Agreed. Although I personally like the word "whom" and I try to use it where appropriate, it is not really necessary, and this may explain why its usage is waning.
Is the sentence "who would you nominate?" imprecise or ambiguous? English overwhelmingly marks grammatical function with word order over case forms. In a way, marking the relative in the objective case here is redundant. "Who would you nominate?" cannot be understood any other way than with "who" as object. And redundancy tends to disappear from languages over time.
Hey there, Nevan! When it comes to any linguistic matter I defer to your experience and judgment, so it's good to see you confirm (and elaborate on) it.
You dealt with who vs whom, but you didn't deal with the the use of the subjunctive mood of the verb.
And the death or resignation (etc.) of Trump would be a necessary condition for Pence to succeed Trump, it would not be sufficient---at the very least, Pence would have to be alive as well.
And if we had to go further---
In the case that the president can no longer serve, the vice president would serve as president. If the vice president cannot serve, the line of succession falls to the speaker of the House, then to the Senate president pro tempore, then to Cabinet members.
This post was edited by tom jackson at November 27, 2017 12:18 PM MST
My mother shut down my questions as a child with the phrase, "If you're so smart, you figure it out." By the time I figured out that her advise was not well intended---much less realistically possible for all my questions---I had already amassed a rather extensive knowledge of many things.
As one of my friends once said, "I love to have you at cocktail parties."
One side effect that I enjoy is that I do have a rich intellectual life.
Pence is alive, so that's not even an issue. And if there were no VP in place, then Paul Ryan would be next in the line of succession. And my main point holds, which is that the whole question is moot and meaningless because the line of succession obviates any possibility of a special nominating process. ProblemCh1ld is either ignorant of this or in some kind of denial.
Sedition: Incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government. Any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion. Rebellious disorder.
Sedition Act: An act in addition to the act intituled, "An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States." (Approved July 14, 1798.)
Section 2. Punishes seditious writings.
!. Definition of offense: To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of the United States, or to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the government, or to resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations.
2. Grade of offense: Misdemeanor.
3. Punishment: Fine not exceeding $2000, and imprisonment not exceeding two years.
Sharonna IDIOT WIND, perhaps you should begin to choose your words more wisely.
You must be joking if you think the thought police are gonna get me.
I think God Herself will wipe them out. They need wiping. That is all I'm gonna say OH CHRISTIAN WHO NEVER ADMIRED WHAT KILLED ANYTHING FOR HER RELIGION LIKE FREEDOM OF SPPECH.
"Thought" police? Your thoughts were translated to words for all to see which equals sedition.
"I think God Herself will wipe them out. They need wiping. That is all I'm gonna say OH CHRISTIAN WHO NEVER ADMIRED WHAT KILLED ANYTHING FOR HER RELIGION LIKE FREEDOM OF SPPECH."
What on earth does that even mean? By the way it's spelled "Speech" not SPPECH. First it was sedition now it's babble. The liberal left has struck again.
My posting wasn't meant as a threat but more of making someone aware of what could happen. People from all walks of life are investigated for such things. As a former police officer I know about investigations.
I would love Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on the same ticket.
They are too smart to ever run. Those are the only ones that really work. The ones that are too smart to consider the possibility of running.
Keith Olbermann, host of the GQ web series “The Resistance,” announced Monday that he is retiring from political commentary entirely. What did Olbermann say?
In a video titled, “Trump is Finished,” Olbermann revealed his retirement: “I am confident now, even more so than I have been throughout the last year, that this nightmare presidency of Donald John Trump will end prematurely and end soon, and I am thus also confident that this it the correct moment to end this series of commentaries.” Special: This Cyber Monday sale is every conservative's dream
Noting that he filmed 187 episodes of “The Resistance” for “free and for charity,” Olbermann, 58, admitted that he did not enjoy doing so.
“It has been pain, revulsion and horror,” he said. “I’d like to go back and enjoy some of my life again, and I’m going to. No illness, no scandal, no firing ― just, I’ve said what I had to say.”
“I am retiring from political commentary in all media venues,” he said near the end of his final episode.
GQ articles editor Geoffrey Gagnon on Monday tweeted, “After 187 episodes — and half a billion views — the indomitable @KeithOlbermann is signing off #TheResistanceGQ & retiring from political commentary. I couldn’t be more thankful for Keith’s talent, his intelligence, and his friendship.”
Danilo_G 