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.
Whom would that be? :dubious:
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.
Only when the objective case is called for.
It’s not wrong, yet, but it’s quaint.
It’s wrong to a descriptivist. Prescriptivism like yours is, well, it’s quaint, too.
That ship sailed a couple of centuries ago - unless you say *thee *and thou, and I don’t think thou dost.
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.
Oh. You’re wrong.
How about deference to those who took English classes just this year? 
Defining correctness in reference to *yourself *is just sophistry.
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.
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).
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:
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.
Please, please, if that happens PLEASE get video.
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.
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
Oh boy I’m sure he’s embarrased to have misspoken like that! Everyone knows that Trump can’t WIN a fair election.
I think “none” is the appropriate degree of deference to whippersnappers.
I prefer to think of it as “solipsism.” 
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. <Makes a note on calendar>
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.