3 ms·
Kindly explain how, misguided as they might have been, proceeding through the legal system is somehow more pernicious to democracy than paying lip service to ri
by Philorandroid 3y ago
Kindly explain how, misguided as they might have been, proceeding through the legal system is somehow more pernicious to democracy than paying lip service to riots and participating in a campaign where the outcome of an election is flat-out denied and retroactively justified by "foreign interference"?
- xracy 3y ago> Kindly explain how, misguided as they might have been, proceeding through the legal system is somehow more pernicious to democracy than paying lip service to riots and participating in a campaign where the outcome of an election is flat-out denied and retroactively justified by "foreign interference"? I think you're using too many SAT words, and not enough sentence structuring. I believe the responder is saying "the 2016 election was less 'pernicious' to democracy than the 2020 election." But to be honest, it's impossible for me to tell which election you think had which results from this sentence. EDIT: Please note that working within the constraints of the system will always be less pernicious to the system than working outside of the constraints of the system.
- Philorandroid 3y agoMy sentence structure is fine, as is my word choice. The parent to my original comment talked about how evil it was to question the integrity of an election, and I snidely brought up how it wasn't considered a problem until Trump did it. mrguyorama's response was to suggest that Trump sympathizers filing legal cases on questionable or nonexistence evidence justified the decidedly anti-democratic response to his election. So, I facetiously asked how they think democratic measures justify the anti-democratic action they claim to abhor.