When I was a teenager in the '60s, I remember reading stories about how automation was going to start doing more and more of the manual work for us, which would leave us more free time to pursue our hobbies and interests.  They would show pictures of families having picnics in the park, with artists at their easels painting.  It was idyllic, or utopian if you wish.  But I remember thinking, without work, where are people going to get the money to pay the bills?  Somebody is still going to have to do the "non-automated" jobs, and run things.  Who has to do that work and who gets to have all that time off?  Will the few people that work get paid more and live like kings?  I could never understand what the "plan" was?

We are not there yet, but we are getting there.  Airline ticket clerks, bank tellers, retail clerks have largely been replaced by kiosks or ATMs or web sites.  Pretty soon taxi drivers, truck drivers and pilots will be replaced.  Fast food workers are probably next and who knows what else will be automated.

So what will we do with all those people with too much free time.  And what is that old saying about idle hands and the devils workshop?  If people don't have jobs, they won't have money but they will have idle hands.  What happens to crime rates?

I have some ideas of solutions, but I don't like them.

What kind of ideas do you guys have as to how the human race will function once we automated most of the jobs? Even computer programmers will eventually be replaced with AI.  A large part of the population won't be able to cope with the new types of jobs that are created.  What do we do with those people?  Build a lot of homeless shelters?

I feel like  a liberal now, because this is based on emotion, but I think it should be illegal to burn the American Flag on American soil.

And while the press is crucifying Trump for saying that, they mostly ignore the fact that HRC said the same thing in 2005.

I agree wholeheartedly with "Freedom of Speech", but I am less enthralled with "Freedom of Actions".  Perhaps if the Constitution said "Freedom of Expression" it would be different, but it didn't.  Why not?

Ok.  Hillary appears to have garnered more popular votes than Trump but received fewer EC delegates.  So her supporters want to ditch the EC.

Point 1:
Are they equally anxious to ditch the Democrats primary system that not only uses a similar delegate system, but they also use a truly fucked up system of "super delegates".  Many say that is why Bernie lost.

Point 2:
As Trump said, he campaigned based on the existence of the EC.  If the election was based on popular votes, then he would have campaigned differently, targeting the denser population areas more.

So can anyone explain to me just WHY they want to ditch the EC, other than the fact that they lost the election?

I heard Paul Ryan give a surprisingly upbeat speech yesterday.  I say surprisingly because of his anti-Trump stance during the election.

Was that just sucking up to the new President or did he mean it?

I believe he meant it.  I think his anti-Trump remarks largely had to do with his belief that Trump was going to cost the GOP the  Oval Office as well as the House and Senate.  He now sees that he was wrong and he now sees the potential that Trump offers.

I really used to like Ryan, but I lost some respect during the election.  I hope I recover the respect and that he and Trump can work well together to get things done.

I do believe in the 1st Amendment, but channeling my inner-Hillary, I have to add a "but" to that.

For instance,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sources-us-intel-warning-of-possible-al-qaeda-attacks-in-us-monday/?ref=yfp

Should the press be reporting about anticipated terror attacks?  If I were one of these tangos, I would change my plan, pronto.

There is also another thread going on about report early voting statistics with discussion about how maybe that should not be allowed.

Perhaps our press is a little too free?

In the past few days, I have been called a hypocrite on 2 occasions  (Not on this forum).

Here are the situations:

(1)
I have condemned Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs to a greater degree than Trumps.
This is true. 
But at the time, Clinton was President of the United States.  If an officer has an affair with an enlisted person, they get punished, but it is ok for two enlisted people to have an affair.  If a teacher has an affair with a student, it is punishable even if the student is of legal age, but if two students, of legal age have sex, there is no problem.  What Trump said is revolting, but it is not disqualifying.  What Bill Clinton did (especially the lying to Congress part) is.
And before anyone says "But Bill Clinton is not running for office, perhaps you should aim that accusation at the people that called me a hypocrite.  They were the ones that brought up Clinton in an attempt to belittle Trump's actions.

(2)
I was outraged at Comey not recommending charges against Clinton, but I applauded him when he reopened the investigation.
Again, this is true.
But I could not see his justification for not recommending prosecution after his lengthy description of her actions.  As I see it, reopening the investigation was merely righting a wrong.  If he had not reopened the investigation and later was found to have sat on the evidence because of the election, then that would have been wrong and I would want him to face some kind of charge.

Someone should pay, but it shouldn't be the vets?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-national-guard-bonus-20161020-snap-story.html?ref=yfp