Not
Not

Not

Letter
Letter

Letter

automatically
 automatically

automatically

attempts
 attempts

attempts

ifs
ifs

ifs

usually
usually

usually

oed
oed

oed

their
their

their

happiest
happiest

happiest

burned
burned

burned

🔥 | Latest

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...

Bill Clinton, Dude, and Fbi: Did Bill Clinton Fire His FBI Director One Day Before Vince Foster Died? Rating Mixture About this rating What's True President Clinton fired FBI Director William Sessions on 19 July 1993, one day before Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, a longtime associate of the Clintons, was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. What's False There is nothing inherently suspicious about the coincidental timing of Sessions's firing and Vince Foster's death (which was determined to be a suicide) sapphleaf: libertarirynn: sapphleaf: mccarthyites: eltigrechico: Gotta love Snopes! And here I was, an idiot, thinking this post was overly exaggerated for comedic effect Except what Snopes is actually saying is that, while the explicit claim that the death occurred the day after the firing, what’s false is the implied argument—and often explicitly asserted as well—that the two events have any relation.post hoc ergo propter hoc Except it still isn’t a “mixture” because the statement “Bill Clinton fired his FBI director the day before Vince Foster died“ is irrefutably correct. Yeah but it’s still right to point out that implied connection is not based in fact or logic.Yes, the statement at face value is literal truth, but critical thinking means evaluating the truth and validity of the actual argument. Dude are you being serious right now? As a fact checking site it’s not their job to evaluate what “implied connections“ they need to “correct“. The idea is state what’s true and what’s not. Stating that Bill Clinton fired his FBI director before Vince Foster died is not a “mixture“ of truth and falsehood. Period.
Bill Clinton, Dude, and Fbi: Did Bill Clinton Fire His FBI
 Director One Day Before Vince
 Foster Died?

 Rating
 Mixture
 About this rating
 What's True
 President Clinton fired FBI Director William Sessions on 19 July 1993, one day before Deputy White
 House Counsel Vince Foster, a longtime associate of the Clintons, was found dead of a self-inflicted
 gunshot wound.
 What's False
 There is nothing inherently suspicious about the coincidental timing of Sessions's firing and Vince
 Foster's death (which was determined to be a suicide)
sapphleaf:

libertarirynn:

sapphleaf:

mccarthyites:

eltigrechico:
Gotta love Snopes!
And here I was, an idiot, thinking this post was overly exaggerated for comedic effect


Except what Snopes is actually saying is that, while the explicit claim that the death occurred the day after the firing, what’s false is the implied argument—and often explicitly asserted as well—that the two events have any relation.post hoc ergo propter hoc

Except it still isn’t a “mixture” because the statement “Bill Clinton fired his FBI director the day before Vince Foster died“ is irrefutably correct.

Yeah but it’s still right to point out that implied connection is not based in fact or logic.Yes, the statement at face value is literal truth, but critical thinking means evaluating the truth and validity of the actual argument.

Dude are you being serious right now? As a fact checking site it’s not their job to evaluate what “implied connections“ they need to “correct“. The idea is state what’s true and what’s not. Stating that Bill Clinton fired his FBI director before Vince Foster died is not a “mixture“ of truth and falsehood. Period.

sapphleaf: libertarirynn: sapphleaf: mccarthyites: eltigrechico: Gotta love Snopes! And here I was, an idiot, thinking this post was ove...

Crime, Dude, and Friends: evitrorn best moments in gaming journalism journalist gets real yakuza members to play yakuza 3 and asks for their opinions on its authenticity that's it evitron highlights What's with all the fucking gaijin in this area?" "Dude, don't say that, use gaikokujin, it's nicer." "Oh, shit, right. What's with all the fucking gaikokujin in this area?" ."The breaded pork cutlet bento box is like mega all of them start dragging kiryu for his shitty cheap ."Shooting people sends a message." "So does (after being told that massage parlors, mahjong, power. More than ramen. That's accurate." shirt for five minutes shooting anything." and hostess clubs were cut from the US version) "I feel sorry for the people who bought the American version. SEGA USA sucks." tramampoline S: I don't know any ex-vakuza runnin orphanages. K: There was one a few years ago. A good guy M: You sure it wasn't just a tax shelter? K: Sure it was a tax shelter but he ran it like a legitimate thing. You know michigrim HOW COULD YOU FORGET THE BACKSTORY THOUGH Several months ago, I introduced you to Jake Adelstein, the fearless to a fault Jerwish American reporter who spent 12 years as a crime beat reporter in In Tokyo Vice, we meet Adelstein's archnemesis, a former yakuza boss named Tadamasa Goto, we also learn Adelstein he bas a hodge podge of allies in the pervasive Japanese underworld. Turns out he's good enough friends was able to convince them to conduct an experiment for Boing Boing to evaluate Yakuza 3, a popular video game about the infamous gangsters created for ordinary citizens. And so it was that Adelstein showedup at a shady real estate office in Tokyo one Thursday afiernoon with a pack of cigarettes and a bottle of Duty Free whiskey to teach these gangsters how to handle a PlayStation controller -Lisa Japan and wrote about it in bis book 1 e. with a few high-ranking gangster bosses that he JAKE ADELSTEIN COVERS THE YAKUZA BEAT AS A FREELANCE JOURNALIST AND JUST HAPPENS TO KNOW THESE DUDES Fuente: evitron 145,867 notas I cant think of a witty title so Im going to take this chance to ask how to clear the notifications and have it stick.
Crime, Dude, and Friends: evitrorn
 best moments in gaming journalism
 journalist gets real yakuza members to play yakuza
 3 and asks for their opinions on its authenticity
 that's it
 evitron
 highlights
 What's with all the fucking gaijin in this area?"
 "Dude, don't say that, use gaikokujin, it's nicer." "Oh,
 shit, right. What's with all the fucking gaikokujin in
 this area?"
 ."The breaded pork cutlet bento box is like mega
 all of them start dragging kiryu for his shitty cheap
 ."Shooting people sends a message." "So does
 (after being told that massage parlors, mahjong,
 power. More than ramen. That's accurate."
 shirt for five minutes
 shooting anything."
 and hostess clubs were cut from the US version) "I
 feel sorry for the people who bought the American
 version. SEGA USA sucks."
 tramampoline
 S: I don't know any
 ex-vakuza runnin
 orphanages.
 K: There was one a few years ago. A good guy
 M: You sure it wasn't just a tax shelter?
 K: Sure it was a tax shelter but he ran it like a legitimate
 thing. You know
 michigrim
 HOW COULD YOU FORGET THE BACKSTORY THOUGH
 Several months ago, I introduced you to Jake Adelstein, the fearless
 to a fault Jerwish American reporter who spent 12 years as a crime
 beat reporter in
 In Tokyo Vice, we meet Adelstein's archnemesis, a former yakuza
 boss named Tadamasa Goto, we also learn Adelstein he bas a hodge
 podge of allies in the pervasive Japanese underworld. Turns out he's
 good enough friends
 was able to convince them to conduct an experiment for Boing
 Boing to evaluate Yakuza 3, a popular video game about the
 infamous gangsters created for ordinary citizens. And so it was that
 Adelstein showedup at a shady real estate office in Tokyo one
 Thursday afiernoon with a pack of cigarettes and a bottle of Duty
 Free whiskey to teach these gangsters how to handle a PlayStation
 controller -Lisa
 Japan and wrote about it in bis book 1
 e.
 with a few high-ranking gangster bosses that he
 JAKE ADELSTEIN COVERS THE YAKUZA BEAT AS A
 FREELANCE JOURNALIST AND JUST HAPPENS TO
 KNOW THESE DUDES
 Fuente: evitron
 145,867 notas
I cant think of a witty title so Im going to take this chance to ask how to clear the notifications and have it stick.

I cant think of a witty title so Im going to take this chance to ask how to clear the notifications and have it stick.

Job Interview, Life, and Memes: MILLIONAIRE MENTOR THANKFUL FOR ALL THE "NO'S The word rejection is not a pleasant one in any way, shape, or form. No matter who you are, what you are trying to accomplish or how successful you are, we all face rejection. But you know what? You should look back and be thankful for those rejections! And here are a few reasons why: ✔️There will always be something better. Whether it is a better relationship, a better business opportunity, or a better coffee order when your barista tells you they are out of your favorite, go-to daily brew. You are forced into opportunity when you are rejected on your initial idea. ✔️Pushes you to think outside the box. It is rejection that helps us re-evaluate and think outside the box we thought we had our perfectly planned life plan in. ✔️You learn. These situations allow you see what you may have done wrong, or could improve on. Maybe you bombed a job interview where you felt the need to talk about how you were fired from your previous job for punching a hole through the wall during a heated conversation. It’s rejection that helps us see opportunities that we can improve on. ✔️Makes you stronger! Rejection sucks, but you should be thankful for the opportunities, resilience, and lessons it nicely laid in your lap. You can overcome anything and rejection is one of the easiest things on the list. - rejections no fuckno success millionairementor
Job Interview, Life, and Memes: MILLIONAIRE MENTOR
 THANKFUL FOR ALL
 THE "NO'S
The word rejection is not a pleasant one in any way, shape, or form. No matter who you are, what you are trying to accomplish or how successful you are, we all face rejection. But you know what? You should look back and be thankful for those rejections! And here are a few reasons why: ✔️There will always be something better. Whether it is a better relationship, a better business opportunity, or a better coffee order when your barista tells you they are out of your favorite, go-to daily brew. You are forced into opportunity when you are rejected on your initial idea. ✔️Pushes you to think outside the box. It is rejection that helps us re-evaluate and think outside the box we thought we had our perfectly planned life plan in. ✔️You learn. These situations allow you see what you may have done wrong, or could improve on. Maybe you bombed a job interview where you felt the need to talk about how you were fired from your previous job for punching a hole through the wall during a heated conversation. It’s rejection that helps us see opportunities that we can improve on. ✔️Makes you stronger! Rejection sucks, but you should be thankful for the opportunities, resilience, and lessons it nicely laid in your lap. You can overcome anything and rejection is one of the easiest things on the list. - rejections no fuckno success millionairementor

The word rejection is not a pleasant one in any way, shape, or form. No matter who you are, what you are trying to accomplish or how success...