But that means you're focusing on the name/origin. "No true Scotsman" is not about the Scots at all, it's about purity spiraling, and is just a name for a particular style of argumentation.

It's name is for something that is uncontroversial and uncontested (with the provisos earlier). Its application is normally to things that are very much contested.

The whole point is the absurdity. It has nothing to do with what a Scotsman is. You can say the name is wrong, but plenty of things have names that don't make sense. Just how language works.

The name is fine. It's absurd because "Scotsman" is uncontested. When people broaden it to things that are much more contested, you are in different territory. I think it's much more fair to say "a libertarian who doesn't support liberty ain't one" than "a Scotsman who doesn't wear a skirt ain't one".

If you want to know my history...technically, yes. I was a registered Democrat for a few months, I believe. Ironically, that was when I was least aligned with them, and was already going to vote for Trump. Before that, I was more aligned with them, but (rightly) hated both parties. I was one of those "independents" who voted straight Democrat, because I didn't know better.

And I hated Donald Trump because I thought he was a racist birther, a vulgarian and someone who would start a nuclear war (had no idea that he was anti-war, I followed the media despite their lies about GG).

Why was I ever a registered Dem? To vote for Bernie...not even because I liked him (went to a rally once to sightsee, was actually creeped out), but because I thought he deserved the Dem nomination more than Killary. I voted for Bernie in the 2016 primary, but always intended to vote Trump in the General.

Based.