Is this statement grammatically correct, Veeky Forums?

Is this statement grammatically correct, Veeky Forums?

No.

Can you please rectify?

Will someone rectify please?

No. The people it will appeal to won't notice, though; they'll think it's fancy because it doesn't have emojis.

The 2016 U.S. election is an example of how an American inside joke....

But still mate would appreciate if you do.

Why can't proof be a right context?

How about you don't play the signalling game for once, so that you'll be able to look at your past self without cringing later on

I understand what you're trying to say but it doesn't make any sense the way you put it and grammar is not the only issue here (apart from the obvious mistake in the beginning that one of my esteemed colleagues has already pointed out).

>Is this statement grammatically correct, Veeky Forums?
No.

"The 2016 US election is proof of how an American inside joke convinced millions of people into believing that even a massive hypocrute can run for the position of, and become, the leader of the most powerful nation in the world."

This is the best I can do with that mess of a sentence.

Thou shalt be rectified.

"The 2016 US Election is proof of how an American inside joke convinced millions of people into believing that even a massive hypocrite may run, and become the leader of the most powerful nation in the world."

Protip: Use "may" in place of "can" for more formal speech.

It should be spelled "asshurt liberal scum"

>use may in place of can for more formal speech

holy fucking shit the difference between may and can is not merely a degree of formality they are two different modals they mean different things you fucking mouth breathing mongoloid

Using 'may' rather than 'can' makes it sound like he's lacking permission or something rather than the fact that he was able to do it.

The 'can' version is better.

You know what? Now that you guys mention it, it does sound like he's lacking permission. You're right.

I apologize.

This needs more work than grammar. The entire sentence is nonsensical.

>Is the proof on how an american inside joke convinced millions of people into believing
How is the election proof of what happened in the election? This is a strange statement.
Why is this inside joke an american inside joke? As far as I can tell, the jokes and memes about trump were international and not universal amongst Americans. Ergo you would be better saying who exactly this was an inside joke amongst.

I'll have a shot at rephrasing it, but you can do whatever you want at the end of the day:

(assuming you're writing this for an centrist audience; guardian reading types maybe)
"The events of the 2016 US election have shown that an inside joke amongst internet trolls can convince millions of people to allow a massive hypocrite and [add a few more insults here, like woman-hater or whatever, just judge it by your audience] to become leader of the world's most powerful nation.

> The 2016 US election is proof of how an American inside joke convinced millions of people to believe that even a massive hypocrite can run and become leader of the most powerful nation in the world.

American inside joke = Trump.
Tthat is what I meant.

This seems perfect. Thanks mate, God bless and namaste.

But "inside joke" does not make sense in this context.
It isn't clear what the joke is nor who is in on it nor why.
It seems like you just used what you perceived to be a fancy way of calling Trump a joke without really understanding the connotations of the phrase.

He was and still is an American inside joke, mate.

You don't watch the Simpsons?

ah, forget it, you're fuckin retarded

Watch yer words, bub.