# Cohen's warning **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 1, 2019, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364 "2019-03-01T03:23:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/81 "2019-03-05T16:42:12Z")
There are still some archaics who have not yet accepted that _they_, _their_, and \*them \*are now singular for genderless use, being less awkward than _him or her_ and the like. That insistence is despite \*you \*and _your_, previously plural only, having taken over from _thee_, _thou_, and \*thine \*in the second person. Said poster probably also still uses _whom_. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/82 "2019-03-05T16:48:34Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Said poster probably also still uses _whom_. Whom would that be? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/83 "2019-03-05T16:52:52Z")
What’s supposed to be wrong with “_whom_?” Also what’s supposed to be wrong with insisting that 1) number agreement is still a preferred convention in writing that’s worth reading, and 2) words that are inherently plurals exist? Further, “him or her” (and its variations) may be awkward to certain ears, but they will never be as awkward as the abandonment of the convention of number agreement. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/84 "2019-03-05T17:00:41Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > …Said poster probably also still uses _whom_. Only when the objective case is called for. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/85 "2019-03-05T17:14:46Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > What’s supposed to be wrong with “_whom_?” It’s not wrong, yet, but it’s quaint. > [@](#): > > Also what’s supposed to be wrong with insisting that 1) number agreement is still a preferred convention in writing that’s worth reading, and 2) words that are inherently plurals exist? It’s wrong to a descriptivist. Prescriptivism like yours is, well, it’s quaint, too. > [@](#): > > Further, “him or her” (and its variations) may be awkward to certain ears, but they will never be as awkward as the abandonment of the convention of number agreement. That ship sailed a couple of centuries ago - unless you say \*thee \*and _thou_, and I don’t think thou dost. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/86 "2019-03-05T17:27:10Z")
I didn’t take my English grammar classes until the 1960s, so that is the era that controls what’s the convention. When I run into someone who learned his or her grammar conventions when “thee” and “thou” prevailed, I will show him or her the appropriate degree of deference. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/87 "2019-03-05T18:05:23Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > The sentence appears in the article as In this part"their" should be “his” or “her” or both, since the antecedent is the singular “any.” I know these days we use _their_ (plural) because nobody wants to use the technically correct singular _his_, but I’m not lettin’ Stone get away with anything. Oh. You’re wrong. > [@Merriam-Webster](#): > > The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (such as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best. > **[Definition of THEIR](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/their)** > > of or relating to them or themselves especially as possessors, agents, or objects of an action; his or her : his, her, its —used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent… See the full definition ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/88 "2019-03-05T18:19:31Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I didn’t take my English grammar classes until the 1960s, so that is the era that controls what’s the convention. When I run into someone who learned his or her grammar conventions when “thee” and “thou” prevailed, I will show him or her the appropriate degree of deference. How about deference to those who took English classes just this year? 😉 Defining correctness in reference to \*yourself \*is just sophistry. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/89 "2019-03-05T22:51:12Z")
Surely there is one thing on which we can all agree: no one wants to take Roger Stone as his or her style guide. And as for the post that began the brouhaha: it’s worth noting that Robert Reich is no Chicken Little. He’s a rather sober academic. Also worth remembering: all those military and intelligence officials and former officials who have signed letters stating that Trump is unfit. Those people are likely to be worried about a peaceful transition, too. > [@ThelmaLou](#): > > [Robert Reich](https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBUnrRI?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare) on the topic _what if thump refuses to leave office_: > > > [@](#): > > > > … Trump’s emissaries have already seeded the battlefield. Last April, Sean Hannity of Fox News predicted that an attempt to impeach Trump (or presumably remove him from office any other way) would cause “fighting and dividing this country at a level we’ve never seen … those that stand for truth and those that literally buy into the corrupt deep state attacks against a duly elected president.” > > > > Trump’s former consiglieri, Roger Stone, has warned of “an insurrection like you’ve never seen” and claimed that any politician who voted to oust Trump “would be endangering their own life.” … > > “Would be endangering their [sic] own life”?? WTF?? That certainly sounds like a threat. Perhaps it will be mentioned in Stone’s sentencing (though with so much material to cover, it might get lost in the multitude of horribles). ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/90 "2019-03-06T17:28:08Z")
Okay, it seems that when we’re talking about not having a “peaceful transition of power,” folks here are talking about two things that I think are very different: 1. Trump and his voters kicking up a fuss, causing unrest and possibly violence, either locally or nationally. 2. Trump somehow actually holding onto actual power in the government after he is defeated in reelection or his term expires. Which one are we actually discussing here? Because I find one a lot more likely than the other, ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/91 "2019-03-06T17:34:31Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Okay, it seems that when we’re talking about not having a “peaceful transition of power,” folks here are talking about two things that I think are very different: > > 1. Trump and his voters kicking up a fuss, causing unrest and possibly violence, either locally or nationally. > 2. Trump somehow actually holding onto actual power in the government after he is defeated in reelection or his term expires. > > Which one are we actually discussing here? Because I find one a lot more likely than the other, 2# is impossible. Not only will Secret Service just drag Trump out of the White House, but the military, government, and all structure of power will simply ignore Trump once the clock hits noon on Inauguration Day and take orders from the new POTUS. All of Trump’s “orders” will land on deaf ears at that point; he won’t be paid any more heed by the people with power than any commoner citizen. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/92 "2019-03-06T17:40:47Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > 2# is impossible. Not only will Secret Service just drag Trump out of the White House… Please, please, if that happens PLEASE get video. ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/93 "2019-03-06T17:45:25Z")
Exactly. The crux of the question is the period between Election Day and New Year’s Day. If there are concerns about the election that are insufficient to cause a Supreme Court case, then it will be sorted relatively quickly. If there is a big enough concern, a la Bush v. Gore, then whatever the Supremes say goes, and outcome will be well defined by Inauguration Day. The transfer of power on election day is not the real issue. The real issue is dirty tricks prior to and after Election Day, especially if the election hangs in the balance, with 'hanging chads ’ and other irregularities. That may open up the window for things like the so-called ‘Brooks Brothers Riot’. With any luck by then Roger Stone will be wearing a orange jumpsuit - fabulously. ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/94 "2019-03-06T21:38:10Z")
Trump just proved Cohen right , says he can’t be beaten in 2020 in a fair election [https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/06/politics/donald-trump-2020-election-illegitimate/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/06/politics/donald-trump-2020-election-illegitimate/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/95 "2019-03-06T22:31:20Z")
Oh boy I’m sure he’s embarrased to have misspoken like that! Everyone knows that Trump can’t WIN a fair election. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/96 "2019-03-06T22:33:54Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I didn’t take my English grammar classes until the 1960s, so that is the era that controls what’s the convention. When I run into someone who learned his or her grammar conventions when “thee” and “thou” prevailed, I will show him or her the appropriate degree of deference. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > How about deference to those who took English classes just this year? 😉 I think “none” is the appropriate degree of deference to whippersnappers. > [@](#): > > Defining correctness in reference to \*yourself \*is just sophistry. I prefer to think of it as “solipsism.” 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Dacien](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dacien/32/5663_2.png) [@Dacien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dacien)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/97 "2019-03-07T04:39:31Z")
With all due respect, a lot of people seem to have really gone out to sea with their demonization of Trump, and what he’s capable of. He’s… not good in many ways, obviously, but at first glance, reading people talking about some kind of Trumpian loyalist-driven dictatorship, I think some people have bought a little too much into their own imagination. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/98 "2019-03-07T14:25:04Z")
> [@Dacien](#): > > With all due respect, a lot of people seem to have really gone out to sea with their demonization of Trump, and what he’s capable of. He’s… not good in many ways, obviously, but at first glance, reading people talking about some kind of Trumpian loyalist-driven dictatorship, I think some people have bought a little too much into their own imagination. Well, there’s “too much imagination” as over against “being intentionally blind to the evidence of your own eyes and ears.” I’ll remind you of this post in a year or so. _\_ ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/99 "2019-03-07T14:59:41Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > Trump just proved Cohen right , says he can’t be beaten in 2020 in a fair election > [https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/06/politics/donald-trump-2020-election-illegitimate/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/06/politics/donald-trump-2020-election-illegitimate/index.html) Cohen said in his testimony that Trump will declare the system rigged , and therefore “there will never be a peaceful transition of power”. This sounds scary, because it implies that if the transition is not peaceful, it will be violent. But the transition doesn’t depend on one man’s whim. There’s a legal system in place, and whole lot of people in uniform (blue, green and black) who keep it working. By black, I mean the black suits of the Secret Service–thousands of them. Blue and green are, of course, cops and soldiers–millions of them. All of whom are your friends and neighbors, who sat next to you in high school. They aren’t going to somehow impose a Trumpian dictatorship on us. I would not be surprised to see Trump stay in bed at the White House till after 12 noon on inauguration day, and then head out to the rose garden to give a press talk. Except that there wont be any press to meet him there, because to enter the White House, the journalists stop at the door and have to present their ID cards to the guards at the door. And those guards get their orders after 12:00 noon from the new president. Trump wont even be able to tell the White House chef to a make a cheeseburger. It could be ugly. But there won’t be a revolution. There may be a few riots, but no more than the Occupy Wall Street/Antifa type stuff we’ve seen before. Nothing as bad as,say, the students of the 1960’s. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364/100 "2019-03-07T15:26:29Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > Cohen said in his testimony that Trump will declare the system rigged , and therefore “there will never be a peaceful transition of power”. > This sounds scary, because it implies that if the transition is not peaceful, it will be violent. > > But the transition doesn’t depend on one man’s whim. There’s a legal system in place, and whole lot of people in uniform (blue, green and black) who keep it working. > > By black, I mean the black suits of the Secret Service–thousands of them. > Blue and green are, of course, cops and soldiers–millions of them. > All of whom are your friends and neighbors, who sat next to you in high school. They aren’t going to somehow impose a Trumpian dictatorship on us. > > I would not be surprised to see Trump stay in bed at the White House till after 12 noon on inauguration day, and then head out to the rose garden to give a press talk. > Except that there wont be any press to meet him there, because to enter the White House, the journalists stop at the door and have to present their ID cards to the guards at the door. And those guards get their orders after 12:00 noon from the new president. > > Trump wont even be able to tell the White House chef to a make a cheeseburger. > > It could be ugly. > But there won’t be a revolution. > > There may be a few riots, but no more than the Occupy Wall Street/Antifa type stuff we’ve seen before. Nothing as bad as,say, the students of the 1960’s. And how many firearms did those '60 student have? Sure, they could at least make bombs that would actually go off, but not a lot of firepower otherwise. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cohens-warning/830364.md?page=6)