The National Weather Service sums it up

By adamg on Mon, 01/21/2019 - 9:26pm

Whether the weather be fine, or whether the weather be not, whether the weather be cold or whether the weather be hot, we'll weather the weather whatever the weather, whether we like it or not. pic.twitter.com/HrB7g76Veo

— NWS Boston (@NWSBoston) January 21, 2019

Reminder: The NWS folks are not getting paid during the Trump shutdown.

Topics:

Weather

Ad:

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

A month in

By Roman on Mon, 01/21/2019 - 9:46pm.

and several open offers later...it's the Pelosi shutdown too. Whether you like it or not.

No

By SwirlyGrrl on Mon, 01/21/2019 - 10:25pm.

The house passed a bill. Turtleface won't let the senate vote on it - even though there are no laws that give him that power. That's because he knows they would override Trump.

The house and senate passed a bill. Trump said he would sign that bill. He lied. He also said he would take full responsibility. He lied.

Yeah, whatever

By Roman on Tue, 01/22/2019 - 12:04am.

I stopped reading at "turtleface."

For the record, I would have also stopped reading at

1. Cheeto Hitler
2. The Orange One
3. Drumpf
4. Littlefingers
5. Voldemort
6. Sauron
7. The number 45 tilted at 45 degrees (ha!) too look like a swastika
8. MAGAT-in-Chief
9. Oh you think of something, I'm already at number 9

But unfortunately

By Sock_Puppet on Tue, 01/22/2019 - 4:45am.

You didn't stop flapping your useless mouth.

The name calling really is

By anon on Tue, 01/22/2019 - 9:14am.

The name calling really is childish. Attack ideas, not people's appearance.

Pulling your head in

By anon on Tue, 01/22/2019 - 12:26pm.

And your extremities and blocking the door is actions.

But here’s the thing

By Waquiot on Tue, 01/22/2019 - 12:16am.

Back in November, during a meeting with Democratic leadership that was for some reason opened to the press, Trump said he would take responsibility for the shutdown. Pelosi isn’t looking like a leader in this, but it’s fair to call it the Trump shutdown because Trump said it’s okay, before the shutdown even happened.

The reason it was open to the press

By berkleealum on Tue, 01/22/2019 - 8:05am.

...is that Trump wanted it open to the press, because he thinks he's on The Apprentice.

Pelosi looks like a fine leader; don't let Trump's "offers" sway your opinion. It's not negotiating when a kid takes your ball and your bike and offers them back to you in exchange for your lunch money.

Yeah...border security isn't a playground kerfuffle

By Roman on Tue, 01/22/2019 - 9:15am.

Nor is sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalala over the fact that over 12 million people plus tens of thousands per month more are flouting federal law a good look. Nor is leaping to the defense of MS13 child killers as 'children of God' just because Trump called them what they are a good look.

I mean

By berkleealum on Tue, 01/22/2019 - 12:34pm.

...illegal border crossings are at their lowest in over 10 years, according to Trump's own CBP. Yet now -- and not at any other time during his presidency -- we have an emergency at the border. Actually, the massive sections of wall that have already been built have stopped those pesky migrants seeking asylum through legal means in their tracks! Oh btw, we need a WALL or BARRIER (or powerful STEEL SLATS - beautiful!) because immigrants are pouring in at an unprecedented rate!

But I'M sticking my fingers in my ears, right?

If it's such a problem...

By fungwah on Tue, 01/22/2019 - 10:55am.

Why didn't he push for this at any time in the last two years when his own party controlled the House and Senate?

Keep this on the DL

By Roman on Tue, 01/22/2019 - 11:12am.

But he's not very good at politics, that's why.

Or, to put it another way...

By fungwah on Tue, 01/22/2019 - 1:03pm.

it's his fault, and his shutdown. Incompetence doesn't mean you get to pass the buck.

Yeah, sure. Pelosi could end it with one phone call.

By Roman on Tue, 01/22/2019 - 4:03pm.

But it's all on him. Because...walls...like the wall Pelosi has around her house...are immoral.

Give me a break. Shutdown's starting to pinch around the edges of people I know but if it has to go on for another month, I'm all for it if it teaches the free love crowd to finally quit playing games with immigration enforcement and start acting like borders aren't just something your racist uncle farted out at dinner.

Pelosi passed a bill to end it

By fungwah on Tue, 01/22/2019 - 5:44pm.

The same bill the Republicans passed before the election, for what it's worth.

She's doing her part - why is it her fault if Mitch McConnell won't bring it to the Senate and let them vote on it?

Because she's in power, that's why

By Roman on Wed, 01/23/2019 - 12:52pm.

And since she only controls one house of congress, she can't get everything she wants with no compromise either.

You are conflating two things

By Bob Leponge on Tue, 01/22/2019 - 6:41pm.

Being opposed to the wall is not, of course, being opposed to border security.

Quite the contrary, pretty much everyone involved agrees that the initial $5B for the wall, the ultimate cost of which is unknown, could be spent elsewhere with a much greater impact on border security.

Just as opposing $800 toilet seats does not make one "weak on defense."

But of course you know this fully well and you're being entirely disingenuous.

Forget it Jake

By erik g on Tue, 01/22/2019 - 7:03pm.

It’s Romantown

Not conflating, asserting

By Roman on Wed, 01/23/2019 - 12:48pm.

Let's say that 5 billion gets spent on extra boots on the ground at the border and extra judges and additional ICE agents and all of it.

When an illegal immigrant is apprehended inside US territory, they cannot just be put on a plane or bus back to wherever. They either get a court date and let go or they get put into a detention center. I object to the former. Many here object to the latter.

The question to ask is not whether increased security measures inside US territory will lead to more apprehensions. The question to ask is whether an expanded physical barrier will lower the number of illegal crossings at the border and by how much.

If the number of additional apprehensions on US soil equals the number of deterred crossings by a segment of wall, then guess what: the wall is better even if it costs a little more.

As for 800 dollar toilet seats: not to defend the pork and waste in military contracting too much, but a good way to sink something is to put a microscope to it. That's just an empirical fact. In an ideal world, the people on the Pentagon side charged with the stewardship of finite defense dollars would not buy gold-plated hammers. But given that they are who they are (for a variety of deep structural reasons stemming from how we run our military and train our military officers through their whole careers), scrutinizing every 800 dollar toilet seat could in practice sink a program you don't like. Some programs that waste money also produce good results. So it's a judgement call. If you go after the 800 dollar toilet seats that Luis Elizondo uses to take a shit while investigating UFOs and Stargates, that's good. If you go after the 800 dollar toilet seats in the USAF tanker replacement program...then you save money at the cost of leaving the Air Force with old tankers for ten more years than they planned for. It's messy.