Opinion of CentristRepublican?

[TheReckoning]

What’s your opinion of this Republican poster? I personally consider him a FF for his pragmatism and free thinking, even if I have disagreements with his takes and positions.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Trannygate is by far the best argument in favor of Critical Belief of Dreadnought, because maybe then he wouldn't be so eager to "generally prefer" cisgenders to transgenders.

[😥]

Massive FF

[Skunk]

I'm not going to be too hard on him since I'm pretty sure he's like, 14. All I'll say is that he needs to learn about how the outside world works.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

It's worse to be CentristRepublican than it is to call CentristRepublican an HP.

[Big Abraham]

Just lol

[free my dawg]

CentristRepublican combines Oldiesfreak's stubbornness, GMac's affinity for strawmen, and Haley/Ryan's unwarranted condescension. It's not a great combo.

One of my favorite CR moments was when he decided to condescend to me of all people about New Hampshire politics because he assumed "New England GOP = moderate". His response to my rebuttals has often been to cherry-pick the most extreme piece of my arguments, debate that until he admits he's wrong, and give a BS "if you felt like" "apology".

Only to turn around and do the exact same thing again a few months later.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Lastly - don't want to be filling up this thread with my own posts

A little late, bro.  I voted FF but thankfully there's no option to switch my vote. 

[Schiff for Senate]

Lastly - don't want to be filling up this thread with my own posts

A little late, bro.  I voted FF but thankfully there's no option to switch my vote. 

To avoid clogging up the thread I'll just combine all my posts into one megapost so it takes up a little less space.

[Schiff for Senate]

I was actually thinking about bumping the old thread (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=453224.0), and was searching for it when I found this!

Anyway, I knew my approvals would be low because I am an "elitist" "transphobe", but I didn't imagine I'd be at like 80% HP levels. This is genuinely saddening and an unpleasant surprise, considering the older poll has me at over 60% FF.

I acknowledge the first and apologize for it - I'll work on it, but I know some of my comments on the Bay Area aren't fair and/or are ignorant.
I also agree that some of my remarks on transgenders went too far, and apologize for those ones, but still think that the forum's definition of transphobe incriminates too many who really aren't transphobes.

CentristRepublican combines Oldiesfreak's stubbornness, GMac's affinity for strawmen, and Haley/Ryan's unwarranted condescension. It's not a great combo.

One of my favorite CR moments was when he decided to condescend to me of all people about New Hampshire politics because he assumed "New England GOP = moderate". His response to my rebuttals has often been to cherry-pick the most extreme piece of my arguments, debate that until he admits he's wrong, and give a BS "if you felt like" "apology".

Only to turn around and do the exact same thing again a few months later.

Those apologies are genuine. Sorry if you don't see them that way. I try to avoid getting rude or making assumptions, but when I do, I try and apologize. THG himself, though we aren't on good terms, would tell you that after a particularly heated moment I reached out via PM to apologize. I'm not hear to strawman or be condescending, though of course, sometimes I inadvertently do both. Which is why I then apologize. But I don't see how to win if I do something you disagree with, apologize for it, but you refuse to accept my apology and rebuff it.

Just lol

I admit reading just that makes me sound unhinged and unpredictable, but a.) I did it half-jokingly (though obviously it wasn't a joke like that but rather me saying it half-seriously and in a way not meant to be taken literally), and b.) I went into more depth on the subject thereafter.

I'm not going to be too hard on him since I'm pretty sure he's like, 14. All I'll say is that he needs to learn about how the outside world works.

I'm not, and as I've said previously, trying to make assumptions about posters' ages isn't a good habit, when you know so little about them in real life. At the same time, I admit there's a lot more I need to learn, and of course my views will change over time, hopefully in a way you consider positive.

Trannygate is by far the best argument in favor of Critical Belief of Dreadnought, because maybe then he wouldn't be so eager to "generally prefer" cisgenders to transgenders.

Maybe I need to further clarify, and make it clear once and for all. 'Tranny' doesn't sound like a really bad 'slur' to me. It might be. But it doesn't sound bad. Of course I wouldn't know and it is trans people who know what a trans slur is, and I acknowledge this, which is why I also said it's worse to say tranny if it is being done malignantly (it probably is, though possibly not) and if the person being called that genuinely is hurt by it and/or asks the other person to stop. I am not a bigot of any kind. I don't endorse bullying. I'm not a transphobe. Believe or don't believe me, but I just really want people to realize I don't condone bullying of any kind, not against cisgenders or transgenders. (And now don't take offense at my use of the word transgenders as you or Discovolante sometimes do - I already said, I mean literally zero offense to trans people in saying it and am in the habit of saying it.)

Lastly - don't want to be filling up this thread with my own posts - I think my approvals will be higher if this poll is taken later, since right now people are still upset with me over my recent allegedly transphobic comments, and possibly also my comments about the Bay Area (for which I sincerely say - I'm going to avoid doing that from now on, and making assumptions).

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Titanium FF, one of the best posters on the site.

[Schiff for Senate]

Titanium FF, one of the best posters on the site.

I would say the same to you.
Also, as for your signature - I agree but I'd say Phil Scott > Charlie Baker, though both are very great and Scott's only a bit better than Baker. Somehow Scott feels more moderate and real.

[Conservatopia]

This is a tough one - I'm having an internal caucus to answer this poll.

[Schiff for Senate]

Can anyone who voted HP tell me why (unless you already did)? Was it the Bay Area incidents? The 'trannies' incident? Something else? I only want to know because it's just that you don't see an 80 point shift in someone's approvals over nothing.

[Хahar 🤔]

An important step toward improving as a poster would be to understand where it's appropriate to share value judgments and where doing so derails a serious discussion or excludes the possibility of a serious discussion. It's frustrating to click on a thread entitled "Why do Northern CA politicians dominate CA politics?" hoping that there's been serious discussion of California politics, only to find that there are a half-dozen posts by CentristRepublican about why he thinks Southern California is bad.

I do think that this is a learning process that will take place over time.

[Schiff for Senate]

An important step toward improving as a poster would be to understand where it's appropriate to share value judgments and where doing so derails a serious discussion or excludes the possibility of a serious discussion. It's frustrating to click on a thread entitled "Why do Northern CA politicians dominate CA politics?" hoping that there's been serious discussion of California politics, only to find that there are a half-dozen posts by CentristRepublican about why he thinks Southern California is bad.

I do think that this is a learning process that will take place over time.

This is a fair point. Honestly, thanks for your advice. I do want to know how I can improve as a poster. I'll stop posting more about NorCal >>>> SoCal, since I think my views are very clear already to most posters (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=479338.msg8438573#msg8438573 is just one example).

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

More of an FF than an HP

[Aurelius]

His habit of looking down on huge swathes of the country for being not rich and smart enough for him rubs me the wrong way, and I detect a little bit of ethnic chauvinism too tbh. I give him credit though for being able to admit being wrong when confronted with hard evidence, an ability many much older people lack. Like for all the many teenagers on here, wisdom and maturation will come with time.

[Хahar 🤔]

An important step toward improving as a poster would be to understand where it's appropriate to share value judgments and where doing so derails a serious discussion or excludes the possibility of a serious discussion. It's frustrating to click on a thread entitled "Why do Northern CA politicians dominate CA politics?" hoping that there's been serious discussion of California politics, only to find that there are a half-dozen posts by CentristRepublican about why he thinks Southern California is bad.

I do think that this is a learning process that will take place over time.

This is a fair point. Honestly, thanks for your advice. I do want to know how I can improve as a poster. I'll stop posting more about NorCal >>>> SoCal, since I think my views are very clear already to most posters (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=479338.msg8438573#msg8438573 is just one example).

In general, a good rule of thumb is that nobody here cares about your political opinion unless they're specifically asking for it. After all, this forum is fundamentally for discussing election maps, not for debating politics. The best boards on this forum (International Elections, Political Geography & Demographics, etc.) are the ones where this is best understood; for instance, because threads about German elections aren't constantly clogged up by people who want to show that they think that Alternative für Deutschland is bad, people can instead have nuanced and intelligent discussions about the thread topic. By contrast, US General Discussion is a particularly bad board because people have difficulty with this.

Over time, you may be able to learn to make posts that effectively make a political argument while also being informative and fostering further intelligent discussion. This is what the best posters on this site do. Doing that, however, takes time and experience with expressing oneself productively.

[Schiff for Senate]

His habit of looking down on huge swathes of the country for being not rich and smart enough for him rubs me the wrong way, and I detect a little bit of ethnic chauvinism too tbh. I give him credit though for being able to admit being wrong when confronted with hard evidence, an ability many much older people lack. Like for all the many teenagers on here, wisdom and maturation will come with time.

Yeah, I'm trying to roll that back. But let me quickly be nitpicky about a few things - I don't particularly look down upon any large part of the country; honestly, even my dislike for Southern CA is partly as a joke and only partly seriously, and also, yes, I admit that I do favour Indian-Americans, being one of them myself, but it's not like some sort of thing where I hate anyone from any other race or look down upon them, but rather a feeling of solidarity with Indian-Americans.

An important step toward improving as a poster would be to understand where it's appropriate to share value judgments and where doing so derails a serious discussion or excludes the possibility of a serious discussion. It's frustrating to click on a thread entitled "Why do Northern CA politicians dominate CA politics?" hoping that there's been serious discussion of California politics, only to find that there are a half-dozen posts by CentristRepublican about why he thinks Southern California is bad.

I do think that this is a learning process that will take place over time.

This is a fair point. Honestly, thanks for your advice. I do want to know how I can improve as a poster. I'll stop posting more about NorCal >>>> SoCal, since I think my views are very clear already to most posters (https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=479338.msg8438573#msg8438573 is just one example).

In general, a good rule of thumb is that nobody here cares about your political opinion unless they're specifically asking for it. After all, this forum is fundamentally for discussing election maps, not for debating politics. The best boards on this forum (International Elections, Political Geography & Demographics, etc.) are the ones where this is best understood; for instance, because threads about German elections aren't constantly clogged up by people who want to show that they think that Alternative für Deutschland is bad, people can instead have nuanced and intelligent discussions about the thread topic. By contrast, US General Discussion is a particularly bad board because people have difficulty with this.

Over time, you may be able to learn to make posts that effectively make a political argument while also being informative and fostering further intelligent discussion. This is what the best posters on this site do. Doing that, however, takes time and experience with expressing oneself productively.

That's fair enough, and I appreciate all the advice, but I just want to say that this is a political forum; i.e., a place where politics is discussed and debated, so I'd honestly argue that while in certain places (I admit that it didn't make sense for me to do so in the NorCal vs SoCal politics thread) it's inappropriate to articulate my political views, it's wholly appropriate to do so most of the time (again, depending on context, and I admit I have posted my political opinions in threads where it doesn't make much sense to). And also, I agree USGD is way too politicized (International Elections seems fine but I wouldn't know since I'm very rarely on there and have posted there like once).

[Vice President Christian Man]

We don't agree on everything but I respect that he's civil and a free thinker. FF.

[John Dule]

I like his elitism and moderation; dislike his immaturity and adherence to identity politics. FF until he's outed as a Coolface sock.

[THG]

He’s akin to S019 but with Adam Kinzinger’s political views (if that).

I admire his condescending attitude, although it is frankly impossible for me to take it seriously due to a variety of factors. Not to mention how frustrating, slow, and utterly humorless he is. I genuinely don’t think he grasps the concept of hyperbole.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

I admire his condescending attitude, although it is frankly impossible for me to take it seriously due to the fact that he must have atleast 30 fewer IQ points than me.

By definition, lower than absolute zero is impossible to obtain.

[Schiff for Senate]

He’s akin to S019 but with Adam Kinzinger’s political views (if that).

I admire his condescending attitude, although it is frankly impossible for me to take it seriously due to the fact that he must have atleast 30 fewer IQ points than me. Not to mention how frustrating, slow, and utterly humorless he is. I genuinely don’t think he grasps the concept of hyperbole.

Wow, how full of yourself can you get?
This honestly also feels like a classic case of projection. ("Condescending attitude" - even THG has admitted he has this; "How...Utterly humorless he is" - I remember a matchup between him and a Confederate sympathizer, DeadPrez, where DeadPrez won some votes because people remarked that at least he had a sense of humour and was funnier than THG, so...)

I admire his condescending attitude, although it is frankly impossible for me to take it seriously due to the fact that he must have atleast 30 fewer IQ points than me.

By definition, lower than absolute zero is impossible to obtain.

Putting this one in the burn centre.