"in order things to change"

He was the only president who/that/- people believed could change things.

Anonymous Does the word things sound vague?

Yes, but it is OK because you mean "anything". In formal writing you should say what things, though.

Hello. Would it also be correct if one wrote whom? "He was the only president whom people believed could change things."

NugsoHello. Would it also be correct if one wrote whom? "He was the only president whom people believed could change things."

That is a simple matter of strict grammar. You should be able to figure this one out easily if you have learned the basic English grammar surrounding case.

One good way to decide which case (who/whom) to use is to take the clau

AnonymousDoes the word things sound vague?

It is vague on purpose. Politicians never promise specifics because that will come back to haunt them in a future election if they cannot deliver.
If you listen to politicians, they all have slogans and speeches which sound good, but don't have much content.

Thank you enoon. Well what was bothering me was we sometimes add preposition e.g, to, before whom/who. " I want to give this reward to whom I like most. I want to give this reward who I like most." Anyway, I'm being off-topic and I'd better start a new thread for this.

Nugso Anyway, I'm being off-topic and I'd better start a new thread for this.

Right. Your examples are wrong, by the way, but yes, when there is a preposition just before, it's always "whom".