If Trump were assassinated, who would you nominate for President?

Except that he died in 1963. That makes him about as useful as that guy Jesus that some folks are always talking about.

I'm gonna point and laugh when u go to he!!  

Since there's no such place, you'll be waiting an infinitely long time for that. And even if hell does exist, I would be dead and not care anyway.

Now THERE'S a contradiction:

There's no such thing as he!!, but even if there is.

Lmfao

I find it amusing that YOU are so confident that you know what happens when someone dies. Have you died in your past and then come back to life?  

Your "confidence" is a symptom of your own delusional. 

OK, then what is the basis of your confidence? I'm as confident as you are, and as I said, even if hell exists, I will be dead anyway, so I won't know the difference.

Might want to finish one of the gospels---Turns out He rose from the dead.

Only if you're Christian and buy into the theology. Judaism holds a very different view. The Gospels are not part of our scriptures.

Since there would be no special election, you wouldn't have that choice to make.

In the English language, "were" is entirely correct in subjunctive usage, even for a singular referent. In fact, it is preferred to "was," since it more clearly expresses a hypothetical scenario. Furthermore, "who" has, through the centuries, become grammatically acceptable where otherwise "whom" would have been more formally appropriate, save when preceded by a preposition. I.e. "who should I talk to" is fine by modern standards, although with a different word order it ought to be "to whom should I talk."

As long as the information you find on the internet suits your presuppositions, right?

Were, as a remnant of the past subjunctive in English, is used in formal contexts in clauses expressing hypotheses ( if he were to die, she would inherit everything), suppositions contrary to fact ( if I were you, I would be careful), and desire ( I wish he were there now). In informal speech, however, was is often used instead.

Just a comment---when certain formats (who vs whom) lose their distinction as to "proper" vs "acceptable" uses, we lose the precision of our verbal instruments that we use to shape communication.

This post was edited by tom jackson at November 27, 2017 4:43 PM MST

Agreed, although we are then not arguing grammar so much as semantics and its broader implications. I can't think of an example, however, where the equivalation of "who" and "whom" gives rise to misinterpretation and/or undermines a specific meaning.

There are many people who would concur, yet more who would not even deem this an issue or want to do anything about it. That has always been a fact of evolutions in any language: even when an entirely logical and pragmatic argument can be made to the contrary, there's just no (ethically) stopping such changes. This post was edited by Danilo_G at November 27, 2017 12:15 PM MST

We're almost arguing philosophy---in that I find the few constructions that we are addressing here to be true pet peeves of mine to the extent that I find the accepted usage "philosophically abhorrent" to me.   lol

In classical physics, we would express this as "the entropy of the semantic universe is always increasing."

And one of my favorite statements by William F Buckley, Jr. still is "How do we know when we are entering a dark age?"

Hehe, what happens when we reach full semantic entropy?

That is a memorable quote--as to me is anything, really, that expresses how only intelligence can perceive ignorance, which is arguably the defining irony of humankind. I would suggest that we continue in a dark age as long as there are people without proper access to food and potable water, but don't mean to get sidetracked any further.

We may know the answer to that much sooner than we expect...

"Only intelligence can perceive ignorance, which is arguably the defining irony of humankind."  A phrase couched in such "deathless prose" as to also be memorable.

Nice