I am not "telling you" who to speak with or not - but I do believe at some point certain posters who willingly ignore significant on the record fact merit themselves as not beneficial to the overall discussion, and quite the opposite. And perhaps if these patterns change, it may again be constructive in the overall sense, to engage them.
You can do what you wish in terms of who to converse with - but I think it's fair to point out when someone plays fast and loose with anything truthful or even the most basic of context (as if Trump was the only real estate developer to deal with tax and regulatory changes?).
My contention is that it's not worth the ongoing engagement when we see the same patterns of behavior. That doesn't mean I'm telling you, nor anyone, how to respond on your own, that's your choice.
Just as I've been chided for engaging too often with posters that some label as trolls, and who may engage in similar types of behavior (honestly, I thought at times by your yourself, but I don't know for sure, so won't make that contention), and then reflect and recognize if by doing so it only (1) degrades the conversation and (2) motivates them to continue such detrimental behavior (again, being willfully obtuse, genuinely clueless to the facts, or just looking to spread misinformation while knowing better to advance some agenda).
Finally, just as I won't "tell you" who to respond to or not, so too could I ask that you refrain from telling me to not comment when I feel a certain direction of conversation with a poster known to mislead and ignore essential and known facts and context only serves the end of muddying the waters, imo, on purpose.