[Ohioan]

My reply #38 states my meaning clearly. You want to draw me into a discussion of the writer's biases. I am not interested in going there--that is another subject, altogether, than his illogical shortcuts.

My comments were directed not at the writer's biases, which you seem to want to justify; but at his analytic technique, if it can be called that.

If this were a social discussion, and not being something claimed as somehow relevant to the Trump campaign, I would be happy to discuss your historic views. The article, even taking your view of the writer's intention, has in my opinion no relevance whatsoever to the Trump campaign or to American patriotism. (We do not have a litmus test of who agrees with who to define patriotism; although people who cannot stop disparaging other Americans for disagreeing with them, may tempt one to wish we did.)

[Eleutheria5]

I don’t want to even have this discussion with you, let alone draw you into a further discussion. I’ve already covered the author’s illogic. Chiefly, she/he makes the ridiculous leap of logic of saying that 1/2 N (racists) = some of R (Republicans), therefore 1/2 of R = N. You, on the other hand, appear to be saying something else, that N = P (Patriots). I’m sorry, but I don’t endorse that at all, and let’s leave it at that.