Like so much pedantry, this is a little inaccurate:
(emphasis added). It’s therefore not incorrect to include Finland.
I didn’t know whether to include Canada or not, personally. Because it is situated so close to the United States, I have a feeling that much of the United States’ “every man for himself” attitude may be influencing Canada too much. I don’t like that “every man for himself” attitude - it should be “every man for each other” with a strong central force guiding the welfare of the people.
I like you. 
I’ve heard that we have all the good things, not the bad, so no, we don’t have everything the US has.
Canada is kind of socialist.
We push each other’s cars out of the snowbanks - does that count?
I am also favourable to the US - the people and the country, that is, not the governmental system so much (Democrat or Republican doesn’t matter to me - they both seem the same from here).
Americans think so, but on an absolute scale… no.
By social conservatism I mean overall its moral climate is healthier than America’s.
It is also a meritocratic state with virtually zero crime or urban decay. I find it of all the earthly nations of the world, the one closest to Utopia. While I don’t support just copying Singapore’s system, there is much we can learn from it IMO.
Partially due to lack of contact with Christians due to the Communist persecution.
Well based on such a superficial understanding, I can understand why you “admire” these countries. Be interesting to see what you say when you actually learn what these countries are like.
Singapore has casinos and legalised prostitution, you realise? And you can buy alcohol in 7-11s there. IMHO those are good things, but since you seem determined to maintain this odd persona of yours (Seriously, how many teenage boys in Western society are actively against sex and generally Having A Good Time?) then you might as well be aware that your information on the subject of a country you’ve (as far as I can tell) never visited might be in need of updating.
I’ve lived for significant stretches of time in Mexico, Germany, and China, and I like all of them, though obviously for different reasons.
I am very favorably predisposed to the USA, as it is my home country and just wonderful, although I was not always that way; as a 13-15 year old or so I was pretty anti-nationalist.
I really want to go to Kazakhstan and eat lots of plov. I know they say that Uzbek plov is the best but I don’t care, I want Kazakh plov. So I guess I am favorable to Kazakhstan.
That’s true enough, but it may not be a fair comparison–the fact is that we just don’t have that many black people, and very few that came (via the Underground Railroad, for example) during the 18th and 19th centuries. Modern-day black immigrants from the Caribbean abound, and bring their culture, but it’s not the same as if they had been here for 200-plus years, as they have in the US. To turn your assertion around slightly, I might say that a lot of what’s good about Canada is inextricably rooted in French culture–the USA’s a great country, call it number one of you like, but it doesn’t have everything that Canada has. I guess the point I’m trying to make is that basing a comparison on “black culture” or “French culture” is inherently unfair, since neither the US nor Canada can compete with each other on such grounds.
As for me, addressing the OP, the countries I am favourable to include:
The USA. I could complain about many individual things, but in general, the US is a large democracy, constitutionally-run, with rights guaranteed for the citizenry. Rule of law is present. There are many ways the US could improve (IMHO), but looking at the big picture, I have to say that the US has a solid history and is doing pretty well going forward.
The UK. This is where most of the Western English-speaking world got its values from. Common-law precedents, trial by jury, courts of equity, innocent until proven guilty–all came from the UK. As did a Westminster parliament, which exists in many modern nations. Although the UK’s influence has diminished in recent times, the UK’s significance in world history cannot be downplayed; and when it speaks today, I’d suggest it is speaking from 900-plus years of experience. As it is one of the most experienced players on the world stage, I’d suggest that it should be listened to.
Australia. Yes, it rose from the British, but so did the Americans. At any rate, Australians took a pretty inhospitable piece of land and turned it into a modern First World nation. The work ethic required to do that is rather impressive.
Well it’s a bit of a trade-off, innit? Black culture in the USA developed largely as a result of racism and oppression. Not to say that didn’t exist in Canada, but Black Canadians got the right to vote in 1837, when their US counterparts were still subject to slavery.
From what I’ve seen, what Canada has most over the USA is that sense of inclusiveness. That’s what the USA has gotten wrong in my opinion. I’ve spent the majority of my life in New England and Chicago, but am I an American? There remains this pervasive meme that a ‘real American’ is a WASP or Scots-Irish living in a rural or suburban area. Yankees and urbanites are portrayed as ‘out of touch’.
In my time in Canada, I’ve never personally heard anyone argue that someone wasn’t a ‘real Canadian’. Black, white, francophone, First Nations, Alberta cowboys, Vancouver urbanites, Newfies, they’re all Canadians.
Well, Arthur Conan Doyle did mention the "King of Scandinavia: in no less than two stories, so I guess it can be excused.
As it happens the Britannica is wrong. Finland is not included in Scandinavia.
I think rather many (if not most) people consider Finland part of Scandinavia, regardless of what the Finns might think.
FWIW, Finland was part of Sweden until the early 19th Century, along with Norway which split in 1905.
I think we, who live in the area, have the interpretative prerogative on this.
Also, Norway has never been part of Sweden. It was forced into a union in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, but that was only in respect to foreign affairs and the head of state. In all other matters the country minded its own affairs.
Whilst, in theory, I agree with you, try telling a British person that someone from India isn’t “Asian” and see how far you get (regardless of what the inhabitants of the Subcontinent consider themselves to be, either).
The last time I saw it on a map the Indian subcontinent was indeed part of Asia. 
Geographically, sort of (It’s called “The Subcontinent”, after all). But when someone who isn’t from the UK says “Asian”, they’re generally referring to someone from China or Japan or Vietnam or somewhere like that- not someone from India and Pakistan etc.
And they’ve been PO’d about it ever since…
“Ten thousand Swedes fled through the weeds
Persued by one Norwegian.
Ten thousand more ran for the shore
At the battle of Copenhagen…”
Experts, schmexperts. The people who actually live in the countries involved never include Scandinavia as part of Finland. It’s Nordic, but not Scandinavian.