Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
That was a rather longwinded explanation for the fact that you consider most of us as not being of your superior intellect!
How glad that I am he is on my "ignore" list so I am (unlike yourself) blissfully unaware of his way of thinking
Your response ignores three facts.
1. While this may be a conversation between two persons, e.g. relatively private, on social media, many questions asked by a person, are probably ones that might or should have been asked by others following the discussion
2. For every person who feels a long winded response is patronizing, there are others for which the short versión would simply be confusing.
3. Many of my posts, are simply providing text for some writing projects in which I am involved, so these, or parts thereof are saved, catalogued, and filed for my furure reference. In fact cross referenced with responses to them for future study. In the case of your point, no cross reference is relevant since there is not much one can do with your unspecific complaint.
For every person who feels a long winded response is patronizing, there are others for which the short versión would simply be confusing.
Some people will grumble about anything.
Behind the specific grumble, is usually a passive-aggressive statement regarding their own personal issues and frustrations.
On a broader scale, one might study the personal issues of those who vote for Trump or Brexit, often just unhappy people looking for some place to get reléase from personal problems and frustrations. In the Brexit situation the problems of the U.K. are real, but I fail to see any solutions for them comming out of leaving the E.U.
RGoss99 said: Behind the specific grumble, is usually a passive-aggressive statement regarding their own personal issues and frustrations.
That's comforting - nobody could accuse me of that.
RGoss99 said: In the Brexit situation the problems of the U.K. are real, but I fail to see any solutions for them comming out of leaving the E.U.
Boris Johnson just threw out the one point in its favour - that we would be able to stop mass-migration. He knows the economy is going to be dependent on trampling the native working class by bringing in people who are hungrier and fitter and of course younger.
And now - after 2 years of potential Constitutional breakdown we're nibbling at the edges of a real crises.
Boris Johnson is almost bound to lose the vote of no confidence that Corbyn will call for next month (ie Sept 2019), forcing him to either create a new government (no chance) or call a General Election.
However, the election he calls will come on 1st November, the day after Brexit. And by then, he might win.
Can Brexit be stopped? It will be messy.
Your example shows the voter diconnect. Yes, pandering to his supporters who dislike mass migration, but what they object to would was not caused by Brexit, and would probably increase with Brexit, because it would limit European immigration, the problem is that the migrants to which the voters object are from Asia and africa, which would probabñu omcrease to fill the jobs otherwise filled by Europeans. However to the estabñosj,emt brexiters this would be plus because African and Asian workers could work for less pay, whereas the displaced Europeans under the E.U. can not be discriminated against in this way.
I could, with a totally clear conscience, give you a G=G+1 for that!
Because, even though you've agreed with me, it says nothing to the real issues around Brexit that I believe I've raised (and surely, I would know).
This, on a topic that you unnecessarily inserted!
Lets pretend, that you were not acting passive-aggressive, and actually gave me a G=G+1 for my post. I would not take it as an is an insult because nothing in the following seems to be insulting, just a statement of disagreement.
As an opportunity to defend my applying “G” here is why this post to you rates as a “G”, in that you have ignored my point, as stated. You started in post 928.27 with “Johnson – one point in his favour – able to stop mass-migration.
You refer to the absolute, e.g. false, assumption regarding “real” reason for Brexit. This is false. Yes, we agree that mass migration is an issue in the Brexit vote. But if one polls voters as to an example of what is bad about mass migration, there reference is not mass E.U. migration but the mass migration from former British colonies, and other non E.U. countries. E.g. as I stated, this is a dishonest point in his favour because nothing in Brexit deals with the mass migration of which the probrixit voters objected to.
If Boris wins a 1 November election, Britain and the Brexit supporters will still lose, because their motivation for such a vote is based on false propaganda, not historic or economic facts.
I am not off topic, because your post pointing to immigration, introduced by you (not inserted by me, unnecessarily or otherwise), is that to which I was referring.
In addition, you also deserve a “G” because in using the word, “real” passive-aggressive absolute, you don´t define any real issues, leaving me just with a misunderstanding of what is a “real” problem of mass migration, not dealt with under Brexit.