If the data has been collected on your premise - that data has NO VALUE - apart from just stroking your own ego - which of course is fine by me - but don’t treat it like it says anything else than that (anything useful)
I did consider saying your girlfriends place - but realised me moving there is just a phone call away (so I went with the place that is imaginary - for dramatic effect) - I am not really part of this discussion - as I could pretty much move wherever I wanted (including Switzerland)
Your president has literally said he wanted more people from my region coming over when he had his Somalia rant ! So I don’t know which country you think I couldn’t enter and live apart from North Korea pretty much - mate there is a reason we are the best place to live on earth ! = Because people want to be like us and be associated with us - they even pay us for it - if the world was onlyfans - you were the incel loser that brought our used bath water 
Hitler also used us for his template for the perfect human - you have never questioned Hitler wanted a pure race - while not even being part of his ideal himself - in case you don’t know Germany is right next to Scandinavia - that might be the hint you have missed in your search for answers 
@Calde13
The 'Neverland' analogy is attempting to change the question from preference to probability of actually moving there.
Immigration eligibility is irrelevant to a question about personal preference.
Because they were trying to measure how attractive different countries are to people as places to live, not which countries have the easiest immigration systems.
It doesn't measure realistic migration intentions. Someone might choose Switzerland because they associate it with wealth, safety, scenery, etc., without knowing anything about Swiss immigration law.
The result shouldn't be interpreted as "9% of the world's people would actually move to Switzerland." That's not what it establishes.
The original statement simply says "9% chose Switzerland as the country they'd most like to live in," that's a perfectly legitimate thing to ask and measure.
And there's an interesting distinction here: the same criticism actually applies to the U.S. figure. If 24% chose the U.S. as the greatest threat to world peace, that's measuring perception, not whether those respondents had studied U.S. foreign policy in detail. That's exactly what opinion polling is designed to measure.
The whole point is that out of 65,000+ folks polled in 65 countries you see a dichotomy of sorts.
So, when the poll shows:
The United States was most often chosen as the greatest threat to world peace among all nations. Twenty-four percent of respondents chose the U.S.
But the U.S. is viewed as more than just a bully on the world stage. When asked which country they would most like to live in, 9% of respondents picked the U.S.
This shows a paradox you do not generally see with other countries about folk's perceptions and what they read, see, or hear from others about various countries.
For example, where I live if I ask folks what country they would most like to visit or live -- they will overwhelmingly choose the USA. Some will choose Canada because they have met folks from there. Some will choose Spain because of the language, fewer still say France because of their 'romantic' perception. A lady I know son married a girl from Sweden and she likes it there and would like to move there -- but she has only visited once and her son lives there now.
But overwhelmingly the folks that you ask will choose a country they have never been to and likely never will visit. They do not know any more about the country they would choose than what they see on the news or from their own country's propaganda's arm. They certainly are not aware of immigration constraints in each of them.
Take the folks in Cuba. You can visit there and see how beautiful it is but a dumpster fire at the same time. Proximity is for sure a reason. But they all choose to go to the USA -- even if they have to first go to Mexico. But for years the only thing they heard was how awful the USA was.
So, often both good and bad perceptions about something can be true at the same time.
All that poll does is point out that even though the USA is the country folks around the world fear the most about being a threat to world peace it is still the top choice that folks would like to move to.
It is not measuring the folk's aptitude on world policies or immigration policies. There is even something probably to be said for folks wanting to live in what they perceive as a strong country that others fear.
But I would not try to read anything into too much other than the very obvious paradox that it presents: even though folks see them as a threat they would likely move there.
What do you consider dominating the world ? You can’t find another region in the world with a similar population size - that has shaped the world to a fraction of the same extend - do you even have an idea how much money we have as a joint unit - how many things we have invented - how many big companies we have etc. Founding members of NATO, Funding members of EU etc. — Norway alone owns 1.5% of all public traded companies in the entire world
Who would have known that I should just highlight Norway (a country of 5 million something people own the biggest wealth fund in the world) to shut you up - Slim you could have saved both of us a lot of time if you had told me 1 year ago - that highlighting Scandinavian supremacy would shut you up ! 
- the facts/proof to back up the claim that we do - are endless 
No one would dispute that Scandinavian economic and technological influence is outsized relative to its population.
You can see this in metrics such as the Global Innovation Index, where Sweden, Denmark and Finland consistently rank among the world's leading innovators. But you also have to consider population when comparing them with countries such as Germany, the USA and Japan. And China's enormous technological and economic output is particularly remarkable given its population.
So no one is questioning Scandinavia's outsized effect in these areas. The question is what you mean by "dominating the world."
"Dominating the world" generally implies overwhelming economic, military, political, technological and demographic power. By that definition, Scandinavia isn't a dominant global power in the same sense as the United States or China.
Scandinavia also benefits from being part of larger security and economic structures, particularly NATO and, for Denmark and Sweden, the EU.
That doesn't diminish Scandinavia's achievements. It simply puts them into perspective. Scandinavia has had an extraordinarily large global impact relative to its population and economic size. That's legitimate and impressive.
Norway is an especially interesting example. Norway's sovereign wealth fund owns roughly 1.5% of the world's publicly listed equities. That's an extraordinary amount of global corporate ownership for a country of only about 5.6 million people. But that isn't the same as saying Norway owns 1.5% of all publicly traded companies.
And sovereign wealth funds themselves aren't unique to Norway. Many countries have them.
What is unusual about Norway is the scale of its fund relative to its population. Norway took a huge portion of its petroleum wealth and accumulated it in a government-owned global investment portfolio rather than simply spending all of the revenue domestically.
It's also worth noting that the United States, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and France don't have a comparable Norway-style national sovereign wealth fund. They have other government investment vehicles, pension systems and state-owned assets, but nothing quite equivalent to Norway's enormous global equity portfolio.
So yes, Scandinavia's economic, technological and scientific influence is disproportionately large for its population. Norway's sovereign wealth fund is another extraordinary example of that.
But disproportionate influence isn't the same thing as being the world's most powerful geopolitical bloc. The United States, China and other major powers have vastly greater military, demographic and overall economic power.
Ultimately, it depends on exactly what you mean by "dominating the world."
I only say “we are dominating” to piss slim. off - I said we were the template for Hitlers “perfect race” theory - and I could move and live in whatever country I wanted ! It was slim. that thought that would be a connection to us dominating the world !
Of course US has shaped the world more than we have - you are also 16-17 times as many people ! And having a lot of money is what dominating the world effectively boils down to ! And ONLY that - EU and other big economies investing in your industries is basically the only reason you are where you are today - both militarily, economically and influentially — having alliances is what makes countries strong and assert power ! Not a big military - you can see how it is going in Iran - when we don’t help you and can’t let you use the bases in Europe ! How is the supply chains going for your navies ! Believe me - you would have the exact same problems - had you used 3 trillion a year on it
I didn't answer you ,,because you twisted my statement and that change the whole topic...
Nothing,,, in that paragraph was about Denmark dominating the world .......it was used like their preeminence infrequently ascending not dominating....
You changed the subject ? I was talking rather or not you could move to Switzerland even if you wanted to - which you can’t (and that was related to that survey thing - so I wasn’t even talking to you) ! It was you that started on your dominating the world shit detour — yes we own you on all parameters defining a good life - me highlighting that isn’t me trying to say we dominate the world - who the fuck cares - my life and country doesn’t get better because yours are worse ! It is just me stating facts
And you are also not dominating the world - that is what I am saying now ! Dominating the world is being able to sway people and other countries on influence alone ! You don’t have a military that could conquer the world - you have basically never “won” a military conflict in your history (yes you have nukes enough to destroy the planet - but so do a handful of other countries) ! Having a lot of money and alliances is what determines rather you dominate the world or not - and yes you have a lot of money - but so do a lot of other countries
Boy are you touchy...Why don't you take a break from posting in this section for a little while..it will help un-stress you ...
To help out....I won't be posting to you for a while ..as I feel I'am a big part of you not ,,,,,being able to tell what's real and what's not.
Another good reason for not wanting to talk to you,,,, at this time ..you lie..No one can trust ,if what you are saying is what you really believe or just lying to piss people off.
Of course I am trolling - there is no country in the world dominating it - what the fuck do you think this is - somekind of bad super villain movie - it isn’t about dominating anything - it is a joint effort pushing humanity the furthest ! And yes my nationality has been highlighted as being closer to the ultimate goal for someone that wanted a race cleansing - that says more about their intelligent than mine - I forgot for a sec you share a lot of the same world views - which I of course forgot when I chose to be sarcastic about it
AS of 08/28/2026
Countdown clock
863days ,2 hrs, 15 mins, 02 secs.
President Trump announced during his speech at the GOP Midterm Convention in Dallas, on Wednesday night that he will give a $5,000 dividend to every adult man and woman in the country because of our economic success.
I'll do the math for you...........Approx. 240 million adult citizens in the U.S., meaning that the payments could cost about $1.2 trillion.
Is that “real” adults - or adults for MAGA ? I am pretty sure they have earlier claimed adults were every girl over 12? It was of course related to another case - maybe it is different when you have to give them money and not when you have an urge to rape them?
couple week’s groceries and a tank of gas. That will all change when Iran signs a peace deal after midtermsprices will drop quickly!
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
