Guess the previous poster’s opinion of you

[Schiff for Senate]

HP.

Or to be more specific, that I just refuse to believe the GOP can do even better in OH and IA, and that I am not a true Republican, and that I am fooldhardy for supporting masks (which save lives).

[Schiff for Senate]

About REAL Kimberly Guilfoyle (they were the last person to reply before I began writing my post): They have a good opinion of me as a fellow sane, centrist (though they may be somewhat more centre-right than centrist) Republican.

About TarHeelGent (who posted a reply while I was writing mine):

HP.

Or to be more specific, that I just refuse to believe the GOP can do even better in OH and IA, and that I am not a true Republican, and that I am fooldhardy for supporting masks (which save lives).

 ( UPDATE:He also dislikes me because I support common sense gun control measures that would save lives by disallowing madmen and women for buying firearms muh the Second Amendment. )

HP.

Or to be more specific, that I just refuse to believe the GOP can do even better in OH and IA, and that I am not a true Republican, and that I am fooldhardy for supporting masks (which save lives).

*SKIP*

A quick question. Do you call yourself pro life? I'm guessing you do. Well, you seem to think a fetus has more right to life than those who are in the wrong place at the wrong time and are killed by a mad person with a gun, or someone who contracts COVID19 and dies because people like you refuse to wear masks or (I'm admit I'm guessing this, based on your position on masks, but there's a strong chance I'm right) get vaccinated and will not bother social distancing.

And I'd prefer to be called a RINO than be associated with the GOP if you are the embodiment of today's average Republican.

[Schiff for Senate]

About REAL Kimberly Guilfoyle (they were the last person to reply before I began writing my post): They have a good opinion of me as a fellow sane, centrist (though they may be somewhat more centre-right than centrist) Republican.

About TarHeelGent (who posted a reply while I was writing mine):

HP.

Or to be more specific, that I just refuse to believe the GOP can do even better in OH and IA, and that I am not a true Republican, and that I am fooldhardy for supporting masks (which save lives).

 ( UPDATE:He also dislikes me because I support common sense gun control measures that would save lives by disallowing madmen and women for buying firearms muh the Second Amendment. )

HP.

Or to be more specific, that I just refuse to believe the GOP can do even better in OH and IA, and that I am not a true Republican, and that I am fooldhardy for supporting masks (which save lives).

You also unironically support gun control. I usually detest the term “RINO” but you absolutely deserve it, you dullard.

*SKIP*

A quick question. Do you call yourself pro life? I'm guessing you do. Well, you seem to think a fetus has more right to life than those who are in the wrong place at the wrong time and are killed by a mad person with a gun, or someone who contracts COVID19 and dies because people like you refuse to wear masks or (I'm admit I'm guessing this, based on your position on masks, but there's a strong chance I'm right) get vaccinated and will not bother social distancing.

And I'd prefer to be called a RINO than be associated with the GOP if you are the embodiment of today's average Republican.

We have far too many gun restrictions as it is. Also, you clearly don’t believe in our constitution and you aren’t center right by any means.

Also, I am not anti-vax. There is scientific proof the vaccines are some of the most effective treatment against COVID. I am opposed to vaccine mandates and/or passports but not the vaccine itself.

I admittedly don’t believe in lockdowns, mask mandates or social distancing because there is no scientific proof they (paper cloth masks) make a difference in, nor do we need such mandates. I believe people should live their lives without smug tyrants like CentristRepublican telling them how to behave.

Also, this isn’t the appropriate thread to start an argument, so I’m done with responding to low IQ concern trolls.

*SKIP*

I am uninterested in arguing on this forum. My goal isn't to squabble with you, especially when there's no way for you to see reason. I just want to point out that you were the one who felt the need to quote me and mock my position on gun control (and call me an ''insufferable dullard'') after I guessed that you disliked me and provided some reasons why this might be the case:

HP.

Or to be more specific, that I just refuse to believe the GOP can do even better in OH and IA, and that I am not a true Republican, and that I am fooldhardy for supporting masks (which save lives).

You also unironically support gun control. I can’t think of a single position of yours that is actually “Republican”- hell, you even called Reagan a bad president. REAGAN!

I usually detest the term “RINO” but you absolutely deserve it, you insufferable dullard. But whom am I (only a well connected individual in Republican and Conservative circles) to question you, the real Republican hero of our time?

*SKIP*

(And for all your talk of not wanting to reply to a "low IQ concern troll," I see you've edited your post to mock me for not being a Reagan supporter, point out your great esteem in "Republican and Conservative circles" and call me "insufferable" as well as a "dullard." By the way, if you think my opposing Reagan makes me un-Republican, wait until you hear that I'm anti-Trump and don't support the Big Lie.)

[Schiff for Senate]

Oh, for God's sake, can you two shut the  up?!

(And if CR didn't think I'm an HP for being trans, he definitely thinks I'm an HP now)

First of all, I don't think trans people are horrible people just for being trans. I'm just personally uncomfortable with it, but that doesn't mean trans people are necessarily bad people.
Secondly, I agree with you, as the argument between me and THG is clogging up this thread, and will not further engage with THG.

[Schiff for Senate]

I don't think he knows me very well but if I had to guess at least lean FF because I am often the first replier to his "Describe this voter" posts.

[Schiff for Senate]

Probably somewhere between FF and HP. I'm guessing he considers me too conservative, but I'm also guessing he doesn't really dislike me or anything.

[Schiff for Senate]

Probably negative after I decided to go after him for his remark about transphobia.

My only problem with Trans Rights Are Human Rights is that (s)he makes everything about transgender rights and never ceases to remind me I oppose some transgender 'rights.' I have no problem with transgenders per se, but I don't like it when they (or any other group, for that matter) are obssessed with the issue (or any other issue, for that matter) and focus solely on it. Therefore, while (s)he may agree with me on some other issues, I would say tilt or lean HP because I do not support transgender rights, although it might just be neutral given that (s)he doesn't seem to exactly dislike me, only my distaste for transgenderism.

[Schiff for Senate]

Probably negative after I decided to go after him for his remark about transphobia.

My only problem with Trans Rights Are Human Rights is that (s)he makes everything about transgender rights and never ceases to remind me I oppose some transgender 'rights.' I have no problem with transgenders per se, but I don't like it when they (or any other group, for that matter) are obssessed with the issue (or any other issue, for that matter) and focus solely on it. Therefore, while (s)he may agree with me on some other issues, I would say tilt or lean HP because I do not support transgender rights, although it might just be neutral given that (s)he doesn't seem to exactly dislike me, only my distaste for transgenderism.

Sorry, I get very passionate about things that are very important to me, and trans rights are very important to me, hence the screen name. (Also, you don't need to add parentheses around the s in she. I told TarHeelGent and I'll tell you: I am who I say I am.)

Net negative for the reason he said above.

Well, my opinion of you isn't exactly negative. We disagree on some issues (clearly, we disagree on transgender rights), and I dislike some of the things you do (such as being obssessed with transgender rights), but I don't think I'd go so far as to say my overall opinion of you is negative. You are principled in what you believe and are still polite and reasonable most of the time. Perhaps I should elaborate: my real problem with you isn't even that you're passionate about transgender rights - it's good to be passionate about issues - but that you are 'woke' and overly sensitive. For instance, when I called trans people 'transgenders' in a moment of indiscretion, unaware of any difference between the two terms, you called me out for being 'insulting' toward transgender people. Overall, though, no, my opinion of you is probably neutral, not negative. I have a negative opinion of few people on this forum. Also, it's understandable that you want to be called she without the parantheses. I will keep that in mind and will in the future refer to you as she. When I called you '(s)he' in the previous post, I quite honestly didn't mean any offense, but if you were offended, I apologize and will omit the parantheses next time.

Probably negative after I decided to go after him for his remark about transphobia.

My only problem with Trans Rights Are Human Rights is that (s)he makes everything about transgender rights and never ceases to remind me I oppose some transgender 'rights.' I have no problem with transgenders per se, but I don't like it when they (or any other group, for that matter) are obssessed with the issue (or any other issue, for that matter) and focus solely on it. Therefore, while (s)he may agree with me on some other issues, I would say tilt or lean HP because I do not support transgender rights, although it might just be neutral given that (s)he doesn't seem to exactly dislike me, only my distaste for transgenderism.

My only problem with MLK is that he makes everything about civil rights and never ceases to remind me I oppose some civil 'rights.' I have no problem with Black people per se, but I don't like it when they (or any other group, for that matter) are obssessed with the issue (or any other issue, for that matter) and focus solely on it. Therefore, while he may agree with me on some other issues, I would say tilt or lean HP because I do not support civil rights, although it might just be neutral given that (he doesn't seem to exactly dislike me, only my taste for segregation.

[skip]

Your opinion of me is quite obviously HP.

I think Trans Rights for Human Rights would laugh at the notion that she (I dropped the parantheses in respect for what she said she prefers) is the MLK of transgender rights. I am somewhat offended at being compared to segregationists, but the way you just change a few words to show me my hypocrisy and how I am the equivalent of a segregationist in some ways is quite artful, and gets your point across quite clearly. But let me say that while I oppose some rights for transgender people, I support many others. My opposition is really just that I am uncomfortable with transgender people. Personally, what I think is that if I or THG or anyone else on this forum or in this nation or in the world is uncomfortable with transgender rights or LGBT rights, others should try to convince them otherwise, but if they remain uncomfortable on the matter, that's all right. Their uncomfortableness is understandable, and should be respected (though not necessarily agreed with), as long as this uncomfortableness does not translate into hate, bigotry or them actively working against that group. I'm not against transgender rights the way segregationists like Strom Thurmond were against civil rights at all. If you notice, when Trans Rights for Human Rights asked me to call her 'she' without the parentheses around the s, I respected it, and remain mindful of it. Returning to my stance on trans issues, let me be specific. If I opposed transgender people serving in the military and serving their country just because they are transgender (the way segregationists opposed African-Americans serving in the military for a while), I'd be the equivalent of a segregationist. Rather, I support transgenders serving openly in the military and facing no discrimination. If someone is patriotic enough to be willing to die for their country their country should never stop them unless they have a very good reason. If I opposed transgender people from adopting children, simply because they are transgender, I'd be a bigot. But I don't. Transgenders (and gays and lesbians as well, for that matter) are as good parents as non-trans people, and their transgenderness doesn't make them less capable as parents, necessarily. Really, there are only some transgender rights I oppose, and in many cases, I oppose the equivalent for gays as well, despite being a fervent supporter of gay rights. For instance churches should be allowed to disallow transgender people if it goes against their belief, and people who have religious or personal objections to transgenders should be allowed to hold them. The exact same is true for gay people, too. A church opposed to gay rights shouldn't be forced to marry two men; an anti-gay person should be allowed to refuse the sale of a wedding cake to gay people. Not saying I support their belief; I support their right to do what they want and hold what beliefs they want as long as they aren't actually physically or emotionally hurting that group. It is a complicated concept, admittedly, but the bottom line is that I don't oppose these rights for transgender people specifically or just because they are transgender, but because of a larger issue. I oppose certain other transgender 'rights' as well. The point I'm making is that you should really not call me a segregationist; the points above support that argument. I don't appreciate the label, and honestly don't think it's valid, given that I am not actively anti-trans the way segregationists were constantly attempting to physically or otherwise hurt African-Americans. By comparing me to segregationists you are minimizing how terrible segregationists were and you are minimizing or undermining the whole Civil Rights Movement.

LOL

I don't think he knows me well at all. I'll go with neutral or maybe FF.

[Schiff for Senate]

For instance, when I called trans people 'transgenders' in a moment of indiscretion, unaware of any difference between the two terms, you called me out for being 'insulting' toward transgender people.

Source: Capcom

Businesses should be allowed to deny transgenders jobs, at least if they have personal beliefs that are against transgenders.

Where in this meme does it state that I considered you to be "insulting" toward trans people?
(skip)

Well, I don't think you said exactly what I said you siad in the previous post; I think you said, "or transgenders, as you [insultingly refer to them as]" in a thread I made about transgender rights.

[Schiff for Senate]

Well, I don't think you said exactly what I said you siad in the previous post; I think you said, "or transgenders, as you [insultingly refer to them as]" in a thread I made about transgender rights.

That was Disco who pointed out that "transgenders" is often an insulting term. Sorry for the confusion.

As for UT Neolib, I think he likes me.

(As last time, neutral or lean HP.)

Sorry I confused you both.

[Schiff for Senate]

Probably a soft FF.

Roughly neutral, maybe, since he doesn't know me well.

[Schiff for Senate]

FF for obvious reasons if you see our usernames and the ideologies they convey.

[Schiff for Senate]

FF

Neutral or lean positive, maybe.

[Schiff for Senate]

Lean FF

Yeah, probably that. We disagree on some things but you are a polite, reasonable, pragmatic poster who at least doesn't belong to the GOP's more extreme elements.

I'd say Greg also thinks I'm about lean FF or so.

[Schiff for Senate]

HP

I don't consider you an HP - more like about neutral - though I'm obviously an HP to you based on what you said to what I said on transgenders and your comment in the new "Opinion of CentristRepublican?" thread.

HP

Like I said earlier - probably lean FF.

[Schiff for Senate]

HP

I don't consider you an HP - more like about neutral - though I'm obviously an HP to you based on what you said to what I said on transgenders and your comment in the new "Opinion of CentristRepublican?" thread.

HP

Like I said earlier - probably lean FF.

Lean HP

No, no. I only consider a few far-righters and a few certain Democrats to be HP's. I may disagree with you on some things but you're far from an HP. I also find your views to be more enigmatic and mystifying than those of 99% of posters, so that's a plus. I'd probably consider you neutral or maybe a light FF. Not HP.

 I'd say you consider me neutral or tilt FF.

[Schiff for Senate]

FF.

Likely HP

[Schiff for Senate]

FF

I would say (and hope) FF despite obvious ideological differences.

[Schiff for Senate]

I don't like to be full of myself, but I'd say flyingmongoose considers me a massive FF (the feeling is mutual if so).

HP

Why?

You just joined the Forum practically Yesterday, generally post on side threads, and quite frankly don't have any recollection of anything offensive you have ever said or posted which would cause me to be a knee jerk hater.  

Just because I have an OR-SOC avatar and you have a CA-PUB avatar doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this world.    

*** SKIP ***

I think it may also have to do with a very controversial post by flyingmongoose (which he's deleted and apologized for) which has gotten him under a lot of fire. I won't go into its details here though (it's better not mentioned).