Florida Bank Joins Other Banks in Closing Trump's Accounts

 

BankUnited Florida

A Florida bank announced Thursday that it has closed down former President Trump�s account, joining a growing list of entities that have cut ties with the former president following the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

In his financial disclosures, Trump had stated he had two money-market accounts with Banks United, The Washington Post reports. The accounts held somewhere between $5.1 million and $25.2 million.

"We no longer have any depository relationship with him," said Banks United, without giving reasons for its decision to shutter the accounts.

Another Florida bank, Professional Bank, last week announced that it would be cutting ties with Trump, saying it would no longer conduct business with the former president or his organizations.

Signature Bank in New York and Deutsche Bank have also said they will no longer be conducting future business with Trump

Ace comments:

We need an anti-discrimination law protecting people for political beliefs.

For those who say that's silly: We have those laws for every group on the planet, except us. I can tell you, as someone who is friends with the owners of law firms and businesses, that when it's time to cut staff, the people protected by these laws are cut last, just to avoid the legal troubles that would flow from cutting a protected person.

Why should we be the only people in America not protected?

Some people will say: "But demanding our own anti-discrimination protection would reduce our ability to argue against such protections."

Okay well you theoretically have that ability right now.

How's that going for you? Are you making Big GAINZZZZ in rolling back the "civil rights" favoritism racket?

Have you noticed anyone in Conservatism, Inc. -- say at National Review, or at Heritage -- making a case for rolling back "civil rights"/employment/services protections for racial or sexual minorities?

Or would you say that Conservatism, Inc. basically hasn't even spoken about rolling affirmative action back since Ward Connelly was in prominence in the 1990s?

So I'm not understanding what our "pristine right to argue against civil rights protections for others" gets us. It's a wholly hypothetical right. We have the right to speak -- and be completely ignored.

And we don't even have the right to speak, because if you did argue publicly to roll back anti-"discrimination" protections, businesses and banks would embargo you into bankruptcy, until you recanted.

So what does this right we allegedly have-- but do not in fact have -- to speak out against protections for threatened minorities get us?

Those protections aren't going away -- in fact, they'll be proliferating and growing more vicious over the next four years.

The only people left unprotected are us -- and we're the ones who are the biggest impediment to getting protection for ourselves.

The people who are currently protected are the people least in need of the protection. Virtue signaling businesses and banks are not going to start cutting off blacks, Hispanics, and gays.

Or even antifa! Cutting off antifa would be too controversial. Too "alt-right."

But they are all coming after us.

And yes, even mentioning this inconvenient fact makes it more likely that these businesses will deny services to me, next.

Just something to think about.

If in your perfect world there are no limitations on who a business or bank can refuse to transact with -- can I ask, how many decades are centuries are we from achieving that perfect world?

And would it be too unreasonable to ask that while we spend decades or centuries praying that perfect libertarian world into existence, that we in the meantime take advantage of the laws that are protecting everyone else?

Bullies will intensify their bullying until you break their fucking noses.

Buh Muh Private Corporations

Make your own internet, your own banks, your own credit card transaction services, your own web server complexes, and your own publishers and media.

GRTWT.