Struggling with an Opening Reportoire

That is true, however I'm still unsure what types of middle games I like to play. I wouldn't say I am a tactics person nor am I positional. I wouldn't say I prefer open or closed positions. I find it hard to look at a position and say "I like this" Or not because it seems like it should be much more objective.

@1

"uncomfortable with the opening" ++ What uncomfort?

"once I get out of the opening I am more than happy" ++ You always get out of the opening.

"openings with positions I feel comfortable in"
++ Comfort does not come from the opening, it comes from playing the position well.

"give me a good win rate"
++ Win rate says nothing about the opening, it says something about your opponents.

"openings you like to play consistently?"
++ Just play an opening consistently and you will be comfortable.

"was your relationship with them turbulent at first?"
++ You always start by losing and then you have to learn from your mistakes.

@rubbishowl In my opinion you havent yet played enough online chess, 300 rapid games and around same blitz games means you havent even started, try to reach 5k games (rapid or blitz) and you might get your asnwers in the process of playing. 

Asking yourself "Do I like this?" Is useless.

You need to ask yourself "Do I understand the position?"  Do I know why everyone plays X?  Are there times not to play X?

VERY COMMON AMATEUR MISTAKE:

King's Indian Defense.  If someone asked you what is the whole idea behind the Kings Indian, if they tell you it is to play ...f5, they are clueless and should not be playing the Kings Indian.

After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6, it is important to understand which of the 4 central squares is White's weakest.  With c2-c4 and e2-e4 already played, it is d4.  5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5 (hitting d4) 7.O-O Nc6 (hitting d4) 8.d5 (White gave in, d4 is now ours, but now we must move the Knight.  Ideas are different if 8.Be3.) 8...Ne7 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.Be3 f5 (Amateurs think this is the whole point behind the Kings Indian.  This only works if the center is settled and blocked.  If White has not played d5, and dxe5 is still possible, then ...f5 would often be fatal to Black, like in the 4 pawns attack.

This is what you need to be doing.  This type of exercise.  Can you explain IN WORDS what each side's goals are in said opening.  If you can, great (like me in the French, Kings Indian, e6-Dutch lines, QGD, Nimzo, etc).  If you cannot, move on and play something else, like in my case, that would be the Grunfeld, Najdorf, etc).

Many years ago when I was a child, I didn't have access to opening theory so I had to learn openings through trial and error. I needed something good to play against 1. e4 as I was getting bored of playing 1. ... e5 (do all games between little kids still start with 1. e4 e5?).
First I tried the French Defence, but even though I heard it was good, I had no idea what I was doing and lost every game where I played it. Then I somehow learned that 1. e4 Nf6 (Alekhine's Defence) is a legitimate opening so I tried it out and started winning games. Occasionally I would lose because I played something inaccurately but over time, through trial and error I figured out the correct way to play this opening as I understand its core ideas: in particular, that the Alekhine is about provoking White into overextending and then striking back with a counterattack. Eventually I started winning every game where I played it and people were afraid of playing 1. e4 against me (even to this day, the national masters at my local club do not want to face my Alekhine).

1. My advice to you would be as follows:
   When learning an opening, first focus on the ideas of the opening as opposed to the exact moves (i.e. What is your general plan? What sort of pawn structure are you going for? What is the purpose of each of your pieces in this opening? What is your opponent trying to do?)
2. One exception to the above: identify any sharp lines where you will lose if you don't know the exact moves and then either prioritize them or learn ways to avoid them. (For example, Dutch Defence players sometimes don't play f5 on move one as there are a number of nasty anti-Dutch lines like the Staunton Gambit and Hopton Attack)
3. Openings that are more mainstream are often more difficult to learn because your opponents will often know them very well and you will often need to be ready for a wide variety of decent choices (ex: the Sicilian, the King's Indian, the Ruy Lopez). Openings that are more offbeat are often easier to understand and you might get a nice practical advantage if your opponent doesn't know how to play against it (ex: the Scandinavian, the Stonewall Dutch, the Sokolsky, the Scotch). The downside of offbeat openings is that they are a bit weaker objectively.

I hope that this helps you.

when, like me, you have ZERO understanding of mumbo jumbo positional voodoo, openings are everything. I'm MISERABLE myself stuck with the stonewall because I don't have a gambit repertoire and am STILL trying to build books for the lines I do play. I have an 87% win rate in one kings gambit line, and something like 30:40 against declined with 2...c6. positional players and lower rated ones that play weird systems drive me nuts. 

i play BETTER against 1800+ players! I held that rating for around 85 games when i started playing a new site because 1800s don't play wacky lines and are often more predictable, or at least give me the room to spread out until I find something to chew on. I'm hating my hard to maintain 1600+ rating now.

i think either players like to sandbag during certain hours, or maybe i'm facing positional trained russian school players as some times when i play, i'll win 90% of my games and on nights like last night, lose a majority and turn a 1650 back dawn to 1596. I was psyched when i crawled back up to just shy of 1700 recently then hit every branch in the book falling back down to 1620 in one session.

I USED TO beat almost everyone I played once I studied about 50 lines worth of smith morra, after losing almost every game before that with grand prix, advance and wing gambit, but you can't get away with the old Qe2 formation any more and despite being 200 points higher rated, I have a bad record in that.

I need openings that are PURELY tactical. i'm doing better (still losing) against the french which I've always despised, but still performing poorly as NO-ONE will accept the monte carlo gambit. i TRIED studying the "new orthoschnapp" the other day, but its weird positions turned my brain to mush, and I think it's because the trainer I'm using wasn't teaching me any of the tactical lines, just boring targets free ones.

I totally feel the OP's plight! if i'm tripped up in the opening (BTW, I used to have a solid winning record stonewalling even if I grew to despise it for the anti-tactical pawn pushing straight jacket it is, but now that people are booking up on new theory and clever ideas, i'm doing poorly in that too.

endgames? what are those? i want my games over by move 30 win or lose. i don't enjoy slogging it out 60 moves, even if i win. there's little room for tactics if it goes that long and i'm toast if it comes down to pawn endings.

indeed. Building an Opening Repertoire is progressive to a point. But as said, it is Important. I totally agree that you need to establish a sort of "relationship" with any opening you may take up. It is kind of an intuitive process, to me. Namely because, unless you have years of practical experience in many types of openings, you will not have an inclination to try to "understand" a particular opening you have an interest in playing. I personally believe understanding comes later (after many wins and losses).

indeed. Understanding Oneself is Above All.

then, once you understand that you're a tactician who absolutely can't grasp positional concepts, you can argue and argue and argue with gambit haters, even showing them lines that win 70% of the time in the real world that your opening is unsound and WRONG even if (good) gambits tend to kick more butt than not. haters gonna hate

I agree with the "know thyself" comment. gambits are wasted on positional players

know your opening too. I've learned from many attempts, or games where they're forced i just don't like fianchettos at all, from either side of the board

I "live for" quick Nf3/Nf6 & Bc4/Bc5 and attacks on the f pawn... an open file for my rook after castling is nice too. too bad you can't play that against everything

The middlegames you play should give you endgames that you understand how to convert.

@rubbishowl it took me a long time to find an opening I liked for white. I played almost every first move and setup possible before settling on the Reti. I think whoever up above said that you should play more games is on point. #6 and 7 contain a lot of good stuff.

For me, I experimented a lot- I would read some common ideas and plans for X opening, play it for a while, then see if I liked it or not. I had a phase with the queens gambit. I hated d4 d5 positions. I stuck with it and learned many things but in the end I switched back to hypermodern.

just choose any opening set  in https://openings101.org/  and try to analyse your games with the theory there, each game will improve your understanding. Work on your mistakes