General News Sweden election results 2018 so far

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45269764

Absolutely agree, its starting to have negative impacts as seen by this article.

 

You mean SD, the party that compared homosexual sex to sex with animals? That claimed that homosexuality is unnatural? That claims the only right kind of family is a nuclear family? And that, when asked if they want to take a stance on homosexuality, refuse to say anything other than that they don't want a 'homosexual lobby', whatever that means? Just checking to make sure we're talking about the same party here

Frankly, considering how well SD did in the polls, I had expected them to secure a significantly larger portion of the votes, and I can only sigh a breath of relief that they did not. Considering even most parties in the Alliance have said they do not want SD's support, it is unlikely they'll get to govern, so they'll be a large opposition party at most. The real question is whether the current centre-left coalition will remain in place or whether it will be the Alliance. Speaking as someone who spends large amounts of my time in a country governed by a coalition quite similar to the alliance, my preference is definitely for the centre-left that's been in power the past few years. Honestly, Sweden is one of the best countries of the world to live in for most groups of people (elderly, families, kids, sick people, lgbt people - you name it, you'll find sweden consistently in the top 5 worldwide) and that's in a large part to due to the egalitarian culture, the universal, highly affordable health care, generous parental leave, strict anti-discrimination laws, the caring for your fellow people, the completely free education... all things the right is not particularly keen on. I'm appalled (although not surprised consider trends in the rest of the world) that immigration completely took over the elections, considering we have much bigger problems to tackle, such as the long queues at hospitals that affect literally all of us directly.

 

I know this is going to sound way worse than I intend it, this isn't necessarily directed at you, and obligatory 'diversity is good etc.' but let's be realistic here. The reason Sweden and some other European countries have high qualities of life isn't because of the politics and benefits - it's because everyone is the same there. Nordic countries in particular are some of the most non-diverse places on Earth. Nearly everyone there is white (until recently), nearly everyone there shares the same ancestral history and culture, and nearly everyone there shares at least one or two of the stereotypical physical traits (blonde, blue eyes, tall, viking-esque features etc.) and on top of it they have a small population in an isolated location.

So yea, big surprise that a small population of almost identical people raised the same way in the same isolated environment will get along well with each other and have a good society. Nordic countries get away with ridiculously high tax rates to fund all those nice things because the people paying them know their money is being used to help someone almost identical to themselves so they don't complain about how much of their money is being stolen every year by the government.

Japan is also a perfect example - again it's a place with a small population where everyone is pretty much clones with the same culture, history, values, physical traits etc. in an isolated location, and again big surprise they get along really well with each other and have a high societal quality of life (not counting the whole work until you die culture they have).

Now let's look like at the most diverse place in the world, the United States, where people have almost nothing in common with each other because there are so many different groups, raised differently, from different parts of the world, with a gigantic population in a very non-isolated area. Big surprise we all hate each other and are fighting all the time here so can never get any of those nice societal benefits, because we have nothing in common with each other. Good luck trying to institute Nordic levels of taxes in the United States, the entire country would riot in like a week no matter how many great benefits it's used for, because people don't want their money being used to help people they have nothing in common with - they'd rather use it for people they do have stuff in common with like their family.

Now that Sweden and other isolated countries are becoming less identical because of immigration, big surprise they suddenly have all these new problems and are in the news constantly with problems and political fighting. The first time in the history of that part of the world that not everyone is the same, and it immediately caused distress and infighting.

I just get really tired of those countries being used as examples of the 'perfect society' with all those benefits and stuff when that only exists because they've never had to deal with the problems the rest of the world has so have a far easier time building those things they claim to be so superior for having.

 

^That is an important (and often ignored) point. These countries achieve their high levels of societal success in part due to the homogeneity of the population (the small size of the population is another factor; Sweden has 3% of the population of the U.S.) Certain structures are easier to maintain with a small, ethnically homogeneous population. And that is why this influx of immigrants is such a shock to Sweden's system. We in the U.S. are accustomed to immigrants; Sweden, not as much.

 

I don’t disagree that the size of the population is of great benefit for the upkeep of the system as it is, because it is true that the fewer people you have, the last chance there is of conflict. However, it is by no means a guarantee of high standards of living, and much less a guarantee for a welfare system – those come from specific historical developments as well as cultural attitudes (which are by no means mutually exclusive). It is also not by definition a guarantee that there won’t be major political disagreements. Take Belgium, for example – roughly 11 million people, and extremely divided, which caused it to be without a government for 589 days in 2010-2011. So yes, being small can help maintain a welfare system pretty well, I won’t reject that. However, it needs to be said that Sweden – and even more so Europe, which you’re also calling homogenous in your post – is not nearly as white as you’re claiming it is. Scandinavia is absolutely not as diverse as the US, but it has a long history of immigration, from Romani people in the 1700s, to political refugees in the early 1900s, to a boom in Asian immigration in 2000 and only then the refugee crisis in 2015. To think of Sweden as a place full of blonde, blue-eyed Vikings is a gross misrepresentation, even if it is less diverse than the US. As for the rest of Europe – if you think every European country is white or has been until recently, I urge you to go visit them. If you’ve never been to Europe I don’t blame you – it is typically portrayed as being very white, in movies and tv but also in which news topics are considered worthy of being covered, and white nationalists are eager to portray Europe as some sort of white Valhalla. Most European countries do not allow for race and ethnicity (beyond legal nationality) to be documented, so it is a little difficult to provide exact numbers, but in the case of France, for example, it is estimated that 6-10% of the population is black (for reference, in the US roughly 13% of the population is black), and they are far from the only people of colour in France – and that has been the case since longbefore the refugee crisis. Race in historical Europe is a topic that is severely understudied (often due to the assumption that prior to modern migration, everyone was white), but here is a well-sourced blog that uses historical art to show Europe has always been less white than we think it was, that can be of interest if you’re trying to get an impression of the racial division of Europe throughout history: http://medievalpoc.tumblr.com

More so, to call Sweden entirely homogenous is extremely disrespectful to the indigenous peoples of Scandinavia, the Saami, who suffered great injustices and racialized violence throughout history in a way that can (somewhat superficially, but I know Saami history is not to well known outside Sweden and this is the easiest parallel) be compared to that of native Americans in the US, such as Sweden forcing them to relocate in Lapland despite the Sami previously living all throughout Scandinavia, forced assimilation, criminalization and destruction of their native culture, all justified through scientific racism, and they were by far the largest victims of what’s often considered to be one of the darkest periods in Swedish history, Sweden’s eugenics period (which only ended in the mid-70s). They’re still facing discrimination and are struggling to be recognized today. To just squeeze them in with ethnic Swedes to paint a homogenous picture of one, unified Scandinavian people completely invalidates everything they have suffered and the problems they continue to face today. Homogeneity in Scandinavia, and even more so in Europe, is a myth painted to promote white supremacy, to make white people look like ‘the original Europeans’, and to justify racism and discrimination, not just against new immigrants, but also against people who have been around for so many generations that considering them anything but European is ridiculous, while at the same time denying racism happens in Europe (which is an all too common idea that many white Europeans themselves like to believe)

I don’t want to accuse you of doing that in your post, but it is important to look very critically at why Europe is often thought of as very white when it is not, and to be careful with the claims you’re making. And that’s just Europe in terms of race. In terms of nationality (which here is often linked to ethnicity), it is less diverse than some other parts of the world, but politically and culturally, it is more so. I lived in Belgium – and let me tell you, despite the tiny size of the country, the north and south could not be more different. The northern part was already too different of a lifestyle for me to be able to adjust to properly (mind you, before that I lived in the Netherlands, which is literally just a country away, and I had no problems adjusting there – and northern Belgium and the Netherlands have the same language, so it’s often assumed that means they must be similar culturally, too) but the southern part was like a world apart for me. When it comes to politics and the homogeneity required for it, race is not, by far, the only factor at play.

Here’s some factors that are at play that I don’t blame you for not knowing but that play a big factor in why we let refugees in in the first place, and where some of the problems started. During world war ii, Sweden frequently turned down jewish people escaping nazi Germany. World war II was not a great time in Swedish history, with Sweden protecting its neutrality at all costs which in practice means nazi Germany profited off that neutrality greatly. That’s a big black spot in history, obviously, because Sweden likes to pride itself in being neutral and having a place for everyone etc. Swedes, unlike some groups, have a high awareness of history and the majority feels a strong responsibility to ‘do better’ next time. Shortly after world war ii, we forced all immigrants (mostly workers) to assimilate entirely, along with the Saami people whose forced assimilation continued, and well, again, not such a great time. Swedes know that – and in the mid 70s we adopted a policy to stimulate multiculturalism and it was a system that was reasonably fair, aimed at caring for people even if they don’t look like yourself rather than protecting your own well-being at all cost. We knew we’d done things poorly in the past – and wanted to make up for it. No one saw the refugee crisis coming, obviously, because no one knew the Arab world as going to erupt into violence all of a sudden, and Sweden became a top destination for refugees because of its attitude. That’s why we took in so many refugees, and by the time we could adjust our policy to the situation (whether or not that’s a necessary things or good result is another matter) there was already a large amount of refugees with permanent residence permits.

Now, the problems that these refugees supposedly caused? Most of them were structural problems we’ve had for years. Housing shortage? It takes roughly 15-18 years in a housing queue before you can get a simple apartment in Stockholm city, we’ve always been extremely short on rental places in any of the major cities (in 1974, the Million Programme was set up to build a million affordable apartments - and shockingly, despite the size of our population, we were still short on houses after that was completed). Most refugees have happily accepted to live in much cheaper houses far outside the cities, and they’re not at all contributing to the housing shortage in the city. Increase in crime? That was already happening before the refugee crisis – but even if you disregard that, it’s no wonder that people feel resort to crime if you make them live in bad circumstances and poverty. Dramatic increase in sex crime? The number actually decreased in 2015 (the year the largest number of refugees came in), and the reason the number grew exponentially before was because of a change in law that not only included more things within the definition of rape (i.e. paying for sex) but also documented each rape individually instead of as a single crime, as is the case in most countries still (i.e. if a man rapes his wife every day for a year, that counts as one crime in most countries and in Sweden prior to 2013; it counts as 365 different crimes in Sweden today. No wonder the number of sex crimes went up!). We took in more refugees than the system with its current problems, without any adjustments to make sure these refugees would end up in a good situation, could handle, I’ll say that. But we don’t stop that by being angry at immigrants and discriminating against them, we stop that by addressing the structural problems in our system. Immigrants are not raging, horny criminals with no interest in anything but leeching off government money and bringing in their friends. That’s a thing SD seems unwilling to understand, though. Closing our borders permanently and deporting people when we can will not magically make problems go away, that’s not how it works.

But let’s be real – you claim this is because of isolation, but isn’t the right of the extreme right happening in the US as well? Isn’t your president constantly whining about immigrants and threatening to close the borders? This rise is a much bigger trend than just a bunch of isolated Scandinavians being upset people who don’t look like them are entering their country and I’m going to say it’s ridiculous to claim that Sweden’s supposed lack of diversity is somehow the root of a much, MUCH bigger international trend that has been going on for years.

 

i have to ask though, what do you mean? what are the problems that supposedly affect the rest of the world but not scandinavia? i mean, you only mentioned diversity, which, well, i said my thing about. so i'm just wondering what supposedly made our lives so easy that makes it that we can't be proud of a welfare model we built (the current welfare model dates only from the 70s, by the way, it's not like we just don't know any better or that sweden didn't have some really awful low periods in history with low standards of living) that works well for our country specifically?

I’m in no way saying Sweden does things perfectly or that it's superior, or that it’s a model that can be applied to other places in the world as-is, least of all the United States. Every country does things differently, and different cultural attitudes ask for different ways to improve quality of life - in Sweden, big government works because we consider higher taxes a small price to pay for what we get in return, and because we don't mind giving the government some of our privacy (the Swedish government knows much more about it citizens than most people abroad generally know unless they have lived in Sweden - and what most people don't understand is that we don't necessarily mind that, partly because of culture, partly because we don't know any better, and partly because we feel like the benefits outweigh the profits). I realise that would never work in the US, for example, where taxes are a much bigger concern, states want to stay as independent as possible, and the thought of a government even knowing where you do your online shopping is one that is completely incompatible with American cultural attitudes - not to mention the country's immense size that would be harder to deal with than tiny Sweden. Transporting the Swedish model to the US would not increase welfare there at all. It's not a superior model, just one that works well for our country specifically. However, I have to ask, does that mean we should allow for it to be taken down?

 

So you are saying immigration is starting to cause issues based on an article that states quite clearly that most rape/sexual assaults aren't caused by people from the Middle East/Africa and immigrants? Makes sense.


@tystnad thanks for your post! It's so interesting to hear the views of a local and I completely agree with everything you wrote.

@Destin I am French so come from a country which is considered to offer a rather high quality of life, much better than the US in many ways (such as healthcare, education, crime etc...) yet with a high rate of immigration and a very diverse population,similar to the one present in the US. Yet it hasn't stopped us from implementing a very good healthcare system that is affordable to everyone and accessible for all and services similar to the ones of Sweden and other Scandinavian countries. Not saying that everyone agrees on everything but just that a lot of the flaws of the American system is due to the mentality of its population. In the US race and differences are extremely emphasized, in France if you are black you are French, in the US you are " African American", in the US even though you are born in the US if your parents or grandparents were born in Mexico or else you are automatically a "Latino", not saying any of those statements are wrong but they emphasize the them/us mentality, the US is also extremely capitalist and it has nothing to do with mixity as based on the US healthcare system and gun laws alone, it is pretty clear that the government doesn't even have the well-being of the citizens closest to them in appearance in mind when creating laws it's all just about personal gains and that's a mentality I think follow many Americans who think to empower and enrich themselves at the cost of everybody else.

 

@Nicholas7 out of curiosity are you Swedish but living in the UK? As I would just find it ironic if you were considering your views on immigration.

 

I appreciate your long response, and definitely learned some things about Sweden I didn't know. What I meant by not having to deal with the problems the rest of the world does are things like:

1. There's no need for a real military because England and the U.S. already protect that part of the world, so instead they can use all defense money on social programs, which most other countries can't do. The Swedish military is only like 20,000 people, which is totally useless and just a formality, compared to the United States having over 1,000,000 military personnel and other large countries having to spend a ton on their military too just to survive.

2. It's such an isolated and neutral country that other countries/terrorists don't care enough to attack it, so a huge amount of homeland security/police money can also be used on social programs while other places need to spend a ton just to prevent their country from collapsing into lawlessness or getting bombed.

3. They never have to deal with trade wars or economic damage like Russia getting sanctioned, Trump pissing off Germany and Japan which is making cars more expensive here etc. so have a much easier time maintaining a stable economy which helps growth and the development of social programs.

4. They never have to do anything on an international level or involve themselves in world affairs like big countries do, like the U.S./Russia/China/England etc. constantly having to spend money on international meetings, the United Nations and interventions into other countries like North Korea and Iraq.

5. They've never had to deal with war because they're too isolated to be affected by it, and war is expensive. The U.S. has been in a state of constant warfare for literally its entire history, and so have other popular places, so money has to be spent rebuilding whatever was destroyed in the wars. Sweden is so far north that it's not really worth the effort to attack there even if there's a war going on in Europe like during World War II, so nothing ever has to be rebuilt, and that money can once again go towards social programs.

6. The immigration thing like we already talked about.

Pretty much anything expensive like that, they've never had to pay for either because they don't need to or someone else pays for it for them, so of course it's easier for them to develop a good society when they have nothing else to distract them.

 

You definitely make a lot of interesting points but a lot of those statements are not entirely true.


1- Sweden spends almost 7 billion a year on military and is planning on doubling that budget in the next coming years so they do spend money on military. Sweden is also part of different treaties so even though they aren't the main target Swedish soldiers are also sent to the front, and you do find Swedish casualties in recent wars such as Afghanistan. Saying they are "useless" is slightly offensive to Swedish people who died for a war mostly fired up and dragged out by the US. The "just to survive" is also very much a stretch, most of US casualties and attacks on US floor have been made by US citizens against other US citizens and you do find much more shootings caused by Americans against other Americans than actual attempted terrorist attacks. I would also point out that much more damage have been done by us (western countries) during wars, than to us.

2- Again untrue, there was a terrorist attack in Stockholm last year and quite a few in the years prior to that. Norway, which is admittingly much up north than Sweden and isolated had a massive terrorist attack a few years back causing over 60 casualties. There seems to be some intense paranoia in your post regarding terrorism and war. Again coming from France which have faced quite a few terrorists attacks in the last few years I can clearly say that terrorists attacks are still an insanely small porcentage of what police actually have to deal with and worry about. Very little resources from countries are actually spent on anti-terrorism, drunk-driving and petty crime is much more rampant and quite a lot of funds and physical resources is spent on that and I am sure Sweden also has crime even if not at the scale of other/more populated countries that need tackling and laws that need to be enforced. Their budget is different because their population is different so you comparing it to the one spent by the US would be unfair.

3- Again, not fully accurrate. Sweden won't be as badly affected as the actual countries involved of course but there is this false idea that what Trump does only affects the US and the concerned offended party. But it's not true. Politics are global and countries are linked by treaties etc... Which means if Trump piss North Korea a bit too much or pick a war against another country for example we are ALL affected by it because we are going to have to send out our armies and our people (sometimes our relatives) to try and fix it and when Trump stops wanting to buy German cars affecting the German market it doesn't just affect Germany and the US it impacts the entire European market and therefore does impact Sweden though not as directly and as strongly as Germany.

4- Again Sweden is part of Europe so while it's not one of the most important European countries politically speaking they actually end up forking out for other countries constantly, whether they attend big meetings or not even though it's probably one of the countries which benefits the least from being part of Europe.

5- Sweden has avoided most recent wars by keeping their neutral stance, that's what spared them more casualties and damage during WW2 NOT their ubication at all as both Denmark and Norway were occupied during WW2 (and again Norway is slightly more North than Sweden and even actually said to provide an even better quality of life than Sweden).

Looking at recent US history though, apart from 9/11, what massive architectural damage was ever caused by foreign terrorists in the US that needed repairing?
To me it seems like the US is obsessed with war and spending a ridiculous amount of money in wars when it's efficitively been the country which has technically been the least affected by it in terms of architectural and civilian losses and I do think part of its obsession with war and the idea that Americans need to defend themselves from anyone who isn't American even though effectively the country and its population has never actually really had to deal with any kind of (international) war on its territory, keeps on digging a gap in the country and using up a lot of money that could be spent on a better healthcare system or education instead of the military.

But again, France has all the criterias you say is responsible for the not so great and inequal conditions of life in the US (Spends a lot on the military, massively affected by wars and terrorism, big spot in Europe & the UN, massive racial/cultural/religious diversity in terms of population) yet the end result is very different. Why do you think that is?

I personally don't understand people (not talking about you Destin) who are against immigration due to terrorism or crime when it's been proven that most terrorists are actually European-born and attacking their own countries (look at the French terrorists attacks and the profile of the terrorists) and when articles like the one linked above state clearly that most of the crime isn't actually commited by immigrants.

 

They only sent 500 people out of a 130,000 European troop deployment. Also only 5 of those people died (compared to 2,372 Americans). The war has been going for 17 years and they only sent 500 people one time. That's the definition of useless whether it's offensive or not (I forgot which country, but there was one that literally sent one guy, like yeah thanks, we totally couldn't have won the war without your one soldier helping lol).

That's what Trump meant in his speeches about other countries not contributing fairly to international efforts. The U.S. and England send like 90% of the troops in all conflicts while other countries get away with sending like 50 dudes and a truck while still getting the benefits.

Yeah, they had one attack in a year. One. The U.S. had 65 attacks last year and tons more people are arrested every year for planning attacks before they happen. Not at all the same thing. The U.S. also spends tons of money on anti-terrorism measures and policy like all the expensive machinery at airports so it does cost a lot more than you'd think.

A lot of U.S. stuff gets damaged, just not in the United States itself. Our military bases in the middle east get mortared and blown up all the time and that gets expensive to fix. The Beirut bombing when an entire Marine barracks was blown up was expensive. The USS Cole bombing where they nearly sank a warship was expensive. The thousands of trucks and tanks that got blown up by roadside bombs in Iraq/Afghanistan got expensive (every U.S. military humvee costs over $200,000 and multiple ones daily got blown up for years from roadside bombs, often without casualties but breaking the truck, which was like 200 million dollars per year just replacing broken vehicles) etc.

Also about the Education thing - the U.S. already spends more money per student in Education than any other country on Earth. Putting more money into education is pointless here because it gets wasted or stolen by politicians anyway, what they need to do is make the school system more efficient so we're not wasting the majority of the Education budget like they have been for decades. They have more than enough money, they just really suck at spending it in the right places. Paying school administrators $150,000+ salaries for shuffling paperwork with guaranteed gigantic pensions for life after they retire while also claiming there isn't enough money to buy pencils for a classroom or hire a music teacher for $30,000 is what the problem is.

Because France still only has a medium population and it's much easier to control smaller populations (France 60 million compared to U.S. 325 million). Also no offence but I never really got the impression France was that great of a place anyway honestly, I had a French exchange student from Paris in one of my high school classes and pretty much every day he'd complain about France and say the U.S. is nicer - like he said Paris smells disgusting all the time and is overrun by homeless people who just take over every public space and it's common to see them pooping on the sidewalk and stuff because the government refuses to do anything about them. He also said there's a lot of racism towards non-white French people, and even your military discriminates towards minorities with the whole French Foreign Legion thing being treated much worse than the French-born Army.

 

I think Linning already went into most points, and I think there are some things we’re unlikely to find an agreement on, ever, because of the USA and Europe’s entirely fundamentally different approaches and attitudes towards things like war. I just want to add a few things, agree or disagree, to clear them up:

- Sweden was only able to prevent invasion during world war ii because it essentially aided germany, not because it was too far north for the nazis to be interested in. They literally sold out Norway: they allowed the nazis to cross Swedish ground to invade norway on the condition that Sweden could stay “neutral”. It was an agreement the nazis were happy with because sweden’s neutrality actually greatly benefited them because as long as the Swedish economy kept going, it could provide germany with weaponry etc because neutrality rarely means not getting involved (and sweden traded with the nazis a LOT) To say that it avoided world war ii because it was so far north or isolated is ridiculous, Scandinavia was actually highly attractive to hitler and his idea of an aryan race.

- most of the wars the US has been involved in... it CHOSE to be involved in (and arguably, started them) i refuse to see the US as a victim in any sense, because i don’t actually believe the US has any right to be the policeman of the world it often considers itself to be. Yeah, you spend lots on military and you lose a lot of money fighting those wars? too bad. i’m not saying europe is some sort of angel because it too likes to consider itself morally superior and often ends up supporting the US’ decision to invade even if they initially disagree, but a lot of US warfare could have very well been avoided. It’s not like everyone just dislikes the US and will constantly try to invade it and it needs the military to defend itself or anything, it is actively going out of its way to invade other countries and/or get involved in international conflicts well outside its own soil.

- The European Union was built as a peace project after world war two left its marks on europe, and people decided they didn’t want that ever again. A pretty solid way to avoid war is cooperation and mutual dependency, simply because then, if you were to invade your neighbour who you rely on economically, you’d be destroying your own economy. And this has worked despite how drastically different some of the countries are. Again, not saying Europe is some sort of angel in the world or that the european project has in any way been perfect - but it has been prioritising peace on its own land over just looking at war as the world’s natural state of mind. There’s a fundamental difference in the way US politicians and European politicians (and as a result in the way politics is taught - i’ve been fascinated with the differences between european students and the american exchange students in my international relation classes) look at the world. Americans will say that’s because Europe doesn’t have to worry thanks to the American spendings on military, Europeans will say it’s because we work together to avoid needing a military, at least to protect our borders, in the first place. I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive per se.

- Sweden is actually a major weapon exporter in the world (despite its small size) so if you insist on war being so relevant, it contributes towards international warfare. this is nothing something i’m proud of at all but i won’t pretend it’s not happening. If you really want to look at contributions to warfare, that goes beyond just the military budget and feet on the ground.

- oh boo sweden had only one terrorist attack in the past few years, so how dare we talk about terrorism, right? let’s not pretend the reason the US has so many attacks on its soil isn’t in part due to US policy. if you give everyone easy access to guns it’s no surprise you’re going to have more attacks. and if your country’s approach to the world is that its natural state is war, it is no wonder you see that reflected in the nature of your country, too. Additionally, sweden has more terror attacks than is generally known, such as neonazi attacks against refugee centres which generally do not make it to international news. But it simply is a lot harder to commit any kind of attack if you have limited access to weapons and need to improvise in other ways, if the government has a lot of data on you (we use our civic registration number for everything. can’t even get an ikea family card without it. yes, that means the government can theoretically know every time you buy furniture. now if you can’t even go to ikea secretly, imagine how much harder it must be to secretly do illegal things), if the overall country has significantly lower rates of violence, and if the country does not lead military invasions that piss people off enough to want to make a point.

- Any economic measure Trump takes against Germany automatically affects Sweden directly because of the economic cooperation within the European Union. Trade wars affect all of europe, not just select european countries. In fact, simple game theory shows trade wars are negative for everyone involved, which is why the EU basically eliminated that option from its internal market. Also, remember who has been starting these trade wars? I’m not going to pity the US from being affected by something that Trump was more than happy to initiate... The people affected, surely, but to use this as a “real problem” that the US faces and sweden does not completely disregards any politic choices made by their respective governments.

Like I said, these are topics Americans and Europeans rarely agree on and that are difficult to understand for either side. I could never imagine how anyone could support the idea of the US as some sort of policeman of the world, for example - and I acknowledge that is in part because of the attitudes I grew up with, just as an American who does support this was influenced by where they grow up (though i did spend significant parts of my childhood in the netherlands, which is significantly more pro-US than sweden is). And I’m not denying the US spends more military power than any other country and that europe benefits off of that when they support international conflicts, but I suppose my solution would be to stop invading countries so that the huge american budget is not necessary, rather than having european countries increase their militaries. agree to disagree. what i do refuse is to consider these more “real problems” and see the US as some sort of victim and Sweden (/Scandinavia/Europe) as simply an isolated place in the world that never has to face anything. i’m not saying we have it harder, either, at all, i just struggle to see these american problems as being something completely disconnected from american political decisions.

sweden is still in a major economic and political block, we’re still attached to the continent, and in this quickly globalising and interconnected world it is an illusion that you can somehow just stay out of everything and reap the benefits. even iceland, a country of less than half a million people, located a long way away from the european continent where it could happily isolate itself entirely and make the world forget it exists at all, is not unaffected by international political and economical developments. isolating yourself in a way that actually works in your advantage in this day and age is next to impossible.

 

i kind of feel like i’m derailing the original topic of this thread, so i just want to ask again, regardless of whether sweden faces “real problems” or not, why should we allow for things that work really well for us to be taken down?

(just an interesting observation though: even the parties on the right are not really talking about making our education less free. just to illustrate how different two country’s approaches can be. in the US vouching for free education makes you extremely leftist - in sweden suggesting it should NOT be free is a good way to kill your political career (and i’m grateful for that so i can complete my third degree and spend a lifetime learning after that). But it’s just one of the many examples why the US and the nordic countries are next to impossible to compare - in size, in politics, in cultural approaches.

 

I fully agree with @tystnad, a lot of the money & men you complain on losing due to wars are due to the US decisions to continuously involve themsleves in wars. You (the US) start wars and then expect us (Europe) to join in and spend as much money and men on it as you do. Not only do you start wars but you let yourselves get tangled in them for decades. Look at the vietnam war and how it started.

The damages Vietnamese and Afghanis and Irakis have caused to the US is nothing in comparison to the damage the US has caused those populations and their infrastructures. The US feels the need to invade a country and police how said country is run. Imagine if people tried to do the same with the US (not that it would be a terrible idea considering how it's currently run) there would be an uproar. Not least because hundred thousands of civilians have been killed and keep on dying. The US go and bomb/destroy countries and cities under the pretext that it's defending it's country and doesn't understand why people would want to reciprocate. If you come and bomb my house killing my children don't you think I would want you dead? The US is always portraying itself like a victim people want to take down but really the US is it's own worse enemy. A bunch is spent on pointless wars lasting two decades yet everyone is happy leaving their own citizens to die due to health problems thanks to poor healthcare and happy to keep universities inaccessible to the masses keeping the country uneducated.
I don't reap any benefits out of the US war efforts. We did in WW2 but a big chunk of why we get terrorists attacks is because we are linked and trading with the US.

Regarding your school exchange student. It's funny because it seems like he is describing the US. Do I like France? No not really and that's part of why I am always abroad (and equally why I am for immigration) but objectively it's one of the best countries in Europe to live in.
Education is dirt cheap, an extremely good healthcare system, you get all kind of financial help for all kind of situations making it actually extremely hard to be homeless (not saying there is no homeless people because there are but definitely not to the extent of the US/even just San Francisco) and most people who are homeless actually have help available but refuse to accept it.

Is there racism in France ? Yes, like everywhere but infinitely less than most European countries and definitely less than the US. I would say a third of the population isn't white where I am from (one of the big cities) I definitely see as many black and arabic people as I do white. Interracial relationships are the norm and extremely frequent, meaning lots of mixities, and most friendship groups in France involve people of all background. I never see this separation like in the US where white stick with whites and African American with African American. I am an atheist, many of my friends are atheist others are Muslim and others are Christian, no religion dominate in France and so everyone knows when the Ramadan is and other religious events and school adapt their food to all restrictory diets, because that's part of the process of making everyone feel welcome and integrated.

Is there some idiots who are racists? Yes of course and others who are homophobic or anti-Semite. Do you see cops "mistakenly" shooting black people like you do in the US? No, you don't.


The French legion is being treated the toughest, not because they are made of foreigners (my brother is black and was in the French army as were many of his friends and definitely wasn't discriminated against) but because they are the one sent to the toughest mission in the toughest territories. They need to be prepared. It's a well known fact the foreign Legion is the toughest branch of the army, and everyone in there volunteered to go with that knowledge (my brother wanted to go). We also don't glorify soldiers in France like people do in the US so people who actually belong to the army get very little honor for it and most of their trouble come from the disrespect the population has towards them.

France isn't perfect and could definitely improve in some aspects but I can't think of one thing the US have over France in terms of things that benefit the entire population and quality of life (for anyone who isn't rich).

I am not anti-US at all and in fact I have some lovely holidays there and there are many things I love about it BUT one would be crazy to leave Europe to move to the US long-term. Your French exchange student probably liked the US best because he didn't have to fork out hundreds monthly for health insurance, or go in debt to attend uni like the average American or stress about and deal with half of the struggles of the average American. He was living with a family who paid all the bills etc...in those circumstances it's very easy to love a country and be blind to its downsides that come with actually having to live there and pay your way through stuff and experiencing it like a proper local.

 

Sincerely, I can't understand how right parties, with the anti-immigration discourse, made a lot of people don't realize that it holds hands with anti-diversity politics. And even us: how could we agree with those people?
Italy, France, Hungary, Poland... even Spain: those discourses began with "no foreigners", and then they turn to "no gays, no trans, there's no gender ideology, there's no feminism". Just listen to trump supporters, LePen, Salvini, that group. They're literally against us. We could be their next target, when the anti-immigration discourse fades away. And that scares me...