61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 26, 2021, 08:38:52 PM »

Just read through this whole thing - understood maybe half of it? - (those who remember me from when I first joined and was active a year ago perhaps recall I suck at math  ).

But the thread virtually immediately deviated (as soon as Tom commented    ) from what observations about the world does RET not explain to whether we can solve the three body problem...

Here's my question (asking in sincerity, since I suck at math, recall), in an attempt to bring it back to the OP and an actual response from the FET crowd:

Does the fact that our maths cannot numerically(?) solve the three body problem* count as an "observation" that RET fails to explain? 

I don't think so.

Tom's response and the entire rabbit hole of this thread regarding numerical/analytic methods is a category error in some sense.

RET does explain the observation that there are orbiting bodies - planets, moons, etc. - in our solar system. And it explains it with comprehensive consistency with other elements of RET and accepted science.

So there's yet to be an observed phenomenon suggested in this thread that actually answers the OP. 

*Hope I didn't butcher that formulation 

62

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter

« on: August 31, 2020, 11:41:58 PM »

Written five days after that NPR article, the Texas Tribune has more info on that Austin shooting:
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/31/daniel-perry-austin-protest-garrett-foster/

Here's one quote from it:
"Broden wrote that “several witnesses” confirmed that Foster pointed his gun toward Perry first."

Foster is the man in the street with a rifle. Perry is the man driving the car who killed Foster. 

Maybe we STILL don't have all the facts, but here's at least one article that creates the plausibility that Perry believed he was protecting his life and acting in self-defense. 

And I think it's telling that Perry has been cooperating with law enforcement. More articles about him:

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/lawyers-of-army-sergeant-who-fatally-shot-garrett-foster-release-new-information-photos

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2020-08-07/a-show-of-police-force-after-fosters-killer-is-idd/








 

63

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter

« on: August 31, 2020, 10:59:23 PM »

I have to say the killing in Austin is way harder to draw conclusions from.  The guy in the car could have been justified if the man approaching with a rifle had raised it at the last moment in a threatening way (we don't know that he did, and we don't know that he didn't, right?).  Or possibly he was super unjustified and the guy approaching the car with the rifle had it lowered barrel pointing at the ground the whole time. That seems like he should not have been shot.

But there's also lots of "frame of mind" questions - did the man in the car feel threatened for his life? 

From only this article I don't personally feel we can make a solid judgment on whether it was justified.   (Unlike the Kyle R. event which I think now has tons of exculpatory evidence already).

64

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are the American police out of control?

« on: August 31, 2020, 09:51:29 PM »

Its #1.
Because most people who shoot someone who didn''t shoot first, are not good people.  And do you want to let a bad guy with a gun escape?  I think not. 

Dave you said you would have shot him without even having all the evidence, which now that you have considered the evidence you realize that you may have been wrong. It’s terrible that you jumped to that conclusion and treated him as a person who deserved summary judgement.

Having all the facts wouldn't change my fact-less actions.  Sorry but if I see someone unarmed get shot, I'm gonna assume the shooter is a bad guy.  Most people with guns do.  Hell, the police manual basically states that everyone is a potential, deadly threat.  So I'm not alone.

This is why I'm against gun ownership: because there are more people like me than not.

That's really your perspective?

If a person shoots another person, and you know you do not have the facts because you don't see the event itself, you believe the "right" thing, and the "justifiable" thing is to immediately and violently attack the person holding the gun?   

That's a seriously messed up mindset.  Attack first, ask questions later, I guess.

EDIT:
Let me add, that it doesn't at all seem like they were being good citizens and "ensuring he didn't escape."  He was NOT running away, but talking on the phone, standing by Rosenbaum.  He didn't run away until someone yelled "get that MFer" and then several men chased and attacked him.

There are ALL sorts of appropriate responses they could have used, instead of to attack him. Since one of them had a handgun, they could have at the minimum, trained it on him and told Kyle to drop his rifle until the police showed up.  They didn't do that or anything similar to it. They attacked him violently.  Why do you keep defending these obviously violent criminals?

Sounds like its best that Dave is anti gun and doesn't get one

No kidding.  I've been lucky to own guns for years but never been directly involved in any violent altercations (just had my home burgled when we weren't home).

Not to get into anecdotes too much, but here are two regarding the usefulness of concealed weapons for lawful self-defense:

My uncle (now deceased from cirrhosis), used to play guitar in a band all throughout the Northwest. He kept a concealed handgun (and had a permit for all the states they played in). It has prevented him from muggings behind bars his band played at at 2 or 3am.  The muggers may not have been armed, but if any were foolish enough to have attacked him without a gun and he shot them, you would say because they "didn't shoot first" - because they can't shoot if they don't have a gun - he's the bad guy in those situations?  You don't need a gun to kill someone. What if they had a knife?

What if Rosenbaum had had a knife when he was inches from Kyle after chasing him in between those cars?Did the guys who yelled "get that MFer" even check to see if Rosenbaum had a knife, and that's why Kyle shot first?  (I understand that there's absolutely no evidence Rosenbaum had a knife, I'm just saying that YOUR point that the "person who shoots a gun first" is automatically in the wrong is a super duper bad mindset, because anything could be going on).

Second anecdote:
I have a lawyer friend who studied law at Georgetown U. He never carried a weapon, and he was mugged by several men, on the street where he lived, walking back from classes in open daylight.  If he had had a weapon, perhaps he would not have gotten his laptop and expensive school books taken.

Obviously my two anecdotes are just that - anecdotes - and they are NOT in the context of a riot, either.  But I think they add to this discussion because the mere fact that if ONE person in an altercation has a gun, that THAT person is automatically "the bad guy" or the "aggressor."  Not in any way true. There are many possibilities.

65

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are the American police out of control?

« on: August 31, 2020, 09:30:01 PM »

Its #1.
Because most people who shoot someone who didn''t shoot first, are not good people.  And do you want to let a bad guy with a gun escape?  I think not. 

Dave you said you would have shot him without even having all the evidence, which now that you have considered the evidence you realize that you may have been wrong. It’s terrible that you jumped to that conclusion and treated him as a person who deserved summary judgement.

Having all the facts wouldn't change my fact-less actions.  Sorry but if I see someone unarmed get shot, I'm gonna assume the shooter is a bad guy.  Most people with guns do.  Hell, the police manual basically states that everyone is a potential, deadly threat.  So I'm not alone.

This is why I'm against gun ownership: because there are more people like me than not.

That's really your perspective?

If a person shoots another person, and you know you do not have the facts because you don't see the event itself, you believe the "right" thing, and the "justifiable" thing is to immediately and violently attack the person holding the gun?   

That's a seriously messed up mindset.  Attack first, ask questions later, I guess.

EDIT:
Let me add, that it doesn't at all seem like they were being good citizens and "ensuring he didn't escape."  He was NOT running away, but talking on the phone, standing by Rosenbaum.  He didn't run away until someone yelled "get that MFer" and then several men chased and attacked him.

There are ALL sorts of appropriate responses they could have used, instead of to attack him. Since one of them had a handgun, they could have at the minimum, trained it on him and told Kyle to drop his rifle until the police showed up.  They didn't do that or anything similar to it. They attacked him violently.  Why do you keep defending these obviously violent criminals?

66

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are the American police out of control?

« on: August 31, 2020, 07:57:10 PM »

...But it happened and he killed someone and he ran because he had 0 authority on his side.  He ran from the angry mob who saw him kill someone.  And that angry group chasing him was 100% justified in chasing him.  Because if ya shoot someone and you aren't wearing a uniform, odds are you're a murderer so best to stop you from killing again.

(Yes, Kyle may not be a murderer.  But thats besides the point.  Bad guys with guns, man.)

Yeah, based on the currently available facts this seems incredibly wrong to me.

The mob was not at all "100%" justified in chasing him.

First, let's start with the assumption that the lawyer in the video is correct and we're all in agreement with this quote (at about 7:01 in the video) -

"I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that if someone is chasing you and throwing objects at you, and then when you're cornered by them tries to take your gun away from you, at best you're at great risk of bodily injury and at worst, risk of death." And then he goes on to explain that the dynamics of self-defense and who the "aggressor" is in a situation can change moment to moment. Rosenbaum was clearly the aggressor at the moment that he was shot by Kyle.

Just before this quote in the video, the lawyer goes over the court documents that explain that this is exactly what happened. In that moment, doesn't matter why Kyle went to Kenosha. Doesn't matter what transpired before Rosenbaum chased him. In that moment, it was self-defense against what Kyle could rationally perceive as great bodily harm or death against him.

Okay, so, starting with THAT, let's posit three possibilities regarding the person in the mob who shouted "get that MFer" and the others who began chasing Kyle and subsequently attacked him, including one with a handgun:

1. They did NOT see enough of the full altercation between Kyle and Rosenbaum to know whether it appeared to be self-defense to a reasonable onlooker. How can you possibly justify chasing him if you don't know whether the gun shot was self-defense or not?

2. They DID see the full altercation, but were not reasonable enough to see that it looked like self-defense (because of tensions, adrenaline, preconceived notions, or they were just plain irrational, doesn't matter).

3. They DID see the full altercation, recognized it looked like self-defense, but they themselves were violent and murderous criminals who wanted to attack Kyle anyway.

Which of these three possibilities justified them in violently attacking him? 

Is it #1?  Are you suggesting that any time someone is shot we should ALWAYS assume it's NOT self-defense?  Numbers from the CDC itself (Centers for Disease Control), in a study commissioned by President Obama in 2013, it states "almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses [of self-defense with a gun] ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."  [emphasis added].
Source: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

The crowd is not at all justified if they merely ASSUME Kyle is the aggressor because he's the one who shot the gun. Possibility #1 can be discarded as providing justification.

And #2 and #3 self-evidently don't provide justification.

I would say, however, that if it's #2, I would ALSO think they should not be found guilty of very much.  A lot of things can happen in the heat of the moment.  For example, if these guys who attacked Kyle in the street were to kill Kyle, I can see them getting avoiding a strict homicide charge because of their frame of mind and other mitigating elements.

EDIT:
If it's #1 or #3, I believe they should be punished to the fullest extent of battery and possibly attempted murder - though some were already killed, so...

67

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are the American police out of control?

« on: August 31, 2020, 06:49:06 PM »

I cite the two officers who pursued a suspect through a residential neighbourhood, one firing a rifle from the passenger seat at the moving vehicle in front, and with the driver driving one-handed, discharging his pistol THROUGH HIS OWN WINDSCREEN

I saw that video, those 2 should be in prison.  How many of those wild ass shots hit homes or other cars?

Crazy!!  Link please?

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-anaheim-police-dramatic-video-investigation-shooting-driving-20190508-story.html

Yeah, that's very crazy - the officers shooting during a high speed chase is highly problematic.  One of the two was fired, I guess not the other one...

68

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The elevation of Polaris. Yes, I read the Wiki

« on: August 31, 2020, 06:37:06 PM »

I don't know, could you bring me up to speed on EA?

I considered it, and I don’t really see any possible explanation for this.  It could be that there is some force pulling all light away from the center of the earth, but that would have to affect the light from the sun, too. That would mean that, if the sun is traveling in a circle over the equator, then the people in the Northern Hemisphere would see it much lower in the sky than people in the southern hemisphere, which is not observed. No flat earth proponents have responded yet (suspicious), but I can’t really see any way out of this.

When I first discovered this forum (in March or April or May of this year, it's fuzzy), I joined a thread regarding the equation of EA - the one that is supposed to describe HOW the light of the moon bends. It ultimately went nowhere due to semantics, basically, and then it was locked by Pete.

You can read on the Wiki here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

In any case, the basic idea of EA is that sunlight and moonlight bend in exactly the right way, to specifically account for time zones and moon phases as observed across the earth. 

My guess is that it could explain away Polaris as well.

69

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are the American police out of control?

« on: August 31, 2020, 06:29:33 PM »

I cite the two officers who pursued a suspect through a residential neighbourhood, one firing a rifle from the passenger seat at the moving vehicle in front, and with the driver driving one-handed, discharging his pistol THROUGH HIS OWN WINDSCREEN

I saw that video, those 2 should be in prison.  How many of those wild ass shots hit homes or other cars?

Crazy!!  Link please?

70

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: August 31, 2020, 06:28:44 PM »

Sooo....back to the OP of this thread -


Now that the RNC and DNC conventions are over, what are the best guesses?  Who is REALLY going to win?  Biden is up by around 6% right?  But hasn't that gap been narrowing for a while now?  It's still two whole months away.  Is Biden a sure thing, or does Trump have a good chance?

Thoughts?

One thing the polls do not show is the huge numbers of life long Republicans that will hold their noses and vote for Trump.   Too lazy to look it up but a recent poll showed that a large number of people are not honest with pollsters.  Many people are afraid of repercussions if they announce for Trump.

Yeah, that could be.   So, let's say that phenomenon has a 5% impact in favor of Trump, such that he's 1% below Biden (which is the same as saying they are exactly equal, given polling norms of errors), this means it could go either way and we have no idea.

So, before Nov. 2, 2016 Hillary was pretty close to certain to win. But now, Biden merely has an equal chance?  This is strangely turning out to be a fascinating race. 

71

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: August 31, 2020, 06:25:23 PM »

Trump's premise from the convention is largely;

"Look at all the riots that are happening under my Presidency, right now. This is what you'll get if you elect Biden. Vote for four more years of me"

The sub-text to that is "... so that... we don't get more of the same. Even though this is what's happening 3.5 years after I took office"

That is an interesting point.  Given that Trump has utterly failed to influence any real police reform (qualified immunity, training, all sorts of potential measures), it's kind of laughable that he would blame Biden for these riots.  Hilarious in fact. 

I can't say I've seen some realistic plan from Biden on how to address and stop the riots, though, either.

But the larger point of discussion would then be - are the riots going to help Trump (because law and order) or help Biden (because police brutality) ?  I can kind of seeing it go either way.

72

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: August 31, 2020, 05:30:14 PM »

Sooo....back to the OP of this thread -


Now that the RNC and DNC conventions are over, what are the best guesses?  Who is REALLY going to win?  Biden is up by around 6% right?  But hasn't that gap been narrowing for a while now?  It's still two whole months away.  Is Biden a sure thing, or does Trump have a good chance?

Thoughts?

73

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are the American police out of control?

« on: August 31, 2020, 05:23:31 PM »

New video from the same lawyer, mostly not about Kyle specifically, just the Kenosha riots, but at about 3:30 it shows (I think) Kyle Rittenhouse putting out a fire in a dumpster:



Shortly after it seems Rosenbaum gets in Kyle's face (this is a new angle from the earlier released footage of Rosenbaum yelling at Kyle and others).  Seems that Rosenbaum was super duper pissed that Kyle dared put out a fire in a dumpster.

Obviously even more footage could be forthcoming changing our perceptions of Kyle, Rosenbaum and others in this whole event.  But this second video makes me feel like Kyle's the type of person I'd want to be my neighbor.  He went to a dangerous place to help protect people and private property (look at the insanity of smashing cars and burning a business down). He brought a medikit.  And (apparently) when he actually tried to put out a dumpster fire Rosenbaum got all up in his face.

I wonder how much time lapsed between this altercation at the gas station with all the crowds and when Rosenbaum is chasing Kyle, throwing something and cornering him (per the first video I shared).  A few minutes?  An hour?  Did Rosenbaum follow and harass Kyle for a while, until he eventually was actually chasing Kyle, alone?   

One can argue Kyle was foolish to bother going to Kenosha where it's dangerous.  But one can also argue it was brave and heroic - people and businesses were being attacked, and the police were apparently not doing anything.

It's often argued that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to individuals, but rather "militia" as a group.  Well, if there's ever a need for militia in certain places, it seems in Kenosha recently there was.  Of course, I don't expect all of those in the US who believe the 2nd amendment to apply only to "militias" to be consistent on this, because I do believe those who oppose the 2nd amendment in that way actually oppose it completely.

I'm strongly in favor of 2A, given that my home in Garland TX was burglarized twice - both during the day time when no one was home, as it happens.  I don't live in TX anymore, but I have weapons to defend myself just in case. Though admittedly, I'd probably be too cowardly to go to Kenosha, if I lived within 30 min, to go defend others.  Fortunately, there have been no riots within several hundred miles of the city I currently live in.   

74

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are the American police out of control?

« on: August 29, 2020, 06:45:29 PM »

... the kid called 911 on his phone saying he shot someone, right?

He was seen with a phone to his ear. Have you heard a record of such a call, or a confirmation he actually got through to 911?

Also, having killed two, and maimed one other, if he REALLY wanted to tell the police, why did he get back in his mother's car, go home to the neighbouring state, and still not turn himself in? Why didn't he remain in the vicinity? Why didn't he/they look for a police station in the city?

What kind of monster are we dealing with here?

Yeah, like I responded  to Pete, I assumed or misremembered.  But he did stop and make a phone call to someone.  Not the actions of a "shooter" in any relevant way.  Mass shooters and gunmen do not act as he did immediately after that altercation.  So, even a person who did NOT see Rosenbaum chase him, or even see anything at all of the situation until after Rosenbaum was already shot shouldn't immediately think "let's attack, maim, injure or kill this kid" which is what several people immediately proceeded to do. It got some of them killed. They were thinking too passionately in the moment, unfortunately for them.

There's another video of him walking, with hands raised, towards approaching police vehicles which apparently happened just after all of this. The police just go past him.  After that point, I don't know the full story, but if he simply went home, I'm not really sure what that "shows."  When he was arrested he didn't resist, did he?  He didn't go on the run, did he?  I think you're thinking waaaay too much into his actions right after an incredibly traumatic experience.  Shame on you, frankly.  I suppose you have to criticize his actions after the fact because you really really want him to be wrong in all of this?  I think the lawyer's video is pretty hard to rebut.

75

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are the American police out of control?

« on: August 29, 2020, 06:36:39 PM »

the kid called 911 on his phone saying he shot someone, right?

I can't say I've heard anything like that before. Do you have a source claiming he called 911?

Hmm, maybe I got that wrong. Just rewatched the middle of the video.  Starting at about 7:45 the guy says "after he shoots the guy, he stays by the guy and makes a phone call saying he just killed someone."  So, yeah, I misremembered or just assumed it was to 911.  Could have been to anyone.  I think the substance of my point still stands, though - he shot someone, but then remained there and made a phone call. Not exactly "Columbine" style. Immediately after this, someone yells to get him and he's on the run again, and once more, not the aggressor.

Frankly, I'm impressed by the kid's temperance during all of this. The lawyer in the video even specifically points out later that the kid didn't randomly shoot into the air (or a crowd) after he had fallen, but very directly at the few who were immediately attacking his person.  That's some hard core nerves of steel in my view.

Like I said in my initial post - it's a shame they were killed - but based on this lawyer's video it's very very difficult for me to think he "murdered" anyone.  He killed some men in self-defense. That's not homicide. 

76

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are the American police out of control?

« on: August 29, 2020, 04:00:48 PM »

This is a really good analysis of the Kyle Rittenhouse story posted today by a lawyer.

Based on this, I'd say the 17 yr old kid acted in self-defense, and was far more responsible than those who attacked him. It's a shame they were shot and died. They shouldn't have been the aggressors that they were: 

I dunno.  I mean, if I saw some kid with a rifle, I'd assume he was gonna go Columbine on us and try to stop him.  Tho not chase him down.  I'd have shot him.  To protect lives. 

And on the OTHER side, if heard three shots, turned, saw a man with a gun over a dead man, I'd assume he was a bad guy and try to stop him.  Its the duty if a 2nd Amendment loving, gun carrying person to protect lives from agressive murderers.  Kyle looked like a god damn murderer. (Because technically he is)

Well, except that after he shot Rosenbaum (and the lawyer in the video gave a pretty clear explanation that the fact that HE was running away makes him NOT the aggressor in that moment), the kid called 911 on his phone saying he shot someone, right?  So.....doesn't seem at all like it should have been interpreted by the mob as "going Columbine."  He doesn't run away from them until someone yells "get him."  Re-watch the video, perhaps?


 

77

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are the American police out of control?

« on: August 29, 2020, 03:38:22 AM »

This is a really good analysis of the Kyle Rittenhouse story posted today by a lawyer.

Based on this, I'd say the 17 yr old kid acted in self-defense, and was far more responsible than those who attacked him. It's a shame they were shot and died. They shouldn't have been the aggressors that they were: 

78

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: August 29, 2020, 03:18:03 AM »

To be fair the GOP doesn’t like Trump either. Your country is fucked.

The GOP doesn't like Trump but Trump has plenty of people who fanatically support him. That kind of fanatical support existing only on one side is what will likely cause Biden to lose.

Well the fanatics are a minority of the population so he will need something more than that. Not saying it won’t happen but it seems less likely than in 2016.

Before the election in 2016 everyone knew that Trump would lose.  Then he didn't.

I think Rushy has a solid point - no one is excited about Biden. Like, literally no one.  Plenty of folks are still excited about Trump, even if a minority overall.  The elections are always decided by the center. And the center gets slightly pulled to the side that has the most passion overall.  Obama is a fantastic example of this.

I am not particularly a fan of Trump, but I think he has a decent chance.

One thing I read was that after the DNC convention there was a DIP in polls favoring Biden. That basically never happens. Conventions lead to (temporary) bumps in the polls for that side.  But the opposite happened this time for the the DNC.  Could be a symptom or example of the lack of enthusiasm for Biden.  That could be hugely problematic for the DNC...

79

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The elevation of Polaris. Yes, I read the Wiki

« on: August 28, 2020, 09:54:44 PM »

Could the introduction of the EA theory explain this?  In other words, Polaris remains at the same height all the time (whatever that height is), but its light bending in the exact way needed for this phenomenon.

So now, the question for someone who can do math far better than me (like you!), would the observations of Polaris as you've described, and the observations of the moon match each other - are they mathematically coherent with each other?  If so, then EA could explain both, even if we don't know the actual formula for EA due to the Bishop Constant. 

In short, is EA operating "the same" with regards to both Polaris and the Moon?  If not, then the FE community may have to come up with a new theory to explain the observations of Polaris.

80

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 13, 2020, 03:38:06 PM »

Ugg, the neverending "wall" issue.

I'm personally radically pro-immigration (if we could accept over 1% population increase basically every year via Ellis Island in the 1910's and 1920's, there's literally no reason we cannot do so now, yet I think there is something like fewer than a third of 1% legally admitted each year, now).

But set that completely aside since illegal immigration is different in some key ways. For the sake of argument, let's say everyone agrees that illegal immigration is something we want to limit or obstruct.

The wall is a poor idea to achieve that. It wastes lots of money and has very little effect. 

Among the reasons the wall is simply not effective:

1. The majority of immigrants who are "illegal" come legally and overstay.  If you are going to spend large sums of money to combat illegal immigration, a physical barrier is simply not an important part of the puzzle.

2. There are plenty of ways to bypass a wall for those who do physically enter illegally. All you are doing, by imposing a barrier, is diverting the routes and means that will be taken to enter. People will take boats, arriving in our even longer shorelines. Or they will tunnel under, as they already do in places. Or they will go to Canada and come in, as they also do already. 

3. The wall is far too long and would require far too many guards to prevent actual incursion. I've read folks talk about how the walls in Israel are quite effective in keeping out terrorists from Gaza. Very true, but that wall is several orders of magnitude shorter. They can spend a LOT more money and manpower per foot of wall and get a far more effective barrier for a much cheaper price in absolute terms. Because it's not very long. They have a tiny border.  An actually complete wall between all of the US and Mexico would be easily breached in the places we can't permanently man.

In short, I can't believe the amount of money spent on the wall can possibly reduce the amount of entry to make it cost effective.  It's a bad plan.

If you oppose illegal immigration, you should oppose the wall.
If you don't oppose illegal immigration, you should oppose the wall.

And yet, it's a thing.