• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you believes and engage in zero-sum politics? Do you desire to win at all costs?

Do you believes and engage in zero-sum politics? Do you desire to win at all costs?

  • Total voters
    17
Unitedwestand13

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,738
Reaction score
6,290
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
A two parter For the individual poster:

Part 1 of the question: is your understanding of politics based on the notion that politics is a zero-sum game?

To make sure we are on the same page, the definition of zero-sum game I am using is the following

A zero sum game is defined as

A situation in which gains to one group or individual can occur only at the expense of losses to another group or individual.
Click to expand...

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803133438111

Part 2 of the question: regardless of how you answer part 1, Do you do participate inpolitical disputes and debates as matters where the goal is to win at costs over your political adversary?
 
This crazed political atmosphere really got going with the 2008 presidential election.

Until then, "bipartisan" meant something.

Today it means nothing.

The media, academia, the deep state, and entrenched Dem pols are bent on winning regardless of the cost to the nation's welfare.
 
I voted yes to #1 and no to #2.

Much of politics, but by no means all, is zero-sum. There is only one president and so many seats in Congress. The only way your side can win and govern is for the other side to lose. This is reflected in much of the day-to-day political wrangling.

As for "Do you desire to win at all costs?", what does that even mean? Of course not at 'all costs'! Everyone has lines that they will not cross. It's not the same line for everyone, so if it appears as though your political opponents don't share your values, yeah - they don't. But if Trump shot someone in Times Square in broad daylight, he would be in jail that same day and impeached 98-2 within the week.
 
In any election for someone to win someone has to lose. So in this case, yes.

In regards to policy I don't believe it is true. Most, if not all, policy issues have a ton of middle ground. I also believe the middle ground is where the right solution is. So in this case no.

Regarding the piece of **** in the oval office I think the opposite is true. I am not a big fan of democrats having tons of power, however, Trump needs to be crushed and imprisoned. This is kind of the opposite of zero sum. In order for Trump to lose, Dems must win (even though I don't particularly want many of them to).
 
eman623 said:
Agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

If people ignore many other crimes no reason to believe they won't ignore others. Was just in a thread where people are in favor of releasing pedophiles if a politician with the right letter by their name says it should be done. Party is all that matters to many.
 
I voted no to both .
It is my opinion that one can not vote for a label, if they do the odds will catch up to them.

Just as Democrats can't be wrong all the time, Republicans can't be right all the time.

Nations are run by People not labels.:peace
 
Kreton said:
If people ignore many other crimes no reason to believe they won't ignore others. Was just in a thread where people are in favor of releasing pedophiles if a politician with the right letter by their name says it should be done. Party is all that matters to many.
Click to expand...

I agree that tribalism is a powerful thing and will cause people to overlook a lot of bad behavior. But there are limits even to that.
 
I believe we need to remove trump and the republicans (deplorables) from our.government however possible.

Do i debate with deplorables? Not a chance! There is no chance of changing the warped rush Limbaugh world they live in.
 
Zero-Sum isn't win at all costs. It's that in order to win, others must lose proportionately. For example, racial equality is a zero-sum proposition. In order for minorities to have a position in society equal to whites, whites HAVE TO lose their place at the top. They need to share power. That's the main reason white nationalism and white identity politics are so effective with the right-wing. They don't want to live in a world where they are not supreme in society.
 
rickc said:
I believe we need to remove trump and the republicans (deplorables) from our.government however possible.

Do i debate with deplorables? Not a chance! There is no chance of changing the warped rush Limbaugh world they live in.
Click to expand...

Would it be safe to say that your objectivity could fit through the eye of a needle?

If I were you, I would avoid any sentence structuring or spelling debates with those deplorable Republicans.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Would it be safe to say that your objectivity could fit through the eye of a needle?
Click to expand...

Define objectivity. Trump and his followers are objectively deplorable, and I can prove in with two questions:

1) Do you support Eddie Gallagher?

2) Do you support Steven Miller?
 
I try to answer as many poll questions as I can in (what I believe to be) the spirit intended by the pollster, but I can't answer "Yes" or "No" to the first question here.

I believe some political issues are "zero sum", as @Unitedwestand13 puts it. For instance: taxation. If government revenues remain steady, and one group is taxed less heavily, another group must necessarily be taxed more heavily by a commensurate amount.

Some issues are not zero-sum. For example, healthcare. Modifying healthcare modalities typically shifts around who pays and how much, but also improves (or degrades) the performance of the system overall, making it more (or less) optimal.

Still other issues have unknowable or heavily contested zero-sum status. War, domestic surveillance, education, privatization, nationalization, etc., etc. usually fall into this category. They shift public monies around, with some winners and some losers, with the hope they'll benefit citizens overall, but no two people can agree on whether they actually do.

Hence it's fundamentally not a "Yes" or "No" question, as I see it. Unless "Yes" stands for "Yes, universally and unconditionally", wherefor the answer is "not 'Yes'".
 
Dans La Lune said:
Define objectivity. Trump and his followers are objectively deplorable, and I can prove in with two questions:

1) Do you support Eddie Gallagher?

2) Do you support Steven Miller?
Click to expand...
Are you deplorable if you don't know who either is?
 
The only "Win" I'm interested in is: Lead the country to a better place to live than what has happened before this day. In order to make that scenario happen, our leaders need to know specific facts regarding the reality of the populace plus have the integrity to banish the destructive forces brought about by the rich and powerful. Seems to this poster that the Sociopaths are leading us to nowhere land. There's injustice even in the smallest of happenings...even when it doesn't affect MY life. Example: One of my Professional friends that is a technology guru tells me that at his large bank..where he works, charges 35.00 dollars if somebody mistakenly overdraws their checking account (by pushing the wrong ATM button). The cost to the bank? 'bout 4 cents. Who in the hell came up with THIS crap? Yeah, not earth shaking and all that but just a little taste of the Screwing-the-common-working-person for profit. I mean, that 35 bucks could have been put back into society to do some minor good..Buy something..increase jobs..Etc.. The game is rigged.
To those who say "Don't make a mistake": Ah..We're humans..we screw up.
 
HIP56948 said:
The only "Win" I'm interested in is: Lead the country to a better place to live than what has happened before this day. In order to make that scenario happen, our leaders need to know specific facts regarding the reality of the populace plus have the integrity to banish the destructive forces brought about by the rich and powerful. Seems to this poster that the Sociopaths are leading us to nowhere land. There's injustice even in the smallest of happenings...even when it doesn't affect MY life. Example: One of my Professional friends that is a technology guru tells me that at his large bank..where he works, charges 35.00 dollars if somebody mistakenly overdraws their checking account (by pushing the wrong ATM button). The cost to the bank? 'bout 4 cents. Who in the hell came up with THIS crap? Yeah, not earth shaking and all that but just a little taste of the Screwing-the-common-working-person for profit. I mean, that 35 bucks could have been put back into society to do some minor good..Buy something..increase jobs..Etc.. The game is rigged.
To those who say "Don't make a mistake": Ah..We're humans..we screw up.
Click to expand...

Why would an ATM even allow you to overdraw your account in the first place? Never mind, I already know the answer. All thirty-five of them to be exact!
 
Dans La Lune said:
No, you're just an ostrich. Do your homework.
Click to expand...

If one doesn't know who they are, then by definition he is not a supporter. So the answers are 'no' and 'no'.
 
The AntiDonald said:
If you don't know who either is, I suggest you stay away from the voting booth and this forum.
Click to expand...
You Americans forget that 96% of the world doesn't live in the US media bubble with your news networks spamming us with news about Gallagher, Miller, and whoever, 24/7.

So no. I don't know who either is, nor do I particularly care. My comment was a tongue-in-cheek response to @DansLaLune's (hopefully satirical) suggestion of an "objective" litmus test for "deplorability".
 
I believe both sides want progress. On most issues. We argue over what progress should look like. How can we do it fairly, and how much can we afford? We all want better health care, but what's the right way to go about it? We all want better schools, but how do we make that happen? We all want financial security for our families, but what exactly does that mean? We don't differ so much about the goals, but how best to make progress toward those goals.

However, there are some issues that truly divide us; there are people who believe the environment is in a death spiral, while others consider that "Chicken Little" thinking. Not going to be a lot of compromise there. Some people favor abortion on demand, while others oppose most all abortions. We're not likely going to come to any commonality on these issues.

So it's a little more complicated than zero-sum.
 
Waddy said:
I believe both sides want progress. On most issues. We argue over what progress should look like. How can we do it fairly, and how much can we afford? We all want better health care, but what's the right way to go about it? We all want better schools, but how do we make that happen? We all want financial security for our families, but what exactly does that mean? We don't differ so much about the goals, but how best to make progress toward those goals.

However, there are some issues that truly divide us; there are people who believe the environment is in a death spiral, while others consider that "Chicken Little" thinking. Not going to be a lot of compromise there. Some people favor abortion on demand, while others oppose most all abortions. We're not likely going to come to any commonality on these issues.

So it's a little more complicated than zero-sum.
Click to expand...

Perhaps there is another way ; Negotiate, , nations , corporations people do this all the time. It seems like we as Americans have left some very important words to live by behind .
Such as these NEGOTIATE, RESPONSIBILITY, MORALITY TOLERANCE, to name just a few.:peace
 
1 Dysfunctional politics is a zero sum game. A republic requires compromise to work well.
2 I have said from the early part of djt's term that America could better survive a second djt term than a Congress that abdicated its Constitutional duty and set the bar so low for future Presidents behavior. Now that the Articles are written, I'm not as sure he won't be removed. If he is not removed for Article 2, the Senate will be ceding a huge part of their Constitutional power. If you can tell me how it doesn't effectively remove the concept of 'congressional oversight' from our checks and balances I'd be interested. Additionally, Senators know that djt could be gone in a year...Do they want to give President Pelosi that kind of power as well?
 
HIP56948 said:
The only "Win" I'm interested in is: Lead the country to a better place to live than what has happened before this day. In order to make that scenario happen, our leaders need to know specific facts regarding the reality of the populace plus have the integrity to banish the destructive forces brought about by the rich and powerful. Seems to this poster that the Sociopaths are leading us to nowhere land. There's injustice even in the smallest of happenings...even when it doesn't affect MY life. Example: One of my Professional friends that is a technology guru tells me that at his large bank..where he works, charges 35.00 dollars if somebody mistakenly overdraws their checking account (by pushing the wrong ATM button). The cost to the bank? 'bout 4 cents. Who in the hell came up with THIS crap? eah, not earth shaking and all that but just a little taste of the Screwing-the-common-working-person for profit. I mean, that 35 bucks could have been put back into society to do some minor good..Buy something..increase jobs..Etc.. The game is rigged.
To those who say "Don't make a mistake": Ah..We're humans..we screw up.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of Bank of America's checking account crap. Like other banks, they say checking accounts are free. But when mine dipped below a certain amount, a mysterious $12 xharge appeared on my BOA bank statement. They robbed me the money monthly because I can't get a job to stay above a minimum. Once I was charged an overdraft fee when the previous month, I had $460 and only bought cat food. So I canceled my checking account and switched to savings. Why are banks allowed to do this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom