrective action.
Thanks Tim
Glad I could provide you with chuckles!
You're welcome MM. And thanks again :-)