TPP is so good Paul Krugman said "there isn't a compelling case for this deal, from either a global or a national point of view."  And it's so good it was negotiated in secrecy. 

 Remember a big piece of legislation that was also developed in secrecy and we were told  "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"?

 "Handing China a big win" is pure bullshit.

Are you referring to the same Paul Krugman who wrote, right after the election:

"It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?

Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.

Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never."

And she said TRUMP wasn't fit to be near the nuclear codes?

http://yournewswire.com/drunk-hillary-voilence-bill-clinton-election-night/

What's with linking to web sites of dubious authenticity? I mean, I realize traditional news media have lost a bit of credibility, but I'm not sure how that makes these stories that contain zero verifiable facts more than an amusing waste of time? I thought that was the point of Pilot Spin!? Don't make me cut out the middle-man (this site) and go straight to the dubious news sites - they at least have plenty of ads showing cleavage to make the trip kind of worth while.

Ford pardoned Nixon.

"Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4696

Thanks for posting that. I may pick that book up.

It was a tough decision to part with the $7.99 for the dubious utility of finding out what Trump was claiming his positions were 16 years ago. I was curious about his ghost author and found some additional insights from him here:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/another-time-another-trump-1450742675

He does have a policy book written for the 2016 election, but I have yet to buy that.

I submit that that is possible that the popular vote count won't be complete.  It is my understanding that at least some locations won't expend the unnecessary effort counting provisional votes and absentee votes if the number of those votes couldn't possibly effect the results for that particular location.  (If there are N provisional votes and absentee votes but the margin of victory is larger than N, then there is no value in tabulating the results for those provisional and absentee ballots.)

Thus, any discussion of popular vote is irrelevant unless there is a large difference.  And even then, it would just highlight that there is no overwhelming mandate for President-elect Trump to hand his hat on.

This claim is false so far a I know since not counting every ballot would violate state laws. I've seen it made elsewhere but no one has been specific about where this might be taking place. See for example:

https://www.fvap.gov/vao/vag/appendix/faq
http://help.vote.org/article/8-are-absentee-ballots-counted

Pragmatically, since it is rare for local ballots to have only a single contest on them (such as the presidential contest,) the existence of other contests tends to compel counting the votes on every ballot cast.

It will likely be another month before final counts are made official for many states.

"Race" seems often to be used as a synonym for "phenotype name." At least in my experience.

There are too many syllables in "phenotypist" to use it in casual conversation - though worth trying for fun since it is likely to confuse the other person. They might think you are suddenly discussing a job classification requiring experience on an Underwood.

I think the word that may be closer to their intent is "bigot". But that may not impart enough emotional trauma to shut the other person up, whereas "racist" almost always taints the target in way that is hard to wash off. Maybe if you think the other person may fire that baby at you, fire first. That kind of takes the wind out of any attempt to throw it back at you.

I suppose if someone accuses you of being a racist for a negative opinion on something you know isn't a phenotype, you could always try responding "How the heck is Muslim a phenotype? How is it inheritable? What set of nucleotide sequences code for it!?" That may send the conversation/argument off to some wonderful and sometimes amusing territory. If they have half a clue they may try confusing you by telling you you don't know the difference between a phenotype and a genotype. My guess is that anyone that clued in is unlikely to be calling anyone racist anyway.

Obama being the narcissist that he is would view recess appointments as "the people would want me to do this for them".

 Sorry, after 8 years of him I don't trust him......with anything.

You don't have to trust him. The SCOTUS already threw out his recess appointments to the NLRB and made it all but impossible for him to succeed in any future attempt.