The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
It’s about that time of the year when the weather gets duller. The skies become greyer with each passing hour, the leaves have long since stopped being a myriad of colours, and chill winds blast icy needles through anyone unfortunate enough to be caught outside. All in all, it seems like the perfect time to talk about politics.
Now, I’m aware as I write this that chances are, not many of you will read it. After all, politics is earthshatteringly dull, and more than a little perverse. Where else would a man who professed admiration for the BNP be considered ‘a bit of a character’? In which other profession could the boss lie through his teeth to the shop floor (i.e. us) and, when caught out, refuse to bring the matter up again? Not very many I’d bet.
But why is it so boring? I mean, whether we like it or not, politics is an important matter. Speaking personally, whenever I write these little bursts of vitriol about the political world, I try and make them as accessible and entertaining is possible as possible (not always easy when talking about something duller than the wits of a US President). And one would have thought that it would be in everyone’s best interests to make sure that every effort is made to include people in debate on something as important as politics. Wouldn’t you?
Apparently it is not. A century ago, people were encouraged to believe that the ‘ruling classes’ knew what was best, and should be left alone to the important business of running the country, whilst the working classes should busy themselves working. This attitude disappeared almost totally in the UK after WWII. We’d seen in the build up to the war just what an utter barrel of monkey’s bumholes the supposed ruling elite had made of seeing which way the wind was blowing (“What’s that old chap? Some Austrian chappy is shouting about how he intends to invade half of Europe? And he’s making lots of weapons you say? Well, I’m sure it’s nothing. Now; who’s for a spot of incest? Incest anyone?”), people started to pay a lot more attention to who it was they gave power to. A 6-year war and revelations like the Holocaust tend to concentrate ones mind, and make one less likely to be blindly and idiotically faithful to the idea that their government will do what is best for everyone.
Then we had the Thatcher years. Now, I do tend to think that she was a strong leader and a rather good one (though with the benefit of hindsight, I do get the impression that given a few more years and she would have started doing things like declaring herself “Dictator for Life”...) for the country at the time. However, she did tend to encourage people not to pay much attention to politics. Hers was a pretty much authoritarian rule, and so people grew apathetic about politics because no matter what they said or did, Thatcher went ahead and did what she wanted. And because it mainly worked out for the best (in the short term certainly), no one really wanted to question her too closely anyway. “So a few thousand miners are out of work, and all our heavy industry got canned? Aye well...it was going to die a death soon anyway and who cares when we’re making SO MUCH MONEY!”
So now we’re back in the situation where we’re gently encouraged to leave the ruling classes alone to get on with running society. Only now, we don’t have the excuse of being ill informed, or ignorant. We’re better informed now as a society than we ever have been before. And, as a result, even someone only casually acquainted with the cavernous headed prats who call themselves our government will be well aware that they are a bunch of shifty, power hungry sh*tcake bakers. We wouldn’t trust these people to look after our house for a weekend, but we don’t really much care about letting them look after our country. Why is this?
It’s not as if those in opposition are any better; the Tory party have just jettisoned their leader (I’m not going to mention him by name; I’m intrigued to know how many people actually know it without being prompted...) in favour of Michael Howard; a man who became a byword for Shiftyness after his interview by Paxman, and who is recognised by the general public as “that smarmy Tory bloke”. Doesn’t encourage faith in them as an alternative government really. The Libdems are...well, they’re there. And nobody seems to care.
So we have a bunch of people jostling for power, none of whom are liked or trusted very much. The only ones who aren’t disliked or considered untrustworthy are the ones whom nobody has really heard of. And so, most people simply don’t bother to choose their leaders. We just leave it to people who still seem to give a damn about politics.
And who are most of these people? They’re the people who will vote for one party because they have done all their life and their parents before them, and so on. They’d vote for Labour if Tony Blair stood up in Parliament, flicked the V’s at the camera’s, then gave a speech on how he intended to solve unemployment by grinding the jobless up in a giant mincing machine and selling the resulting mush to their families. They’d vote Tory if...well, lets face it; anyone who still votes Tory after the pigs ear they made of things in living memory has clearly not bothered to engage their brain since 1990. But you get the picture; the majority of those who vote are those who are rabidly in favour of one side, and seem to believe that their opposition are in league with Satan.
Because of this, politics has polarised. The parties know that they have to appeal to their hard-core base of voters, and it seems that they’ve decided that the best way to do this is to heap scorn on whoever is their opposition (although it does seem that, using that logic, the Tory party’s main opponent is the Tory party...). So now, when one looks at the political arena, one sees what looks very much like a slightly more grownup version of that old playground favourite, “My gang is better than your gang”.
This doesn’t benefit anybody (except perhaps the Sun and the Daily Mail, who like to keep things simple...), and just reinforces the idea that politics should be ignored. But things have been like this for over 20 years now; to new voters, this venal popularity contest between two main parties is the way things have always been. And those people who DO vote are so preoccupied with denouncing whomever is on the other team politically, that they’ve stopped bothering to examine what exactly their own side is getting up to.
So what are we left with? Well, we have a gang of greedy fools supported by mindless idiots on one side...and much the same on the other. Both of these groups are, I would say, in the minority. The overwhelming majority of the public is made up of people who have simply ceased to care what happens in politics any more. They still complain about the government when it affects them personally, but bearing in mind they don’t vote, why should the government give a toss? Answer: They don’t have too. As long as they pander to the minorities who elect them, they can get away with murder (literally in some cases).
So what am I trying to say (other than the same thing that, in a roundabout sort of way, I always say: I’m bored at work)? Basically I think I’m saying that, boring though it is, politics is something we should try to at least take a passing interest in if we actually want to see any improvements in our own lives, and in society as a whole. The alternative is more leaders like Dubya, who doesn’t even need to hide the fact that he’s only in government in order to line his pockets any more as there are idiots out there who would believe him if he said the sky was yellow, black was white, and WOMD will be found in Iraq any day now. Surely we deserve better than that?
Now, I’m aware as I write this that chances are, not many of you will read it. After all, politics is earthshatteringly dull, and more than a little perverse. Where else would a man who professed admiration for the BNP be considered ‘a bit of a character’? In which other profession could the boss lie through his teeth to the shop floor (i.e. us) and, when caught out, refuse to bring the matter up again? Not very many I’d bet.
But why is it so boring? I mean, whether we like it or not, politics is an important matter. Speaking personally, whenever I write these little bursts of vitriol about the political world, I try and make them as accessible and entertaining is possible as possible (not always easy when talking about something duller than the wits of a US President). And one would have thought that it would be in everyone’s best interests to make sure that every effort is made to include people in debate on something as important as politics. Wouldn’t you?
Apparently it is not. A century ago, people were encouraged to believe that the ‘ruling classes’ knew what was best, and should be left alone to the important business of running the country, whilst the working classes should busy themselves working. This attitude disappeared almost totally in the UK after WWII. We’d seen in the build up to the war just what an utter barrel of monkey’s bumholes the supposed ruling elite had made of seeing which way the wind was blowing (“What’s that old chap? Some Austrian chappy is shouting about how he intends to invade half of Europe? And he’s making lots of weapons you say? Well, I’m sure it’s nothing. Now; who’s for a spot of incest? Incest anyone?”), people started to pay a lot more attention to who it was they gave power to. A 6-year war and revelations like the Holocaust tend to concentrate ones mind, and make one less likely to be blindly and idiotically faithful to the idea that their government will do what is best for everyone.
Then we had the Thatcher years. Now, I do tend to think that she was a strong leader and a rather good one (though with the benefit of hindsight, I do get the impression that given a few more years and she would have started doing things like declaring herself “Dictator for Life”...) for the country at the time. However, she did tend to encourage people not to pay much attention to politics. Hers was a pretty much authoritarian rule, and so people grew apathetic about politics because no matter what they said or did, Thatcher went ahead and did what she wanted. And because it mainly worked out for the best (in the short term certainly), no one really wanted to question her too closely anyway. “So a few thousand miners are out of work, and all our heavy industry got canned? Aye well...it was going to die a death soon anyway and who cares when we’re making SO MUCH MONEY!”
So now we’re back in the situation where we’re gently encouraged to leave the ruling classes alone to get on with running society. Only now, we don’t have the excuse of being ill informed, or ignorant. We’re better informed now as a society than we ever have been before. And, as a result, even someone only casually acquainted with the cavernous headed prats who call themselves our government will be well aware that they are a bunch of shifty, power hungry sh*tcake bakers. We wouldn’t trust these people to look after our house for a weekend, but we don’t really much care about letting them look after our country. Why is this?
It’s not as if those in opposition are any better; the Tory party have just jettisoned their leader (I’m not going to mention him by name; I’m intrigued to know how many people actually know it without being prompted...) in favour of Michael Howard; a man who became a byword for Shiftyness after his interview by Paxman, and who is recognised by the general public as “that smarmy Tory bloke”. Doesn’t encourage faith in them as an alternative government really. The Libdems are...well, they’re there. And nobody seems to care.
So we have a bunch of people jostling for power, none of whom are liked or trusted very much. The only ones who aren’t disliked or considered untrustworthy are the ones whom nobody has really heard of. And so, most people simply don’t bother to choose their leaders. We just leave it to people who still seem to give a damn about politics.
And who are most of these people? They’re the people who will vote for one party because they have done all their life and their parents before them, and so on. They’d vote for Labour if Tony Blair stood up in Parliament, flicked the V’s at the camera’s, then gave a speech on how he intended to solve unemployment by grinding the jobless up in a giant mincing machine and selling the resulting mush to their families. They’d vote Tory if...well, lets face it; anyone who still votes Tory after the pigs ear they made of things in living memory has clearly not bothered to engage their brain since 1990. But you get the picture; the majority of those who vote are those who are rabidly in favour of one side, and seem to believe that their opposition are in league with Satan.
Because of this, politics has polarised. The parties know that they have to appeal to their hard-core base of voters, and it seems that they’ve decided that the best way to do this is to heap scorn on whoever is their opposition (although it does seem that, using that logic, the Tory party’s main opponent is the Tory party...). So now, when one looks at the political arena, one sees what looks very much like a slightly more grownup version of that old playground favourite, “My gang is better than your gang”.
This doesn’t benefit anybody (except perhaps the Sun and the Daily Mail, who like to keep things simple...), and just reinforces the idea that politics should be ignored. But things have been like this for over 20 years now; to new voters, this venal popularity contest between two main parties is the way things have always been. And those people who DO vote are so preoccupied with denouncing whomever is on the other team politically, that they’ve stopped bothering to examine what exactly their own side is getting up to.
So what are we left with? Well, we have a gang of greedy fools supported by mindless idiots on one side...and much the same on the other. Both of these groups are, I would say, in the minority. The overwhelming majority of the public is made up of people who have simply ceased to care what happens in politics any more. They still complain about the government when it affects them personally, but bearing in mind they don’t vote, why should the government give a toss? Answer: They don’t have too. As long as they pander to the minorities who elect them, they can get away with murder (literally in some cases).
So what am I trying to say (other than the same thing that, in a roundabout sort of way, I always say: I’m bored at work)? Basically I think I’m saying that, boring though it is, politics is something we should try to at least take a passing interest in if we actually want to see any improvements in our own lives, and in society as a whole. The alternative is more leaders like Dubya, who doesn’t even need to hide the fact that he’s only in government in order to line his pockets any more as there are idiots out there who would believe him if he said the sky was yellow, black was white, and WOMD will be found in Iraq any day now. Surely we deserve better than that?
Page:
Good for you.
Judging from early reviews and suchlike I wouldn't hold out much hope of the new Matrix film offering much, but reviews can be wrong. Let's hope it's not a plotless, pointless fight filled, SFX reliant cash in.
Judging from early reviews and suchlike I wouldn't hold out much hope of the new Matrix film offering much, but reviews can be wrong. Let's hope it's not a plotless, pointless fight filled, SFX reliant cash in.
I fancy Light.
Goatboy wrote:
> Matrix Revolutions tomorrow.
"Watch Belldandy deftly dodge an argument in bullet time!!"
> Matrix Revolutions tomorrow.
"Watch Belldandy deftly dodge an argument in bullet time!!"
DUBYA SMOKES!!!!eleven
I'm a Commie by the way.
And nice to see, Mr Dandy, that you've ducked out of the "Dude, where's my country?" post in Movies.
Where, once more, it has been shown to the audience that your initial standpoint and dismissal has, in fact, highlighted your tendency to immediately form an opinion and then
(a) Roundly defend even when it's obvious it's a silly thing
(b) Not post in that topic.
Ah well.
Matrix Revolutions tomorrow.
I'm a Commie by the way.
And nice to see, Mr Dandy, that you've ducked out of the "Dude, where's my country?" post in Movies.
Where, once more, it has been shown to the audience that your initial standpoint and dismissal has, in fact, highlighted your tendency to immediately form an opinion and then
(a) Roundly defend even when it's obvious it's a silly thing
(b) Not post in that topic.
Ah well.
Matrix Revolutions tomorrow.
Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> -Everyone who currently votes Tory or Labour is what I would call a
> Lifetime voter (they'll vote for one party their whole life). Do you
> see?
>
> Wrong, because then one party would remain in power the whole time.
Assuming, natch, that all people live forever,
OR
That their offspring will vote exactly the same as them, which is unlikely in many situations (due to world conditions, the media etc etc etc)
Also, for that to happen, there would have to be a rise in population proportional to the number of Tory/Labour voters.
Or have I got the wrong end of this curiously-constructed Bellstick?
> Light wrote:
> -Everyone who currently votes Tory or Labour is what I would call a
> Lifetime voter (they'll vote for one party their whole life). Do you
> see?
>
> Wrong, because then one party would remain in power the whole time.
Assuming, natch, that all people live forever,
OR
That their offspring will vote exactly the same as them, which is unlikely in many situations (due to world conditions, the media etc etc etc)
Also, for that to happen, there would have to be a rise in population proportional to the number of Tory/Labour voters.
Or have I got the wrong end of this curiously-constructed Bellstick?
Bane wrote:
> scumbutter? surely you can do better than that?
Well he is working against the swear filter, but if he feels the need for childish name calling leave him be. Strangely I haven't needed to call him names, but if it benefits his argument...
> scumbutter? surely you can do better than that?
Well he is working against the swear filter, but if he feels the need for childish name calling leave him be. Strangely I haven't needed to call him names, but if it benefits his argument...
scumbutter? surely you can do better than that?
Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Okay; I'll explain to the hard of thinking fundamentalists among
> you:
>
> -Everyone who currently votes Tory or Labour is what I would call a
> Lifetime voter (they'll vote for one party their whole life). Do you
> see?
>
> Wrong, because then one party would remain in power the whole time.
Okay then; I'll clarify my earlier statement;
Replace the word 'everyone' with 'the vast majority of those who'. 'Kay? 'Kay. The remainder are taken up with those few 'floating voters'.
>
> -The majority of the voting populace do not bother to vote (as borne
> out by the turnout of local and national elections). Do you see?
>
> Only a majority by a few percent.
Those ones who DO vote are split by their party. Do you see? So lets say 20% of the country vote labour, 20% vote tory, 10% vote others...still means 50% don't vote. Even increase the numbers so that 40% don't vote. That's still a majority Do you see? Nevertheless, I could have been clearer, so I apologise for not being so.
>
>
> So the radical idea is that the people who bother to vote determine
> who wins ? Isn't that like obvious ?
So...you've decided to miss the point that, as the majority don't vote, the government get to be a govenment by being unrepresentative? Fine, fine...
>
> But the policies already (and always do since the beginning of time)
> benefit a majority of the people, because that majority returned a
> labour government in the last election. And those it hasn't
> benefitted support other parties, like the BNP which has experienced
> the most growth in recent times than ever before.
And, as I've carefully and patiently explained, the policies benefit the people who vote for them. Who are a minority. The majority support no party; you seem to be carefully ignoring the fact that most people don't vote.
>
> -Therefore, if people pay more attention to politics, the political
> parties will be less self serving, and more representative of the
> people they are supposed to represent. Do you see?
>
>
> If
> people do not vote then they are to blame and no one else, something
> many people don't seem to grasp.
Umm...isn't that, well, WHAT I WAS SAYING IN THE FIRST PLACE?! Yes...yes it was. For fu...Oh, that's right; you missed the whole point in the first place, didn't you?
> I remember an interview back in the
> Summer on Sky where someone from the "Not In My Name"
> campaign was interviewed live, and was asked if she'd voted, she had
> not, to which the presenter put the point to her that the war would
> not be in her name because she did not vote. Which is a good point.
Which is a point that I made in the post. Bell, do you read ANYTHING before going onto autorant?
>
> Most people don't want politicians to benefit everyone, they want
> them to benefit them and do what they want.
>
> You, Light, wants a government that stops playing pals with America
> and joining in on various foreign trips, as well as introducing a ton
> of sex education things,
You've grossly oversimplified (as you always do; remember that post I did about how I was pro American? Course you don't; that doesn't fit with your preconceived idea's, does it?) for a change, but that is my view on Sex education, certainly. But I'd prefer if people voted on it. Because, as I've said many times (yet you STILL ignore it), I don't care about changing opinions. I care about getting people to THINK about what they believe in. Something you seem utterly unable to do.
>and other things I don't have a clue about.
Like this post, the sex education post, and every post I've ever made.
>
> I don't.
>
> Politics is all about polarising opinions so don't pretend otherwise.
Er, no it isn't. Because you see, if it was, how could one have a coalition government? Politics is about ruling by concensus, not polarising it so that one team hates the other. In my opinion anyway. Have you heard of compromise? Of two opposing parties working for a common goal? Of course you haven't; you haven't a clue about it, have you? You think life is as simple as Command and Conquer...
If you're too much of a fundamentalist to think about why you believe that and consider that you may be wrong...well, you're the one looking like an ignorant smear of scumbutter, not me.
> Light wrote:
> Okay; I'll explain to the hard of thinking fundamentalists among
> you:
>
> -Everyone who currently votes Tory or Labour is what I would call a
> Lifetime voter (they'll vote for one party their whole life). Do you
> see?
>
> Wrong, because then one party would remain in power the whole time.
Okay then; I'll clarify my earlier statement;
Replace the word 'everyone' with 'the vast majority of those who'. 'Kay? 'Kay. The remainder are taken up with those few 'floating voters'.
>
> -The majority of the voting populace do not bother to vote (as borne
> out by the turnout of local and national elections). Do you see?
>
> Only a majority by a few percent.
Those ones who DO vote are split by their party. Do you see? So lets say 20% of the country vote labour, 20% vote tory, 10% vote others...still means 50% don't vote. Even increase the numbers so that 40% don't vote. That's still a majority Do you see? Nevertheless, I could have been clearer, so I apologise for not being so.
>
>
> So the radical idea is that the people who bother to vote determine
> who wins ? Isn't that like obvious ?
So...you've decided to miss the point that, as the majority don't vote, the government get to be a govenment by being unrepresentative? Fine, fine...
>
> But the policies already (and always do since the beginning of time)
> benefit a majority of the people, because that majority returned a
> labour government in the last election. And those it hasn't
> benefitted support other parties, like the BNP which has experienced
> the most growth in recent times than ever before.
And, as I've carefully and patiently explained, the policies benefit the people who vote for them. Who are a minority. The majority support no party; you seem to be carefully ignoring the fact that most people don't vote.
>
> -Therefore, if people pay more attention to politics, the political
> parties will be less self serving, and more representative of the
> people they are supposed to represent. Do you see?
>
>
> If
> people do not vote then they are to blame and no one else, something
> many people don't seem to grasp.
Umm...isn't that, well, WHAT I WAS SAYING IN THE FIRST PLACE?! Yes...yes it was. For fu...Oh, that's right; you missed the whole point in the first place, didn't you?
> I remember an interview back in the
> Summer on Sky where someone from the "Not In My Name"
> campaign was interviewed live, and was asked if she'd voted, she had
> not, to which the presenter put the point to her that the war would
> not be in her name because she did not vote. Which is a good point.
Which is a point that I made in the post. Bell, do you read ANYTHING before going onto autorant?
>
> Most people don't want politicians to benefit everyone, they want
> them to benefit them and do what they want.
>
> You, Light, wants a government that stops playing pals with America
> and joining in on various foreign trips, as well as introducing a ton
> of sex education things,
You've grossly oversimplified (as you always do; remember that post I did about how I was pro American? Course you don't; that doesn't fit with your preconceived idea's, does it?) for a change, but that is my view on Sex education, certainly. But I'd prefer if people voted on it. Because, as I've said many times (yet you STILL ignore it), I don't care about changing opinions. I care about getting people to THINK about what they believe in. Something you seem utterly unable to do.
>and other things I don't have a clue about.
Like this post, the sex education post, and every post I've ever made.
>
> I don't.
>
> Politics is all about polarising opinions so don't pretend otherwise.
Er, no it isn't. Because you see, if it was, how could one have a coalition government? Politics is about ruling by concensus, not polarising it so that one team hates the other. In my opinion anyway. Have you heard of compromise? Of two opposing parties working for a common goal? Of course you haven't; you haven't a clue about it, have you? You think life is as simple as Command and Conquer...
If you're too much of a fundamentalist to think about why you believe that and consider that you may be wrong...well, you're the one looking like an ignorant smear of scumbutter, not me.
haven't got time to read it maybe later but i say:
"VOTE béSSánt for a better life" if your not convinced then
vote the monster raving looney party for a crappy life.
and if all else fails vote libral democrats cause my parents do.
"VOTE béSSánt for a better life" if your not convinced then
vote the monster raving looney party for a crappy life.
and if all else fails vote libral democrats cause my parents do.
Light wrote:
> Okay; I'll explain to the hard of thinking fundamentalists among
> you:
>
> -Everyone who currently votes Tory or Labour is what I would call a
> Lifetime voter (they'll vote for one party their whole life). Do you
> see?
Wrong, because then one party would remain in power the whole time.
> -The majority of the voting populace do not bother to vote (as borne
> out by the turnout of local and national elections). Do you see?
Only a majority by a few percent.
> -Because the elections are decided by these lifetime voters, the main
> political parties don't need to please anyone other than these
> minority of people. Do you see?
So the radical idea is that the people who bother to vote determine who wins ? Isn't that like obvious ?
> -If the majority of people bothered to vote, the main political
> parties would have to aim more policies at them, thus benefitting a
> majority of people. Do you see?
But the policies already (and always do since the beginning of time) benefit a majority of the people, because that majority returned a labour government in the last election. And those it hasn't benefitted support other parties, like the BNP which has experienced the most growth in recent times than ever before.
> -Therefore, if people pay more attention to politics, the political
> parties will be less self serving, and more representative of the
> people they are supposed to represent. Do you see?
Do tell me when your trip to fairyland ends yes ? They already represent the people they are representative of - the voters. If people do not vote then they are to blame and no one else, something many people don't seem to grasp. I remember an interview back in the Summer on Sky where someone from the "Not In My Name" campaign was interviewed live, and was asked if she'd voted, she had not, to which the presenter put the point to her that the war would not be in her name because she did not vote. Which is a good point.
Most people don't want politicians to benefit everyone, they want them to benefit them and do what they want.
You, Light, wants a government that stops playing pals with America and joining in on various foreign trips, as well as introducing a ton of sex education things, and other things I don't have a clue about.
I don't.
Politics is all about polarising opinions so don't pretend otherwise.
> Okay; I'll explain to the hard of thinking fundamentalists among
> you:
>
> -Everyone who currently votes Tory or Labour is what I would call a
> Lifetime voter (they'll vote for one party their whole life). Do you
> see?
Wrong, because then one party would remain in power the whole time.
> -The majority of the voting populace do not bother to vote (as borne
> out by the turnout of local and national elections). Do you see?
Only a majority by a few percent.
> -Because the elections are decided by these lifetime voters, the main
> political parties don't need to please anyone other than these
> minority of people. Do you see?
So the radical idea is that the people who bother to vote determine who wins ? Isn't that like obvious ?
> -If the majority of people bothered to vote, the main political
> parties would have to aim more policies at them, thus benefitting a
> majority of people. Do you see?
But the policies already (and always do since the beginning of time) benefit a majority of the people, because that majority returned a labour government in the last election. And those it hasn't benefitted support other parties, like the BNP which has experienced the most growth in recent times than ever before.
> -Therefore, if people pay more attention to politics, the political
> parties will be less self serving, and more representative of the
> people they are supposed to represent. Do you see?
Do tell me when your trip to fairyland ends yes ? They already represent the people they are representative of - the voters. If people do not vote then they are to blame and no one else, something many people don't seem to grasp. I remember an interview back in the Summer on Sky where someone from the "Not In My Name" campaign was interviewed live, and was asked if she'd voted, she had not, to which the presenter put the point to her that the war would not be in her name because she did not vote. Which is a good point.
Most people don't want politicians to benefit everyone, they want them to benefit them and do what they want.
You, Light, wants a government that stops playing pals with America and joining in on various foreign trips, as well as introducing a ton of sex education things, and other things I don't have a clue about.
I don't.
Politics is all about polarising opinions so don't pretend otherwise.
Page: