Politics 2017 Part 3

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't consider Congress taking back their constitutional power a dumb solution. Apparently you believe in rule by an unelected elite (I'm sure they never get lobbied). Sure the agencies will try to game any system, but it may not be as easy as you imagine, and there are counter measures which can be taken. In any case it's better than doing nothing.

[Elerond]

It isn't illegal for Russia to hack the DNC, as Russia isn't bound by US laws. Same as it isn't/ wasn't illegal for the US to 'promote homosexuality' just because that is illegal in Russia. Won't stop the US from trying to impose their laws, of course, but Russia's response is and would be that the US can go asterisk themselves same as the US would tell Russia if they tried to enforce their anti gay laws in the US. And if it were Rich doing the leaking then it may have been illegal- far more difficult to prove it though, since he had legit access to the info- but it certainly wasn't hacking, or treason.

 

As for the rest, you're trying to make Trump a special case. If Schumer or Pelosi were appalled!!! at the DNC/ Hillary leaks and are smugly parroting the current ones that is every bit as undermining as Trump doing it, and every bit as undermining as Obama saying he supported whistle blowers then prosecuting more than all other Presidents combined (iirc) under the espionage act. Truth is that everyone loves a leak that benefits them, and is appalled!!! at a leak that doesn't. Trump is no special case there, he's absolutely par for the course.

 

I don't really see how it makes it easier for intelligence communities to influence either. They're going to do it because they want Trump gone, have the power to, the only people who can stop them rely on them for the information needed to stop them and there's no prospect of the media refusing to print unsupported leaks they agree with. Trump being a hypocrite about supporting/ opposing leaks is a parallel issue that is only likely to be significant to those who already don't like him- same as the D hypocrisy is only significant to those who don't like them.

 

By international agreements that Russia has signed, legality hacking that targets computers in USA is determined by USA laws. Which of course don't necessary mean much as Russia isn't in habit giving its citizens to USA to be tried.

 

Trump is special case, because he is the most visible politician in world currently and he is the leader of USA. Other politicians behaving idiotically is bad, but when such visible leader does it it is much more worse. Because his behavior and attitude is what everybody sees. Pelosi and Schumer and rest of democrats in House are just some within many that don't all share similar views. There isn't similar opposition for Trump as he is in position above all others.

 

I don't believe that intelligence communities want Trump gone, they just play their own power play where they show that one don't want them as their enemy. As in past Trump has spoken quite lot against intelligence community and how its should be in better lead and otherwise spoken in undermining tone about them. 

[Zoraptor]

 

It isn't illegal for Russia to hack the DNC, as Russia isn't bound by US laws. Same as it isn't/ wasn't illegal for the US to 'promote homosexuality' just because that is illegal in Russia. Won't stop the US from trying to impose their laws, of course, but Russia's response is and would be that the US can go asterisk themselves same as the US would tell Russia if they tried to enforce their anti gay laws in the US. And if it were Rich doing the leaking then it may have been illegal- far more difficult to prove it though, since he had legit access to the info- but it certainly wasn't hacking, or treason.

 

As for the rest, you're trying to make Trump a special case. If Schumer or Pelosi were appalled!!! at the DNC/ Hillary leaks and are smugly parroting the current ones that is every bit as undermining as Trump doing it, and every bit as undermining as Obama saying he supported whistle blowers then prosecuting more than all other Presidents combined (iirc) under the espionage act. Truth is that everyone loves a leak that benefits them, and is appalled!!! at a leak that doesn't. Trump is no special case there, he's absolutely par for the course.

 

I don't really see how it makes it easier for intelligence communities to influence either. They're going to do it because they want Trump gone, have the power to, the only people who can stop them rely on them for the information needed to stop them and there's no prospect of the media refusing to print unsupported leaks they agree with. Trump being a hypocrite about supporting/ opposing leaks is a parallel issue that is only likely to be significant to those who already don't like him- same as the D hypocrisy is only significant to those who don't like them.

 

By international agreements that Russia has signed, legality hacking that targets computers in USA is determined by USA laws. Which of course don't necessary mean much as Russia isn't in habit giving its citizens to USA to be tried.

 

 

Nah, not if it's the Russian State doing it. Even for private citizens extradition itself requires the crime to be illegal in Russia as well, albeit that can be waived.

 

The direct equivalent would be Russia saying that CIA hacking in Russia is illegal. Well yeah, it may be in Russia, but it isn't a crime in the US and there isn't merely no chance of an extradition whatever reciprocal treaties may say there's no chance of, well, anything except incredulous laughter if they complained about it. It's also particularly problematic when you have the NSA rather obviously hacking/ intercepting the Russian Ambassador's communications- completely against the Vienna Convention, of course, but you'd be naive if you thought it didn't happen.

 

Trump is special case, because he is the most visible politician in world currently and he is the leader of USA. Other politicians behaving idiotically is bad, but when such visible leader does it it is much more worse. Because his behavior and attitude is what everybody sees. Pelosi and Schumer and rest of democrats in House are just some within many that don't all share similar views. There isn't similar opposition for Trump as he is in position above all others.

 

I don't believe that intelligence communities want Trump gone, they just play their own power play where they show that one don't want them as their enemy. As in past Trump has spoken quite lot against intelligence community and how its should be in better lead and otherwise spoken in undermining tone about them.

Well, if all the intelligence communities want is a compliant leader who does what they want I guess it's all good then? If one were to be facetious one might mention that all Putin wants is a compliant leader who does what he wants, as well...

 

That kind of thinking is far more sinister than Trump being a blowhard, because Trump is both limited in power and is an actual elected official who will be gone in 4/8 years. These guys are neither elected nor are they limited in their power or in the time frame of their power. You don't get any less limited than trying to kneecap your country's leader as there isn't any higher target to go for. And if they get away with it once they'll do it every single time, it can hardly be claimed they'd stop at the President either since- and I know I'm repeating myself- there is no greater target to go for.

 

(I don't give an asterisk if Putin tried interfering here, that's expected and the best defence to that is having a proper democracy where his potential influence never rises above margin of error level. If our spies tried interfering though? I'd have a hard time describing that as anything less than a clandestine coup and outright treason, and would be tempted to suggest actual hanging for anyone caught doing it, pour decourager les autres. Hi GCSB/ SIS, hope you enjoyed my post)

[Elerond]

 

 

It isn't illegal for Russia to hack the DNC, as Russia isn't bound by US laws. Same as it isn't/ wasn't illegal for the US to 'promote homosexuality' just because that is illegal in Russia. Won't stop the US from trying to impose their laws, of course, but Russia's response is and would be that the US can go asterisk themselves same as the US would tell Russia if they tried to enforce their anti gay laws in the US. And if it were Rich doing the leaking then it may have been illegal- far more difficult to prove it though, since he had legit access to the info- but it certainly wasn't hacking, or treason.

 

As for the rest, you're trying to make Trump a special case. If Schumer or Pelosi were appalled!!! at the DNC/ Hillary leaks and are smugly parroting the current ones that is every bit as undermining as Trump doing it, and every bit as undermining as Obama saying he supported whistle blowers then prosecuting more than all other Presidents combined (iirc) under the espionage act. Truth is that everyone loves a leak that benefits them, and is appalled!!! at a leak that doesn't. Trump is no special case there, he's absolutely par for the course.

 

I don't really see how it makes it easier for intelligence communities to influence either. They're going to do it because they want Trump gone, have the power to, the only people who can stop them rely on them for the information needed to stop them and there's no prospect of the media refusing to print unsupported leaks they agree with. Trump being a hypocrite about supporting/ opposing leaks is a parallel issue that is only likely to be significant to those who already don't like him- same as the D hypocrisy is only significant to those who don't like them.

 

By international agreements that Russia has signed, legality hacking that targets computers in USA is determined by USA laws. Which of course don't necessary mean much as Russia isn't in habit giving its citizens to USA to be tried.

 

 

Nah, not if it's the Russian State doing it. Even for private citizens extradition itself requires the crime to be illegal in Russia as well, albeit that can be waived.

 

The direct equivalent would be Russia saying that CIA hacking in Russia is illegal. Well yeah, it may be in Russia, but it isn't a crime in the US and there isn't merely no chance of an extradition whatever reciprocal treaties may say there's no chance of, well, anything except incredulous laughter if they complained about it. It's also particularly problematic when you have the NSA rather obviously hacking/ intercepting the Russian Ambassador's communications- completely against the Vienna Convention, of course, but you'd be naive if you thought it didn't happen.

 

Trump is special case, because he is the most visible politician in world currently and he is the leader of USA. Other politicians behaving idiotically is bad, but when such visible leader does it it is much more worse. Because his behavior and attitude is what everybody sees. Pelosi and Schumer and rest of democrats in House are just some within many that don't all share similar views. There isn't similar opposition for Trump as he is in position above all others.

 

I don't believe that intelligence communities want Trump gone, they just play their own power play where they show that one don't want them as their enemy. As in past Trump has spoken quite lot against intelligence community and how its should be in better lead and otherwise spoken in undermining tone about them.

Well, if all the intelligence communities want is a compliant leader who does what they want I guess it's all good then? If one were to be facetious one might mention that all Putin wants is a compliant leader who does what he wants, as well...

 

That kind of thinking is far more sinister than Trump being a blowhard, because Trump is both limited in power and is an actual elected official who will be gone in 4/8 years. These guys are neither elected nor are they limited in their power or in the time frame of their power. You don't get any less limited than trying to kneecap your country's leader as there isn't any higher target to go for. And if they get away with it once they'll do it every single time, it can hardly be claimed they'd stop at the President either since- and I know I'm repeating myself- there is no greater target to go for.

 

(I don't give an asterisk if Putin tried interfering here, that's expected and the best defence to that is having a proper democracy where his potential influence never rises above margin of error level. If our spies tried interfering though? I'd have a hard time describing that as anything less than a clandestine coup and outright treason, and would be tempted to suggest actual hanging for anyone caught doing it, pour decourager les autres. Hi GCSB/ SIS, hope you enjoyed my post)

 

 

Russian state don't do anything, it is people employed by Russian state and those people are committing crimes in USA if they are hacking computers that locate in USA. But of course them to face consequences of their actions is slim to none as there is quite minor change that Russia will ever hand over them to USA even if USA would be able to actually give Russia prove that those people committed such crime. It is like CIA agents that commit crimes in other countries in order to ensure that USA's interest will come true or USA's soldiers that commit war crimes who will not ever face international courts because USA protects its own people when they commit crimes in its name. But that don't make what these people do any less crime or any more legal in places where those acts have been committed.

 

Like for example there is Finnish hacker that USA wants to try for crimes he committed, but we haven't yet decided if we actually want to give USA our citizen. And there are people in Europe that have committed such crimes like rape in USA but European courts refuse to give them for USA official for trialed there, because their crimes aren't serious enough to warrant such actions.

 

Intelligence communities want compliant leaders that isn't new thing, neither is their power plays during administration changes. Trump just seem to be from weaker end of leaders when it comes to handle such actions. But like you said it is USA State actions there is nothing to worry about it is perfectly legal . But more seriously bad behavior from intelligence communities domestic or foreign don't excuse Trump's actions as leader of US executive branch and leader of US intelligence community. His actions give room for corruption in agencies in US executive branch and it is his job to keep those agencies work for people of USA. Meaning that if they leak information that they should not then that is Trump's fault, because he is the boss and he carries the responsibility for actions done by his agencies addition to those done by himself.

 

What comes to Putin he is leader that puts Russian's interest first, although for him it usually means his interests first, because for him they are same thing even if all the Russians don't agree. Which is important to remember in any negotiations with Russia and speculations what Russia may do. Putin is mastered art to say one thing and do another thing and same time point finger to third thing. He also has somewhat similar attitude towards international agreements as Trump says he has, if they don't benefit Russia then following them is optional.

[Zoraptor]

If you're not going to count an action that was (supposedly at least) ordered by the head of state to be performed, by an organ of state, as a state action you aren't going to count anything done by that state as being a state action. By the same logic nothing done in Syria by Russians is state action, since it's done by individual Russians who happen to be employed by the Russian state and who are, ultimately but seemingly irrelevantly, obeying Putin's orders. And that would be odd, as the US (andor politicians thereof) have spent rather a lot of time going on about Russia this and Russia that as if Russia is responsible for those 'state actions'.

 

If the FSB/ GRU does a hack in the US, on Putin's orders, then it is a state action- Putin is the head of state and the FSB is as much an organ of state as the Russian air force or army is, or the CIA/ FBI/ Army is in the US . The situation is completely different if the FSB or people within it are doing their hacks or leaks freelance, because that is not state sanctioned as it has not been ordered by the state. Indeed it's quite the opposite, if they're trying to blackmail their head of state.

 

In any case, if you want to show that illegality occurred, committed by specific people you can't simply assert it and use that as fact, and neither can the US. Yep, it's easy for the US to fire off accusations that will never actually be tested, but one cannot use those accusations as anything more than as a basis for what the 'US' thinks happened and who did it.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Zoraptor

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

It isn't illegal for Russia to hack the DNC, as Russia isn't bound by US laws. Same as it isn't/ wasn't illegal for the US to 'promote homosexuality' just because that is illegal in Russia. Won't stop the US from trying to impose their laws, of course, but Russia's response is and would be that the US can go asterisk themselves same as the US would tell Russia if they tried to enforce their anti gay laws in the US. And if it were Rich doing the leaking then it may have been illegal- far more difficult to prove it though, since he had legit access to the info- but it certainly wasn't hacking, or treason.

 

As for the rest, you're trying to make Trump a special case. If Schumer or Pelosi were appalled!!! at the DNC/ Hillary leaks and are smugly parroting the current ones that is every bit as undermining as Trump doing it, and every bit as undermining as Obama saying he supported whistle blowers then prosecuting more than all other Presidents combined (iirc) under the espionage act. Truth is that everyone loves a leak that benefits them, and is appalled!!! at a leak that doesn't. Trump is no special case there, he's absolutely par for the course.

 

I don't really see how it makes it easier for intelligence communities to influence either. They're going to do it because they want Trump gone, have the power to, the only people who can stop them rely on them for the information needed to stop them and there's no prospect of the media refusing to print unsupported leaks they agree with. Trump being a hypocrite about supporting/ opposing leaks is a parallel issue that is only likely to be significant to those who already don't like him- same as the D hypocrisy is only significant to those who don't like them.

 

By international agreements that Russia has signed, legality hacking that targets computers in USA is determined by USA laws. Which of course don't necessary mean much as Russia isn't in habit giving its citizens to USA to be tried.

 

 

Nah, not if it's the Russian State doing it. Even for private citizens extradition itself requires the crime to be illegal in Russia as well, albeit that can be waived.

 

The direct equivalent would be Russia saying that CIA hacking in Russia is illegal. Well yeah, it may be in Russia, but it isn't a crime in the US and there isn't merely no chance of an extradition whatever reciprocal treaties may say there's no chance of, well, anything except incredulous laughter if they complained about it. It's also particularly problematic when you have the NSA rather obviously hacking/ intercepting the Russian Ambassador's communications- completely against the Vienna Convention, of course, but you'd be naive if you thought it didn't happen.

 

Trump is special case, because he is the most visible politician in world currently and he is the leader of USA. Other politicians behaving idiotically is bad, but when such visible leader does it it is much more worse. Because his behavior and attitude is what everybody sees. Pelosi and Schumer and rest of democrats in House are just some within many that don't all share similar views. There isn't similar opposition for Trump as he is in position above all others.

 

I don't believe that intelligence communities want Trump gone, they just play their own power play where they show that one don't want them as their enemy. As in past Trump has spoken quite lot against intelligence community and how its should be in better lead and otherwise spoken in undermining tone about them.

Well, if all the intelligence communities want is a compliant leader who does what they want I guess it's all good then? If one were to be facetious one might mention that all Putin wants is a compliant leader who does what he wants, as well...

 

That kind of thinking is far more sinister than Trump being a blowhard, because Trump is both limited in power and is an actual elected official who will be gone in 4/8 years. These guys are neither elected nor are they limited in their power or in the time frame of their power. You don't get any less limited than trying to kneecap your country's leader as there isn't any higher target to go for. And if they get away with it once they'll do it every single time, it can hardly be claimed they'd stop at the President either since- and I know I'm repeating myself- there is no greater target to go for.

 

(I don't give an asterisk if Putin tried interfering here, that's expected and the best defence to that is having a proper democracy where his potential influence never rises above margin of error level. If our spies tried interfering though? I'd have a hard time describing that as anything less than a clandestine coup and outright treason, and would be tempted to suggest actual hanging for anyone caught doing it, pour decourager les autres. Hi GCSB/ SIS, hope you enjoyed my post)

 

 

Russian state don't do anything, it is people employed by Russian state and those people are committing crimes in USA if they are hacking computers that locate in USA. But of course them to face consequences of their actions is slim to none as there is quite minor change that Russia will ever hand over them to USA even if USA would be able to actually give Russia prove that those people committed such crime. It is like CIA agents that commit crimes in other countries in order to ensure that USA's interest will come true or USA's soldiers that commit war crimes who will not ever face international courts because USA protects its own people when they commit crimes in its name. But that don't make what these people do any less crime or any more legal in places where those acts have been committed.

 

Like for example there is Finnish hacker that USA wants to try for crimes he committed, but we haven't yet decided if we actually want to give USA our citizen. And there are people in Europe that have committed such crimes like rape in USA but European courts refuse to give them for USA official for trialed there, because their crimes aren't serious enough to warrant such actions.

 

Intelligence communities want compliant leaders that isn't new thing, neither is their power plays during administration changes. Trump just seem to be from weaker end of leaders when it comes to handle such actions. But like you said it is USA State actions there is nothing to worry about it is perfectly legal . But more seriously bad behavior from intelligence communities domestic or foreign don't excuse Trump's actions as leader of US executive branch and leader of US intelligence community. His actions give room for corruption in agencies in US executive branch and it is his job to keep those agencies work for people of USA. Meaning that if they leak information that they should not then that is Trump's fault, because he is the boss and he carries the responsibility for actions done by his agencies addition to those done by himself.

 

What comes to Putin he is leader that puts Russian's interest first, although for him it usually means his interests first, because for him they are same thing even if all the Russians don't agree. Which is important to remember in any negotiations with Russia and speculations what Russia may do. Putin is mastered art to say one thing and do another thing and same time point finger to third thing. He also has somewhat similar attitude towards international agreements as Trump says he has, if they don't benefit Russia then following them is optional.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/16/news/economy/russia-cash-reserves-depleted/

 

I see Russia has more reserve currency than I initially thought, this is a good thing for the West. I'll be honest, I do think Russia committed egregious human rights abuses in Aleppo but they are helping end the war.....we need them to defeat ISIS and allow Assad to rule

 

I know this sounds like a contradiction  but I am tired of the war, I'm tired of Syria and the protracted, interminable  and insurmountable end goal, Im tired of the endless carnage, lost souls of child survivors and the utter uselessness of the ME to actually end the war ....they really are a useless group. I thought the ME would eventually want to intervene instead of just leaving the war to continue...again I gave the ME  too much humanity, they would have just let the war continue to the end of days

 

So now Syria becomes a major resource responsibility for the West, we dont want or need to this. So Russia became the perfect country to intervene and effectively help end the war. Russia has very little moral compass or sense of empathy for collateral damage so they were ideal for this type of carnage and barbaric warfare 

 

Once its over maybe many Syrians can go home 

[Chilloutman]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3297317/Swedish-Foreign-Minister-claims-country-facing-collapse-mass-influx-refugees.html

[Pidesco]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3297317/Swedish-Foreign-Minister-claims-country-facing-collapse-mass-influx-refugees.html

 

That was in 2015. The system never did collapse, although huge delays became the norm in a bunch of state departments. In the the mean time, the numbers of asylum seekers coming to Sweden have already diminished significantly.

 

https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/About-the-Migration-Agency/Facts-and-statistics-/Statistics.html

 

According to the migration service in Sweden 2015 was the peak when over 160000 refugees requested asylum. That's double the 2014 number. In 2016 the number fell to 30000. Unless something new happens, in 2017 the number of refugees should continue to decrease.

[Chilloutman]

Yeah I realised its old news, I somehow stumble unto it regarding some police officer speaking about covering up refugees crimes, but I didn't want to share hoaxes, let me know if this is something talked about in Sweden:

 

https://www.facebook.com/peter.springare/posts/10208300682343230

[BrotherFerg]

Bros these are weird times and exciting times because you never know what's gonna happen next, I didn't vote for Trump but he does make things very interesting. It's a circus brehs, sometimes I think he doesn't even really want to be president.

[BruceVC]

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3297317/Swedish-Foreign-Minister-claims-country-facing-collapse-mass-influx-refugees.html

 

That was in 2015. The system never did collapse, although huge delays became the norm in a bunch of state departments. In the the mean time, the numbers of asylum seekers coming to Sweden have already diminished significantly.

 

https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/About-the-Migration-Agency/Facts-and-statistics-/Statistics.html

 

According to the migration service in Sweden 2015 was the peak when over 160000 refugees requested asylum. That's double the 2014 number. In 2016 the number fell to 30000. Unless something new happens, in 2017 the number of refugees should continue to decrease.

 

What is the general view towards refugees from the average Swede, are you guys generally still supportive?

[Azdeus]

Yeah I realised its old news, I somehow stumble unto it regarding some police officer speaking about covering up refugees crimes, but I didn't want to share hoaxes, let me know if this is something talked about in Sweden:

 

https://www.facebook.com/peter.springare/posts/10208300682343230

 

Yes and no, there was some debate about police being hesitant to talk about refugees and crime publicly a couple of years ago, but it's not their job to do so anyway. There was no cover ups though.

I have'nt seen anything about that in the news lately, that I recall. After looking around, the only articles about him are from the local newspapers around Örebro.

 

What is the general view towards refugees from the average Swede, are you guys generally still supportive?

Personally, yes, I'm all for it, so are most people I know. My father and some other Swedish Democrat voters are against them.

The most vocal people against immigrants at work are a couple of Somalians and Tchad that immigrated here, and the poles, they think they're a disaster. XD

Edited February 17, 2017 by Azdeus

[Pidesco]

As always there will always be some fringe nutters, mostly on the internet, complaining about the immigrants, drug crimes, murders and rapes. 

 

 

Most people are more or less in favour of receiving some refugees, it's more of a question how many in total, depending on the country's ability to withstand the influx. and how many when compared to the rest of Europe.

 

Refugees aren't a new thing in Sweden. Iranians, Lebanese came here in the late 70s/early 80s, Yugoslavians in the early 90s, middle easterners in more recent years. For instance, there are a few Iranians among my colleagues, I usually have lunch that a Bosnian owned place, and there are kebab restaurants all over Sweden.

 

When I lived here back in 1998, there was some focus in the news about drug crime and juvenile delinquency among immigrants from the Balkans. Nowadays no one talks about them.

 

That's not to say that aren't some problems with criminality here in Sweden. There's some ghettoization going on, quite a few of the immigrants clearly aren't interested in integrating or learning the local culture, and crime statistics are going to skew immigrant. Most crimes come from the poorest sectors of society, stop the presses. Also, I've been to the poorest, most dangerous parts of Gothenburg and, as someone familiar with criminality and slums in Lisbon, Swedes don't know how good they have it. As usual in first world countries, most people have no idea how safe their lives really are. Spoiler: Really, really safe.

 

The younger kids, however, are still going to school, are still integrating and fusing with the local youth culture. "Swedish" will mean less and less what it meant 50 or 60 years ago, but what else is new? Culture changes and has always changed and it isn't all that important if the purity of the culture is maintained, especially when cultural purity doesn't exist.

[BruceVC]

As always there will always be some fringe nutters, mostly on the internet, complaining about the immigrants, drug crimes, murders and rapes. 

 

 

Most people are more or less in favour of receiving some refugees, it's more of a question how many in total, depending on the country's ability to withstand the influx. and how many when compared to the rest of Europe.

 

Refugees aren't a new thing in Sweden. Iranians, Lebanese came here in the late 70s/early 80s, Yugoslavians in the early 90s, middle easterners in more recent years. For instance, there are a few Iranians among my colleagues, I usually have lunch that a Bosnian owned place, and there are kebab restaurants all over Sweden.

 

When I lived here back in 1998, there was some focus in the news about drug crime and juvenile delinquency among immigrants from the Balkans. Nowadays no one talks about them.

 

That's not to say that aren't some problems with criminality here in Sweden. There's some ghettoization going on, quite a few of the immigrants clearly aren't interested in integrating or learning the local culture, and crime statistics are going to skew immigrant. Most crimes come from the poorest sectors of society, stop the presses. Also, I've been to the poorest, most dangerous parts of Gothenburg and, as someone familiar with criminality and slums in Lisbon, Swedes don't know how good they have it. As usual in first world countries, most people have no idea how safe their lives really are. Spoiler: Really, really safe.

 

The younger kids, however, are still going to school, are still integrating and fusing with the local youth culture. "Swedish" will mean less and less what it meant 50 or 60 years ago, but what else is new? Culture changes and has always changed and it isn't all that important if the purity of the culture is maintained, especially cultural purity doesn't exist.

 

This is a very good update, its an overall positive view and this is exactly what I was hoping 

 

I like the way Sweden  supports and believes in human rights and equality, I admire your commitment. I heard people saying things like " the immigrants will destroy Swedish culture and create chaos and instability  "

 

That type of crime is very normal so it shouldn't be seen in a serious way  

[Azdeus]

Ruin our Swedish culture? Hell, 95% of it is already imported stuff. The three things that could be called Swedish culture that we do is dance around an erected **** on midsummers eve, have a "crayfish premiere" in august and watch "From all of us to all of you" at 15:00 on Christmas, the rest are imported from christianity, germany and the US.

 

 

The one thing that has been "destroyed" is All saint's day celebration in favor for Halloween wich is an American import, and not something I can see how they can blame on immigration. >_>

[Pidesco]

Ruin our Swedish culture? Hell, 95% of it is already imported stuff. The three things that could be called Swedish culture that we do is dance around an erected **** on midsummers eve, have a "crayfish premiere" in august and watch "From all of us to all of you" at 15:00 on Christmas, the rest are imported from christianity, germany and the US.

 

 

The one thing that has been "destroyed" is All saint's day celebration in favor for Halloween wich is an American import, and not something I can see how they can blame on immigration. >_>

 

Strangers will soon be speaking to each other on buses and all hell will break loose. Also, people will stop eating surströmming.

[Azdeus]

Strangers will soon be speaking to each other on buses and all hell will break loose. Also, people will stop eating surströmming.

No! Anything but that! Not relaxed and sociable people!  

 

[BruceVC]

Ruin our Swedish culture? Hell, 95% of it is already imported stuff. The three things that could be called Swedish culture that we do is dance around an erected **** on midsummers eve, have a "crayfish premiere" in august and watch "From all of us to all of you" at 15:00 on Christmas, the rest are imported from christianity, germany and the US.

 

 

The one thing that has been "destroyed" is All saint's day celebration in favor for Halloween wich is an American import, and not something I can see how they can blame on immigration. >_>

 

 

 

Ruin our Swedish culture? Hell, 95% of it is already imported stuff. The three things that could be called Swedish culture that we do is dance around an erected **** on midsummers eve, have a "crayfish premiere" in august and watch "From all of us to all of you" at 15:00 on Christmas, the rest are imported from christianity, germany and the US.

 

 

The one thing that has been "destroyed" is All saint's day celebration in favor for Halloween wich is an American import, and not something I can see how they can blame on immigration. >_>

 

Strangers will soon be speaking to each other on buses and all hell will break loose. Also, people will stop eating surströmming.

 

 

 

I like you guys, keep us updated on serious social changes you feel Sweden is going through....I am using your views on a radio show debate I am having on the success of immigrant integration. Your views are considered " Swedish anecdotal evidence " and it is important as some people prefer to hear the opinions of actual citizens 

[Pidesco]

Note that I'm Portuguese, and I've been living in Sweden for less than a year.

[Gfted1]

Wait, what about the rumor that every Swedish woman is a smokin' hot blonde babe. Are you saying that's not true?

[BruceVC]

Note that I'm Portuguese, and I've been living in Sweden for less than a year.

Oh, thanks for this. I'll mention this as its relevant from the principle. It never ever gets checked but all debates are recorded and you never can be too honest

 

So I'll say exactly what you said above but still use your general view  

[Azdeus]

Wait, what about the rumor that every Swedish woman is a smokin' hot blonde babe. Are you saying that's not true?

 

Well, more and more women are having darker haired children, but this has nothing to do with globalization or genetics, no.

It's surströmming.

It helps strengthen the genes for blonde hair, and as the consumption of surströmming the past decades has gone down so has the number of blonde people.

[Pidesco]

Wait, what about the rumor that every Swedish woman is a smokin' hot blonde babe. Are you saying that's not true?

 

Some Swedish women are smokin' hot brunettes wearing hijab.

[Gfted1]

...the consumption of surströmming...

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYK9-KLQVfw

[Gfted1]

Some Swedish women are smokin' hot brunettes wearing hijab.

Yeah, but dark haired women are a dime a dozen. I wonder what genetic mix produces a platinum blonde?