Just because you keep saying that over and over again doesn’t make it true. But that’s an effective tactic, though. Disinformation 101. Just keep saying insulting, ridiculous things over and over and over again. Heavy repetition is a tool of brainwashing. It works.

All true. Except that that’s not what Svetlana Voreskova does. She slams you with facts and references, over and over again, until you give up and accuse her of engaging in some sort of scurrilous debate tactic.

You’re be more credible if you just said “I disagree with you. I don’t know why, I just do.”

You are not handing a damn thing to me, you are deflecting — and seeing how well it works. You do this a lot. Anytime issues come up that you don’t want to deal with, the insults get thrown about. That’s not my way, because, well, I’m not five.

See previous reference to “scurrilous debate tactic.”

I like challenging your rhetorical style, because it’s a different sort of style — definitely unAmerican until Trump. It’s official, he’s deep into Russian disinformation dissemination and he has jeopardized the security of our nation either purposely or unwittingly.

Let me preface my comment here by saying that if it were ever shown that Trump colluded with (or anyone in his campaign colluded with) the Russians on a disinformation campaign, I will agree with you that impeachment should convene.

Let’s next define “collusion”. “Collusion” would be (a) suggesting to the Russians that they Russians hack something like the DNC to search for embasrrassing information, (b) being told by them that they had hacked the DNC (or done something similar) and failing to bring it to the attention of authorities.

Collusion is not a phone call between international counterparties.

THAT ALL SAID, on what grounds do you say “It’s official, he’s deep into ……”?????? Because that sounds like a baldfaced lie to me.

Either way it’s my patriotic duty to point out speech and online activity that is a threat to the nation.

Chuckles.

To have women and men at each other’s throats over equality or lack thereof?

Clearly not. The consistent thrust of her argumentation is that equal rights already exists, for all practical purposes, and that feminism, and the demand for equality (which is different than equal rights) is what is putting women and men at “each other’s throats”.

What does your anti-feminism rhetoric add to this equation?

I’m starting to wonder if you actually read her responses to you. OBVIOUSLY, she does not believe (nor do I) that feminism advances cooperation between women and men, but in fact divides them.

Divisiveness is destroying the American political system right now. All these heavily manipulated Americans need to take a step back and think about that right now.

That’s true. But you need to consider your own role in promoting that divisiveness.