Mike Lindell is developing his own social media platform to replace YouTube and Twitter

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,793
✟229,457.00
Faith
Seeker
Let us know when you've actually tried one of his products.
For the record, I have. I didn't find it all that impressive.

Not that I really need to have tried it. If a restaurant has a slew of bad reviews, I certainly don't have to eat there myself to have a justified reason to stay away from the place.

Considering that the 'left' has been consistently attacking him for years for no reason other his political views, he's done very well.

That's a bit of a lame excuse, for a few reasons.

MyPillow didn't just pop up yesterday, it's been around since 2009. Mike Lindell has only really been out there in the past couple of years. People were giving him negative reviews on his pillows long before that.

Also, do conservatives not use pillows, too? You'd think that, if he was only doing poorly because of his political views, they could work for him, too. I'm actually surprised he's not doing better - you would think that being seen and associated with Trump would at least get him some support from Trump's avid fanbase, but that's not how it's panning out. If his pillows were receiving half and half reviews, I might be inclined to agree, but, overall, his pillows are poorly reviewed. It's not just the meanie liberals.

Regardless, even if I accept your premise here, it just raises more problems for him - if his political views are enough to keep him from rising to the top in the pillow market, how's that going to be less of a problem for him when he's taking on 'Big Tech'? If he can't overcome that problem and beat his competitors in one market, how will he do that in another?

To get back to the core of what you said, you're saying that Mr. Lindell understand that he needs a product that offers something his competitors don't, but if past indications anything to go by, that's simply not true. What about his pillows is different and superior to his competitors? What do his pillows give that others don't?
 
Upvote 0

Petros2015

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2016
5,088
4,321
52
undisclosed Bunker
✟287,661.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
What about his pillows is different and superior to his competitors? What do his pillows give that others don't?

Tiny transistor radios that pump INFOWARS into your subliminal dreams apparently...
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
This is the after effects of the hedge funds’ short positions.
No argument from me. Action begets reaction. As I recall, the hedge funds were shorting about 160% of GME stock, which is to say far more shares than actually existed. (It seems like there should be a law or standard in place to prevent that.)

The traders on Wallstreetbets did their due diligence, determined that GameStop was an entirely viable business and that there weren't any good reasons for shorting GME stock. (Some have speculated political reasons, but I digress.) At any rate a few months back a few members of Wallstreetbets started buying the highly undervalued GME stock and many others joined in. It quickly gained critical mass, the price of GME stock started going up, and the short squeeze began. This was followed by numerous misleading reports in the propaganda media attempting to drive the price back down. Naturally, the false and misleading media reports strengthened the resolve of those on Wallstreetbets so that what we see now has been a steady upward rise in GME stock price.

Is GME stodk overvalued now? Beats me. I have no interest in the stock except as an observer. It has been fascinating to watch as hedge funds have had to cash out their short positions, though even now there are questions about how many of those positions have actually closed out. Hedge funds seem to be good at covering up their mistakes.
There were many more (millions of) shares shorted than were/are in circulation. People and institutions that held short positions needed to buy back the stock at ridiculously inflated prices (or declare bankruptcy, generally a “frowned-upon” thing for stock traders), to cover their positions.
As the short-squeeze eases, savvy investors will look to short it AGAIN because the company cannot maintain it’s worth, as the stock price only went up due to the original short positions.
In two years it’ll be @$8.00\sh
LOL, it appears that hedge funds have been consistently trying to short it for months now ... and seemingly failing, as evidenced by the relentless upward progression of GME stock price. Maybe that will change tomorrow though. Who knows. What I do know is that the Wallstreetbets traders are still doing what they were doing two months ago ... and it's working out well for them.

Not sure what this all means for Mike Lindell, but I do know that the time appears ripe for disruption of social media platforms, just as it was for GME stock price going up. Action begets reaction. It's a natural law.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

trunks2k

Contributor
Jan 26, 2004
11,369
3,520
41
✟270,241.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sorry if this has been pointed out, I did a quick scan of the last couple pages of the thread and didn't notice it. Looks like Lindell already has some legal issues with his new platform. MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell Is Trying To Launch a Social Media Site, and It’s Already Resulted in a Legal Threat

But Vocl must grapple with a daunting problem before it even launches: a website called “Vocal,” spelled with an “A,” already exists.

On Thursday, lawyers for Vocal’s publicly traded parent company, Creatd, Inc., warned Lindell, in a letter reviewed by The Daily Beast, to change his social media network’s name and surrender ownership of the Vocl.com domain name.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iluvatar5150
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,793
✟229,457.00
Faith
Seeker
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,029
23,941
Baltimore
✟551,899.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
  • Haha
Reactions: Triumvirate
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,029
23,941
Baltimore
✟551,899.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Man, the economy is *really* hurting.
Lindell wants Vocl but can't have it because Vocal is already taken by Creatd?

Nobody can buy a vowel...


I'm mildly amused that the company that's missing a vowel in its name owns a product with a name that's spelled correctly, but with a trademark being threatened by a product that itself is missing a vowel. Why doesn't Creatd own Vocl?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: NightHawkeye
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
I'm mildly amused that the company that's missing a vowel in its name owns a product with a name that's spelled correctly, but with a trademark being threatened by a product that itself is missing a vowel. Why doesn't Creatd own Vocl?
One suspects they themselves infringed on another company's trademark name.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,793
✟229,457.00
Faith
Seeker
Conservapedia meets Parler. What could possibly go wrong?
Okay, this is getting off topic, but I've got to share this.

So I went over to Conservapedia because of this topic, and this was an article I stumbled on, right away.

Essay:Worst Liberal Movies - Conservapedia

A lot of the reviews are just on movies I've never seen so I have no opinion on, but his takes on some classics are just...precious.

This pro-feminist, anti-capitalist film franchise was originated by atheist Ridley Scott. The first film was proven to be alarmingly similar to the 1965 film Planet of the Vampires,[1] but since it fitted the left's agenda, they didn't care and gave it biased reviews anyway. The second film, Aliens, is an anti-Vietnam statement[2] and, just like its predecessor, copies another previous feature (in this case, the 1954 film Them![3]).

First off, calling the movies pro-feminist is just...is any movie that has a female protagonist 'pro-feminist'? That seems like a big net to cast. Especially since the first movie barely has her survive. She doesn't get out because she's more competent than the other crew members, it's mostly because she just so happens to not be where the creature is for most of the film. In the second, she's not shown to be more competent than the soldiers, just more used to the aliens, and once the remaining soldiers hunker down, they spend their time protecting her and Newt. All the other women besides Vasquez die. And the idea that a movie shouldn't get good reviews because it's similar to another movie is just...so many movies take elements from other movies, that's such a silly thing to bring up. That seems to be a common complaint throughout his essay - he seems to think that a movie being 'similar' to another movie is a legit reason to mark against it.

And what does Ridley Scott being an atheist have to do with anything? The films don't have anything much to say about religion until Prometheus, and even then, they make a point to say that god could still exist.

Okay, on Robocop...

Left-wing smut-peddler Paul Verhoeven's failed attempt to depict all police forces and corporations as evil. It also contains an environmentalist message with the "6000 SUX," a car that pollutes and guzzles gas for no other reason than to be environmentally unfriendly. Verhoeven is also a member of the Liberal Jesus Seminar, which also inspired him to make the movie a grotesque parody of Christ's resurrection.
'Depict all police forces and corporations as evil'. The hero of the movie is a good cop, his partner is a good cop, he works with a bunch of other good cops. If anything, the movie glorifies cops - they're outmanned and outgunned, but they keep on fighting to keep Detroit on an even keel. An depicting one corporation as evil isn't the same thing as saying all corporations are evil.

He also doesn't seem to understand that the protagonist of a film isn't the same thing as the 'hero'. That, just because a character is the focus of the film, that doesn't mean the film is saying what this person is doing is right or should be emulated.

Anyway, I'll stop, I was just super amused by all of this. It's weird how some people think. It seems like he thinks any movie with a female protagonist is feminist, any movie with bad guys as soldiers is anti-military, and any movie with a shady corporation is anti-business. It's the same thing that conservatives complain about with 'wokeness', just in reverse.

EDIT:

Okay, one more. His review on the Big Lebowski.

Glorifies drug abuse, laziness, and nihilism.

If you came away from the Big Lebowski thinking that drug abuse, laziness, and nihilism are good things, then I seriously suggest you seek help.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,029
23,941
Baltimore
✟551,899.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Okay, this is getting off topic, but I've got to share this.

So I went over to Conservapedia because of this topic, and this was an article I stumbled on, right away.

Essay:Worst Liberal Movies - Conservapedia

A lot of the reviews are just on movies I've never seen so I have no opinion on, but his takes on some classics are just...precious.



First off, calling the movies pro-feminist is just...is any movie that has a female protagonist 'pro-feminist'? That seems like a big net to cast. Especially since the first movie barely has her survive. She doesn't get out because she's more competent than the other crew members, it's mostly because she just so happens to not be where the creature is for most of the film. In the second, she's not shown to be more competent than the soldiers, just more used to the aliens, and once the remaining soldiers hunker down, they spend their time protecting her and Newt. All the other women besides Vasquez die. And the idea that a movie shouldn't get good reviews because it's similar to another movie is just...so many movies take elements from other movies, that's such a silly thing to bring up. That seems to be a common complaint throughout his essay - he seems to think that a movie being 'similar' to another movie is a legit reason to mark against it.

And what does Ridley Scott being an atheist have to do with anything? The films don't have anything much to say about religion until Prometheus, and even then, they make a point to say that god could still exist.

Okay, on Robocop...


'Depict all police forces and corporations as evil'. The hero of the movie is a good cop, his partner is a good cop, he works with a bunch of other good cops. If anything, the movie glorifies cops - they're outmanned and outgunned, but they keep on fighting to keep Detroit on an even keel. An depicting one corporation as evil isn't the same thing as saying all corporations are evil.

He also doesn't seem to understand that the protagonist of a film isn't the same thing as the 'hero'. That, just because a character is the focus of the film, that doesn't mean the film is saying what this person is doing is right or should be emulated.

Anyway, I'll stop, I was just super amused by all of this. It's weird how some people think. It seems like he thinks any movie with a female protagonist is feminist, any movie with bad guys as soldiers is anti-military, and any movie with a shady corporation is anti-business. It's the same thing that conservatives complain about with 'wokeness', just in reverse.

EDIT:

Okay, one more. His review on the Big Lebowski.



If you came away from the Big Lebowski thinking that drug abuse, laziness, and nihilism are good things, then I seriously suggest you seek help.

A significant portion of the site is whiny moronic nonsense like this. It’s amazing nobody on the right calls for it to be shut down because it’s so embarrassing.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Triumvirate
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,413
15,560
Colorado
✟428,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Okay, this is getting off topic, but I've got to share this.

So I went over to Conservapedia because of this topic, and this was an article I stumbled on, right away.

Essay:Worst Liberal Movies - Conservapedia

A lot of the reviews are just on movies I've never seen so I have no opinion on, but his takes on some classics are just...precious.



First off, calling the movies pro-feminist is just...is any movie that has a female protagonist 'pro-feminist'? That seems like a big net to cast. Especially since the first movie barely has her survive. She doesn't get out because she's more competent than the other crew members, it's mostly because she just so happens to not be where the creature is for most of the film. In the second, she's not shown to be more competent than the soldiers, just more used to the aliens, and once the remaining soldiers hunker down, they spend their time protecting her and Newt. All the other women besides Vasquez die. And the idea that a movie shouldn't get good reviews because it's similar to another movie is just...so many movies take elements from other movies, that's such a silly thing to bring up. That seems to be a common complaint throughout his essay - he seems to think that a movie being 'similar' to another movie is a legit reason to mark against it.

And what does Ridley Scott being an atheist have to do with anything? The films don't have anything much to say about religion until Prometheus, and even then, they make a point to say that god could still exist.

Okay, on Robocop...


'Depict all police forces and corporations as evil'. The hero of the movie is a good cop, his partner is a good cop, he works with a bunch of other good cops. If anything, the movie glorifies cops - they're outmanned and outgunned, but they keep on fighting to keep Detroit on an even keel. An depicting one corporation as evil isn't the same thing as saying all corporations are evil.

He also doesn't seem to understand that the protagonist of a film isn't the same thing as the 'hero'. That, just because a character is the focus of the film, that doesn't mean the film is saying what this person is doing is right or should be emulated.

Anyway, I'll stop, I was just super amused by all of this. It's weird how some people think. It seems like he thinks any movie with a female protagonist is feminist, any movie with bad guys as soldiers is anti-military, and any movie with a shady corporation is anti-business. It's the same thing that conservatives complain about with 'wokeness', just in reverse.

EDIT:

Okay, one more. His review on the Big Lebowski.



If you came away from the Big Lebowski thinking that drug abuse, laziness, and nihilism are good things, then I seriously suggest you seek help.
These days its fair to say all those films have a massive liberal bias. Just image what theyd have to be to tittilate today's "conservative" mindset.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,413
15,560
Colorado
✟428,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
...And what does Ridley Scott being an atheist have to do with anything? The films don't have anything much to say about religion until Prometheus, and even then, they make a point to say that god could still exist....
Re the Alien franchise, Conservapedia should be freaking out about HR Giger's horrorotica influence
 
Upvote 0

Nithavela

our world is happy and mundane
Apr 14, 2007
27,997
19,443
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟489,034.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Okay, this is getting off topic, but I've got to share this.

So I went over to Conservapedia because of this topic, and this was an article I stumbled on, right away.

Essay:Worst Liberal Movies - Conservapedia

A lot of the reviews are just on movies I've never seen so I have no opinion on, but his takes on some classics are just...precious.



First off, calling the movies pro-feminist is just...is any movie that has a female protagonist 'pro-feminist'? That seems like a big net to cast. Especially since the first movie barely has her survive. She doesn't get out because she's more competent than the other crew members, it's mostly because she just so happens to not be where the creature is for most of the film. In the second, she's not shown to be more competent than the soldiers, just more used to the aliens, and once the remaining soldiers hunker down, they spend their time protecting her and Newt. All the other women besides Vasquez die. And the idea that a movie shouldn't get good reviews because it's similar to another movie is just...so many movies take elements from other movies, that's such a silly thing to bring up. That seems to be a common complaint throughout his essay - he seems to think that a movie being 'similar' to another movie is a legit reason to mark against it.

And what does Ridley Scott being an atheist have to do with anything? The films don't have anything much to say about religion until Prometheus, and even then, they make a point to say that god could still exist.

Okay, on Robocop...


'Depict all police forces and corporations as evil'. The hero of the movie is a good cop, his partner is a good cop, he works with a bunch of other good cops. If anything, the movie glorifies cops - they're outmanned and outgunned, but they keep on fighting to keep Detroit on an even keel. An depicting one corporation as evil isn't the same thing as saying all corporations are evil.

He also doesn't seem to understand that the protagonist of a film isn't the same thing as the 'hero'. That, just because a character is the focus of the film, that doesn't mean the film is saying what this person is doing is right or should be emulated.

Anyway, I'll stop, I was just super amused by all of this. It's weird how some people think. It seems like he thinks any movie with a female protagonist is feminist, any movie with bad guys as soldiers is anti-military, and any movie with a shady corporation is anti-business. It's the same thing that conservatives complain about with 'wokeness', just in reverse.

EDIT:

Okay, one more. His review on the Big Lebowski.



If you came away from the Big Lebowski thinking that drug abuse, laziness, and nihilism are good things, then I seriously suggest you seek help.
Anyone else just getting the american shorthair page when they click random, no matter how often they click?
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,793
✟229,457.00
Faith
Seeker
Okay, okay...I know I need to stop, but WOW. I checked this guys list for 'Great Conservative Films' and, man...it's priceless. It's amazing some of the mental gymnastics he jumps through to make films like Fight Club and Gladiator great conservative classics. I honestly don't even think he watched some of the movies on the list - this is how he describes 'the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly'.
Hollywood conservative Clint Eastwood plays an unnamed sheriff in a campaign for peace and justice in the American Old West.

He must be confusing the Good, the Bad and the Ugly with something else because that is so NOT what that movie is about. I don't know what movie he watched, but...I think he's confusing it with Hang 'Em High.

EDIT: PAUL BLART MALL COP. PAUL BLART MALL COP IS A GREAT CONSERVATIVE MOVIE.

Oh, man, this is a goldmine.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums