John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat
Source: U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

TED: Joseph G. Levitt- 'How Craving Attention Makes You Less Creative'

Source:TED- Actor Joseph G. Levitt, speaking at a TED conference
"Joseph Gordon-Levitt has gotten more than his fair share of attention from his acting career. But as social media exploded over the past decade, he got addicted like the rest of us -- trying to gain followers and likes only to be left feeling inadequate and less creative. In a refreshingly honest talk, he explores how the attention-driven model of big tech companies impacts our creativity -- and shares a more powerful feeling than getting attention: paying attention."

Joseph G. Levitt speaking at a TED

Source:Autumn Asphodel: 'Dealing with Attention Seeking Behavior'-  Great material for anyone who needs to sleep. but who simply can't. 
"Everyone needs attention. When they don't get the attention they deserve, such as being neglected, abandoned, abused, or left feeling unworthy or unloved, they will subconsciously make up for that by seeking attention and sympathy to fill that void. Attention seeking can also be a subconscious cry for help. But, there are ways of recognizing the behavior and getting control of it."

What actor Jospeh Gordon Levitt is talking about here sounds like a book that British author Caitlin Moran wrote about people who try to be famous just to be famous. Who do and say outrageous things just to be famous. The literal title of her book is: "How to be Famous." Not saying that Joe Levitt read Caitlin Moran's book and decided to give a speech about this, but they're basically talking about the same thing: people who are addicted to fame, especially people who aren't already famous. Which s an issue that we've always had in this country ever since the creation of Hollywood, but has exploded in the last 10-20 years thanks to the internet. As well as the rise in popularity of tabloid news shows .and what's called reality TV. 

I wrote a piece for this blog about Caitlin Moran's book which you can see in the BookTV section of this blog. And the argument that I made 14 months ago, is the same argument that I'm going to make here: people need to know who they are and what they're good at. And if they're lucky or just very skillful and intelligent, perhaps they're not addicted to their phone or coffee or what's called reality TV and celebrity culture, they'll find something that they both love doing and are really good at, because they have the talent for it and they love what they do for a living. Whether it's writing, acting, teaching, law enforcement, whatever it might be that they're good at in life, that supports their lifestyles, and they love doing.

My next point is about positive creativity versus negative creativity

There are cooks who are very creative in how they prepare their meals that a lot of people love. There are doctors who are very creative in how they deliver quality, affordable, health care. There are great teachers who are very creative in how they teach their students. And I could go on indefinitely to the point that insomniacs might finally get their first sleep in weeks, months or years.

And then there are serial murders who are very creative in how they murder their victims: Ted Bundy, John Gacy, and unfortunately I could go on there as well. And then we have reality TV and celebrity addicts, who aren't as dangerous ( even with their smartphones and computers ) but in too many cases aren't as smart either, whose only goal in life is to be famous and become the next OMG awesome celebrity or whatever.

People who want to be the next Paris Hilton ( or whoever the most popular Real Housewives star is ) who are famous for simply being famous and doing and saying outrageous things. And the more outrageous they are and the more trouble that they get in, the more popular they are, the more followers they have on Twitter and Instagram, or whatever their social media network of choice happens to be. How many times have Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan been arrested and then also look at how popular they are.

My next to last point goes back to one of my first points and hopefully you don't get any whiplash here: if your sole purpose in life is to be famous and popular, you're going to end up doing and saying a lot of stupid things in life. And that new celebrity might say: "I might be doing 10 years in prison, but I could get out in 5. And besides, look at all of the new followers that I'll have when I get out. And I''lll even get a new book deal out of it." Which would be another example of negative creativity, which would be people who don't care about getting in trouble, just as long as it comes from fame and they can make a lot of money off of it.

Or your goal in life could be just to be very successful, even to the point you never spend a single day in jail. Which might sound way too hard to believe for too many people and you decide that you're going to be the best that you can be at whatever you do ( just as long as it's legal, or then jail time will definitely be involved ) and then let the fame and money take care of it themselves, based on how talented, intelligent, and successful you are. Which would be my approach.

Dan Mitchell: 'Communism Humor'

Source:Communist Party USA?- It’s a party, except you’re not allowed to leave. LOL
Source:The New Democrat

“Time to augment our growing collection of satire about the twin horrors of socialism and communism.

Today, we’ll concentrate on the latter form of totalitarianism and mock Marxism.”

Read more from Dan Mitchell

Source:Addman 619: Rodney Dangerfield- Yakov Smiroff: ‘Very Funny’Yakov Smiroff, might be Rodney Dangerfield’s best friend when it comes to comedy.
If there is anyone in the world who should have a good idea what communism and socialism in general is like and how Communists and Socialists think, and is qualified to make fun of Communists and communism, it’s Jewish-Russian-American comedian Yakov Smiroff.

I could just close this piece out with Yakov Smiroff, but since I’m a blogger I sort of have a duty to weigh in on what I’m writing about here. So if that offends anyone, I apologize ( not really ) but you have like a million of other blog sites you could look at instead.

I guess my big joke about Communists and communism: when I think of party’s I think of get togethers where people get together at one of their friend’s homes or perhaps at a bar, restaurant, or club and they eat, have a good time, dance, etc, but they get to go home at the end of the party. ( Hopefully alive, conscience, and perhaps even sober )

But at a Communist Party, once you’re in, you’re all in ( to use a pop culture catch phrase ) and there’s no leaving without permission from the people who invited you. And to get that permission, you have to fill out an Everest mountain of paperwork. And you better have nothing else to do  for the next ten years ( like being forced to work at a communist work camp ) because that’s how long it will take you to finish all of that paperwork, just to apply to the Communist Party, about leaving their party.

Another way to make fun of Communists and communism is to look at like you would look at prisons. Except prisons are harder to make fun of because most of the people there are actually guilty. ( Despite what Socialists on their longest marijuana highs think ) But at a communist prison like North Korea for example, the only thing that the people there are guilty of , is wanting to leave the party ( meaning the country ) or at the very least have this dying, selfish need to want to actually make their own decisions in life. Who have the gaul and arrogance to want to actually control their own lives. And want access to information that’s not provided to them by the state.

Today’s Socialists like to say that there is no such thing as a Communist state and that these so-called communist states like the former Soviet Union, ( now Russian Federation ) People’s Republic of China, Cuba, North Korea, etc aren’t really communist states, but just totalitarian states. But what they always fail to mention or do is to define what communism actually is, how is it different from social democracy or democratic socialism. So if communism is not just total state-control of society, then what is it?

Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Tom Woods: 'Ep. 1470 Vince Vaughn on Hollywood, Libertarianism, and American Politics'

Source:Tom Woods- interviewing Libertarian entertainer Vince Vaughn
"Vince Vaughn has scores of Hollywood films to his credit -- from The Lost World: Jurassic Park to Hacksaw Ridge and many in between -- and has been a Ron Paul supporter since the 2008 presidential campaign. He and Tom discuss Hollywood, libertarianism, and American politics.  Show notes for Ep. 1470"

From Tom Woods

Source:Ora-TV- "Ora-TV Off The Grid: Vince Vaughn the Libertarian 
When I think of politics in Hollywood, I guess I put Hollywood into 4 different political factions.

The so-called Hollywood-Leftists

Who are privately as socialist as Ron Paul, or as Ronald Reagan was Communist, Bernie Sanders is an objectivist Ayn Rand Libertarian, as socialist as Ann Coulter is feminist, etc. That even though publicly that back left-wing political candidates and politicians ( whether they're self-described Socialists or not ) and claim to hate Corporate America ( even though they work for it and even own their own corporations ) that as left-wing and socialist as they claim to be, they generally don't believe anything that they're actually saying publicly.

Because they're part of the group that they claim to be against: which are rich people and even worst from a left-wing socialist point of view, what they call rich white people. Not calling them liars, ( necessarily ) but you have to remember that they are actors who make they're livings acting and entertaining people. The Susan Sarandon's, Jayne Fonda's, Danny Glover's Matt Damon's, Robert Redford's and others are part of this Hollywood group.

Hollywood Democrats

This is sort of the Billy Baldwin group in Hollywood. People who are loyal Democrats and who get behind the best Democrat that can beat the Republican that they're facing. Politically, they're probably Center-Left Progressives and Classical Liberals, but they're mainly honest, partisan Democrats who back Democrats, in order to beat the Republican Party.

Hollywood Conservative-Libertarians

I guess this would be comedian Vince Vaughn's group, that Clint Eastwood is also part of. They love working in America, they love making a great living in America, they love being wealthy, they love the Hollywood lifestyle. And they don't want left-wing or Far-Right politicians coming into power in America and telling them what they can and can't do.

Hollywood Conservatives

John Wayne, famous member of this Hollywood faction, Ronald Reagan post-Hollywood became a member of this group, Bob Hope, and plenty of other entertainers from the past. Jon Voight would be a big part of this group today. They're basically just Center-Right loyal Republicans who want to beat Democrats and keep their taxes and regulations down.

Hollywood, gets stereotyped as left-wing and even socialist, but this is Hollywood we're talking about which is the entertainment capital of America at least and they're in the business of entertainment ( naturally ) and to make money. And if Hollywood was anywhere near as socialist or even socialist at all as they get stereotyped, they would be out of business. Or at the very least struggling to stay in business and running fundraisers to stay in business. So when a member of Hollywood takes any political position, before you even consider taking them seriously about anything, you have to remember that they are professional entertainers first and perhaps even last.  

New York Magazine: Opinion- Ed Kilgore: 'George McGovern Didn’t Lose in 1972 by Going Too Far Left. Neither Will 2020 Democrats'

Source:New York Magazine- George McGovern For President in 1972, was President Richard Nixon's early Christmas gift. And the Democratic Party's vacation in Hell.
"One of the most persistent arguments surrounding the 2020 presidential contest is that Democrats are heading “off the deep end” on a left-wing ideological bender that will mean disaster in the general election. The warning is very often associated with the specter of 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern, who lost 49 states four years after Hubert Humphrey lost by an eyelash and four years before Jimmy Carter won the presidency. The obsession with the idea that 1972 may repeat itself is a bipartisan phenomenon. Some McGovern Redux takes are from conservatives who are simply promoting the perennial claim that Democrats have become an anti-American cabal of baby-killing hippie socialists with a fresh urgency given the current extremism of the GOP. And some of these takes are (and have been for many years) from self-styled moderate Democrats grinding axes against self-consciously progressive aspirants to the presidential nomination."

Read more at New York Magazine

George McGovern's 1972 political platform from Wikipedia

"In the 1972 election, McGovern ran on a platform that advocated withdrawal from the Vietnam War in exchange for the return of American prisoners of war[15] and amnesty for draft evaders who had left the country,[16] an anti-war platform that was anticipated by McGovern's sponsorship of the 1970 McGovern-Hatfield amendment that sought to end U.S. participation in the war by Congressional action. However, during a meeting with Democratic Governors conference, Nevada Governor Mike O'Callaghan asked McGovern what he would do if the North Vietnamese refused to release American POW's after a withdrawal. McGovern responded, "Under such circumstances, we'd have to take action," although he did not say what action.[17]

"McGovern's platform also included an across-the-board, 37% reduction in defense spending over three years;[18] and a "demogrant" program that would replace the personal income tax exemption with a $1,000 tax credit as a minimum-income floor for every citizen in America,[19] to replace the welfare bureaucracy and complicated maze of existing public-assistance programs. Its concept was similar to the negative income tax long advocated by economist Milton Friedman, and by the Nixon administration in the form of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's Family Assistance Plan, which called for a minimum family grant of $1,600 per year, later raised to $2,400. The personal income tax exemption later became $1,000 under President Reagan. (As Senator, McGovern had previously sponsored a bill, submitted by the National Welfare Rights Organization, for $6,500 guaranteed minimum income per year to families, based on need.)[20] In addition, McGovern supported ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment."

Source:The Big Picture: Thom Hartmann- 'Bernie Sanders isn't George McGovern - Here’s Proof'- Maybe Thom Hartmann, really is Commie, since he works for President Vladimir Putin. LOL
From Thom Hartmann

"A lot of Hillary's supporters say they like Bernie Sanders - but that they're afraid that Sanders might lose the general in a landslide. But it's not 1972 - and Bernie Sanders isn't George McGovern."

I agree with Ed Kilgore on one thing: Senator George McGovern wasn't as Far-Left as people believed. Which is like saying that Pat Buchanan, isn't as Far-Right as people might think. Or it's not as hot in Arizona in the summer as some people might think. It's only 120 degrees in the summer, instead 130 and besides: it's a dry heat and there's no humidity. That's still very hot compared with most of the rest of the country that's dealing with temperatures in the 80s and 90s, 70s in the Northwest and even 60s because of all their damn rain. And Pat Buchanan is still pretty Far-Right, especially since now he's arguing that maybe President Vladimir Putin is right about liberal democracy dying.

Senator George McGovern before being elected to Congress, served as a fighter pilot during World War II. And then ran the food program that served hungry people in the Kennedy Administration. Growing up in South Dakota he was devoutly religious and remained that way his whole life. He wasn't some hippie pacifist Socialist that believed that America was the real evil empire and that Fidel Castro and Russia were the good guys. He knew that they were bad people that had to be dealt with.

But when you give speeches on the Senate floor arguing that American soldiers were the real war criminals during the Vietnam War and you have a new social program and tax increase to solve all of Americans problems for them and you continually bash American businesses that hire all of these American voters that depend on these companies for their jobs and lifestyles, that puts you on the Far-Left in America.

Especially in 1972 with the emergence of the New-Left in America ( Socialists and Communists, not Liberals ) in the late 1960s and early 70s. And then you have these group of middle-American voters ( that the Far-Left likes to just put down as blue-collar, small town white people ) who represent a large chunk of the American electorate, who are not wealthy, who work hard to make a good living in America and if anything think that they're already overtaxed and that government is already trying to do too much for them, who are people who are just looking for an opportunity to make more money and be successful, who are proud of the American military and think that America is a great country, you're going to look extreme to these voters. Whether you're George McGovern in 1972, or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in 2019-20.

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and other Far-Leftists ( or Democratic Socialists ) and their supporters will argue that America has changed and that minorities are now a bigger part of the American electorate and you now even have young Caucasian-American voters who aren't afraid of socialism and Socialists and even like Socialists and socialism, but here's the problem with that argument: minorities whether they're African-American, Latino, Middle-Eastern, Asian, Jewish., whatever racial or ethnic background, they're not monolithic as voters.

None of these racial and ethnic groups are monolithic as voters. Just because you're a minority doesn't mean you're left-wing and all Caucasians are right-wing. Not even all middle age and older Caucasian voters are on the Right. Caucasian voters regardless of ethnicity aren't monolithic as voters either. And the other problem that left-wing in the Democratic Party has is that the group of voters that they're targeting are the least reliable as far as people who go to the polls and who vote. Young voters of all ethnic racial backgrounds.

For a Democrat to win the presidency in 2020, they still have to be able to win big states in the Midwest and probably even Florida in the South, if they lose Ohio again. You can't run a Democratic presidential campaign in 2020 thinking you only need women regardless of race, young voters regardless of race, minorities. And you can't win the minority vote and get new minority voters to the polls, by thinking they're automatically going to show up and vote for you, because of President Donald Trump. You have to reach out to them and get them to the polls yourself and appeal to them for their votes. 

Monday, August 19, 2019

The Film Archives: Douglas Charles; J. Edgar Hoover's War on Gays

Source:The Film Archives- No, J. Edgar Hoover's War on Gays, didn't come from The Onion.
J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI, and the “Sex Deviates” Program – NOTCHES"

From The Film Archives

Source:Amazon- J. Edgar Hoover: A Queen's War on Queens, would also be a good title for this book. 
Not sure if a satirical approach, or a more serious approach about FBI Director Edgar Hoover's apparent warrant war on homosexuality is the right approach here. Because he was a total hypocrite when it came to homosexuality being not just a closeted gay man himself as someone who had a long-term affair with one of his assistants, but apparently he was a closeted queen ( feminine gay man ) as well. You could really rip Hoover on this, or take a more serious approach.

Edgar Hoover's public anti-homosexuality, reminds me of the so-called Christian-Conservative politician or pastor who secretly has affairs with either his male staffers, or juvenile males. Representative Mark Foley from back in the mid-2000s who was an anti-gay in public, but in his private life had an affair with one of his Congressional staffers. The whole Catholic Church scandal from the early 2000s where you had Priests who were molesting children, including boys, would be another example. Catholics, or at least so-called Conservative-Catholics tend to view homosexuality as a sin.

I mean you really could have fun with Edgar Hoover on this, because in public he was claiming to be a champion of traditional American values, despite all his attacks on the U.S. Constitution, especially the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and perhaps other amendments with all the unwarranted wiretaps and unwarranted private information that he collected on private American citizens and not just civil rights leader Dr. Martin L. King. But other than all of these constitutional violations that he committed as a Federal Government official, I guess he would be considered to be a champion of American traditional values, the U.S. Constitution, and individual freedom.

Well, according to the Far-Right Hoover believed in these so-called American values. But we also happen to be talking about a group of American that also believes in UFO's and other conspiracy theories. So take their word for only what it's worth. Even though in private life, Hoover didn't believe in any of these so-called traditional American values, especially these so-called Christian family values ( being a gay man ) and he didn't believe in the U.S. Constitution or individual freedom. He just wanted the Far-Right to believe he believed in those things.

So in public life FBI Director Edgar Hoover ( did anyone have the balls to call Edgar Hoover, Ed? ) was a champion of traditional American values and morality. But in private life, Hoover was the Queen of Queens, except he lived in Washington. And to be frank: spoke with such a high voice that you might have thought he was just kicked in the balls by a horse and somehow lived to tell and talk about it.

So yeah, Edgar Hoover was dictatorial, authoritarian leader of the largest and most powerful law enforcement agency not just in America, but in the world. And of course deserves great criticism to be be put down for that and should've been put in jail for all of his crimes against Americans. But if you can't see the humor in this story and in his life, I suggest that you go look for a sense of humor and then claim it as your own and use it. 

ATHENAISM: 'Why Is John F. Kennedy so Popular?'

Source:ATHENAISM- Depends on who you ask for JFK's popularity
"John F. Kennedy is one of the most popular US presidents. Was he as good as people remember him being? What exactly is it that makes him so popular?"


Source:Caleb and Linda Pirtle- John F. Kennedy: I believe in 1960, when he was running for President. But I don't know for sure.
Why is John F. Kennedy so popular? It depends on who you ask and who you're talking about.

As a Classical Liberal ( a real Liberal ) myself I like JFK and consider him to be one of my political heroes, because of his politics and policies. You're talking about a Democrat who was not just an anti-Communist, but anti-authoritarian, and an anti-collectivist all together. Who actually believed in economic opportunity, individual freedom, personal responsibility, like all real Liberals that liberty is not just worth defending, but is something that has to be defended. He believed in equal rights, equal opportunity, fiscal responsibility, things that Democrats apparently don't believe in today ( for the most part ) with few exceptions. President Barack Obama, being one of the last of those Democrats. Despite his right-wing Tea Party stereotypes that President Obama was actually a Socialist. 

But as I mentioned last week on this blog about JFK's rules for success, he wasn't just a brilliant man, but a man ( at least as far as how he spoke ) was full of such brilliant commonsense. Brilliant commonsense probably sounds like a great economy car: how great can an economy car be, otherwise it wouldn't be an economy car, but he's so quotable because he said things that sound brilliant at first, but then when you think about it they're really just commonsense that too many people had simply forgot about. His peace speech where he's talking about the shared human values between America and Russia and how it was in both superpowers best interests to cooperate for the good of the planet and our people's. He's someone that if you gave speeches for a living and tried to help people improve their own lives with your advice, would want to use JFK by quoting him.

So that's why I like him so much, but JFK's popularity of course is bipartisan and perhaps even nonpartisan, otherwise he wouldn't have an 83% approval rating or whatever the current figure is. Why do Conservatives like him? Why do Socialists ( who call themselves Progressives or Liberals ) like him? Why do even Libertarians like him? And finally, but certainly least: why is Hollywood if not in love with the man ( women and men ) why do they love him?

Conservatives like John F. Kennedy, because he was an anti-Communist, who really didn't like socialism in any form. He believed in economic freedom, as well as personal responsibility, which is why he pushed for what was certainly back in 1962 a very large across the board tax cut. He believed in a strong defense and that liberty was worth defending.

JFK, believed in things that today would look very conservative, especially with socialism being so popular at least with young Democrats today, but are actually very liberal ( both in a classic and real sense ) but look conservative, again compared with the modern Democratic Party. Back then Liberals were supposed to believe in these things and not sound and believe like Socialists. And Classical Liberals ( the real Liberals ) still believe in these things today.

Why do let's just call them what they are Socialists, who now see Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Representative Alexandria O. Cortez, Che Guevara, and other leftists as their heroes: why do they admire JFK?

President John Kennedy, wanted to expand the safety net in America and create new social insurance programs for people who struggle to survive economically in America. Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, Federal Aide for Education, because he was a Progressive ( not Socialist ) who believed that government, including the Federal Government could be used to improve the lives of struggling Americans. But unlike let's say Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders he didn't think these programs should be universal and that the Federal Government should replace private employers as the source for how Americans get their what most of us call employee benefits: health insurance, paid leave, childcare, life insurance, pension, education, etc. And JFK also talked about the need for peace a lot.

Libertarians, similar to Conservatives like JFK for his beliefs in lower taxation and individual freedom all together. Jack Kennedy, didn't see the role of government especially the Federal Government to manage and run the lives of free Americans.

And finally, but certainly least why is Hollywood still in love with John F. Kennedy? If you're familiar with Hollywood, you know that it's not just the entertainment capital of America ( if not world ) but they're also the capital of pop culture and faddism. If it's considered cool, it's probably because some Hollywood celebrity either started it or got behind it. And because of their faddism and addiction to popularity and hipsterism, Hollywood always feels the need to be popular and cool. They don't love the man because of his policies for the most part, even though they will talk about his policy accomplishments.

Hollywood loves JFK because he was cool and see him as an honorary member of their Hollywood club. He had friends in Hollywood and they even planned his 45th birthday party in 1962. We're a big part of the production of his 1961 inauguration. Hollywood has this dying need to be seen with the in-crowd and be associated with anything that's cool in America. If fascism, Islamism, and Christian-Nationalism ever became popular in America, at least with young people, Hollywood would be promoting those philosophies with their movies and other productions.  Which is also why Socialists love JFK, because Socialists tend to be hipsters and follow the cool people as well. Which is why Hollywood claims to love Socialists and socialism as well, because socialism is popular with young people.

To have an 83% approval rating, you either have to be God in a very religious country where even young adults are very religious, or you have to be leading a country that's just been under attack and you're the one who successfully led the country through that crisis and came out stronger, like President Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor in 1941, or you have to be a politician who is so popular, because you're able to connect with so many people on so many different levels. Which is why John F. Kennedy is still so popular in America. 

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

HBO: George Carlin- Death Penalty

Source:HBO- George Carlin: come and get it! 
"George Carlin talks about the death penalty, i didn't see this one up so i thought i might upload it ;] If you like George Carlin, you might want to check out Bill Hicks as well.

Taken from his 'Back in Town' special in 1996

This video belongs to HBO and is used under fair use law."

From HBO

So let see if I can't get  this straight: ( because it would be pointless for me to try to get it gay. LOL ) George Carlin, is in favor of the death penalty for bankers who launder money to drug dealers, but the drug dealers would be off the hook ( so to speak ) just as long as the drug dealers are killing each other. So it's OK if drug dealers sell their junk ( to keep it clean ) to our children and everyone else who wants to buy it, just as long as they kill themselves as well.

OK, that's an interesting take, but perhaps just as interesting as the politician who claims you can cut taxes deeply, increase government spending dramatically and that will balance the budget. Sounds like thinking  by people who are on marijuana highs and who perhaps got their marijuana from the same drug dealers who George Carlin wants to spare from the death penalty.

Or the other politician who promises the taxpayers a, b, and c, and perhaps the rest of the alphabet and that none of those programs will cost them everything. And at the same time they're also going to cut their taxes and balance the budget as well. No offense to George: but his death penalty argument sounds like it came from a politician.

I have an alternative: if we're going to have a death penalty at all, it will just be for the assholes. I know what you're thinking: America is full of assholes and there's not enough electricity, poison or ammo to execute every asshole in America. But hear me out: we use the death penalty primarily for the assholes who hurt innocent people simply because they don't like their race, ethnicity, complexion, religion, sexuality, hair color, complexion, shoes, money, etc. And even if with all the hate crimes in America, we're still talking about small percentage of the country. And we can even save the taxpayers some money here by giving them guns and telling them that they're just water guns and let them execute themselves.

This is probably not an argument from anyone who is ever going to get elected to anything ( without Russia's help ) anytime soon, but doesn't mean it's not worth considering.