The PC thing happens from time to time. It's really no big deal. It seems to forget about my second monitor and the only way I can get it to be recognized again is by rebooting. My "work" computer doesn't use wifi so I'm usually ok. Unfortunately, everything else in the house uses the wifi (including the TVs) and that needs rebooting more and more often. I'm hoping the latter is a simple software patch but who knows?
When we all get the wifi chips installed in our heads, this won't be an issue anymore.
Funniest thing about that is they don't have to. We're all carrying around these phones, have smart TVs, many have Siri or Alexa or some other entity in their homes. We've volunteered for monitoring already.
Absolutely right. But the thing about conspiracy theorists is they rarely succumb to things like logic or facts.
That's all humans, not just conspiracy theorists. It's the Gospel According to Paul Simon: A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...
A whole lot of people wanted to believe Trump colluded with Russia and had hookers playing watersports. A lot of people still believe that.
Not Russia, Ukraine. 
Not in 2016.
True, that was the 2020 election. Sorry, have a hard time keeping the Drumpf collusions straight.
You, the media, the Democratic party...And it's only collusion if it actually accomplishes anything. But whatever.
We now know that Hunter Biden was dirty, and that Joe Biden took a meeting he shouldn't have taken that Hunter set up. But we've still got Biden. So it all evens out.
I'll agree it didn't accomplish anything, since Biden won anyway. Not a surprise to me that he can't even collude effectively. 
Correct. Because he's not a career politician, and he comes from generational wealth and the sense of entitlement that endows. He's just one of the exceedingly few of those that ever made it to the oval. More famous are those like Spiro Agnew, Nelson Rockefeller, etc whose political clumsiness washed them out.
But this also explains why he still has a fiercely loyal following. His opponents can't see beyond the bombast and what they categorize as political ineptitude, and are therefore flabbergasted that the guy has any following whatsoever. But that following does not admire the slick politicking of Clinton, Obama, or Biden. John Boehner is well on his way to finding out that they don't like him either. They like Trump, and they like Ted Cruz, not DESPITE their political clumsiness, but BECAUSE of it. They like muckrakers, and they like raked muck. And until the media and the DNC figure this out, they are not going to understand why Trump is still a potent influence, and his followers are still a potent threat to their view of How the World Should Be.
Oh, there's no question why he's as popular as he is, and why he continues to be so. What's problematic is saying that he has so many followers because he goes against the grain, or because he's not a politician, or because he just likes to make waves. While that's unquestionably part of it, the more troubling part is how many people seem to like him for the racist views he (appears) to have and the racist things he says. Whether he actually believes them, or says them just to rile up his base, who's to say?
The problem is that, whether we like it or not, he's a person of influence and he IS saying them, and that people ARE reacting positively to them. The Civil Rights Act passed nearly 60 years ago, and it seems like some days, we're actually behind where we started in respect to how POC are treated in this country. I couldn't care less about Drumpf as a person, it's the people he rallies around him that worry me.
Accusations of racism are grossly overplayed in modern American politics. Maybe that's necessary, maybe it's inevitable, maybe it's something we just need to work through. But characterizing Trump as racist, and his followers as racist, and those who voted for him as racist, is a boondoggle. It isn't accurate, and it's highly counterproductive.
Well, we can agree to disagree on its accuracy. I'd also argue the counterproductive portion of it is the racism itself, not calling it out. But if you can't even acknowledge it exists, and that it's rampant, not only in politics, but in society, then there's not much left to talk about. I certainly won't be able to use the banter to convince you of something like that.
Luckily, I don't even have to try, because it's hazzuh(!) time.
Racism certainly exists. And some racists are Trump supporters. It's possible, even, that most racists are Trump supporters. Mathematically doubtful, I think. But possible.
The inverse - that most Trump supporters are racist - is extremely unlikely, and the thesis that Trump himself is racist is far from supported by evidence.
In addition, the fact that you felt the need to suggest I might not be acknowledging that racism exists is itself an example of the gross overplaying of race as an issue in American politics.
That said, calling out racism to a greater degree than what exists IS more counterproductive than calling out racism. It's the old problem of crying wolf. If you call every shadow racism, people begin to think you're just using race as a political ploy. And when the real "wolf" shows up, they are less likely to see it for what it is. That would be bad, right?
