Excellent post @itzgr82balive @JoeGambler never lets the...

Excellent post @itzgr82balive

@JoeGambler never lets the magnitude of facts get in the way of his incessant narrative. Everything you've posed would be considered beyond reasonable by a straight thinking human and yet the insidious spin continues for 3+ years. Something definitely to see here!

Lets take a look at why VISA might do what they have done with respect to ISX

• Keeping in mind anyone can write a justification per their "risk review", the real test is attempting to flush that claim through the legal / regulatory system (one that isn't complicit and who's needs are being served). Lawyers can not make false claims without the risk of being penalized, including being debarred. That's is precisely the reason they didn't formally take action in USA and EU.

• They have a history of monopolistic anti competitive behavior. The first example below is from the USA Department of Justice and clearly states "would have enabled Visa to eliminate this competitive threat to its online debit business". Some might ask why Visa didn't simply try and buy ISX - simple, wrong market, wrong size and timing, no need to when the MO has don't the dirty work for them and now they simply need to affirm with a 'made up risk review', that hasn't been justified by other regulatory action or other regulators / partners.

• The second example of their anti competitive behavior is https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/debit-card-antitrust-case-against-visa-revived-with-new-judge-2022-04-05/, where "The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in New Orleans ruled unanimously 3-0 for plaintiff Pulse Network LLC, a subsidiary of Discover Financial Services, which sued Visa in 2014 over claims it was using its dominance to reduce competition in the market for debit card services."

1. So lets ask ourselves, do they have motive- Absolutely!
2. Is there evidence they've acted in a way that confirms this motive - Absolutely!
3. Is there peripheral evidence to support their actions - Absolutely! (false flag Risk Review and no legally compelled follow through).

What you have posed itsgr8, is multi-dimensional and substantial argument. What is below, is their typical big company 'actions' to protect their competitive patch, which is linked to executives significant bonus structure. Motive = greed!

The counter argument by Joe and the tag team, is single dimensional, innuendo and slur. Not unlike the SOR which is an incoherent spitballing babble-fest!