I think it was just a flip comment expressing his opinion of non-payers. But I don’t think he really meant it. Of course, the Dems will use it against him. That is to be expected. He needs to be on guard what he says.
Trump already has the support of his base, who are the people most likely to be strongly supportive of his position here. The question becomes, does making this statement persuade any ADDITIONAL voters to support Trump? Or does it push some who are reluctantly supporting Trump away? IMHO, while this might energize MAGA nation, it doesn’t help him expand his base beyond that, and may instead push those on the fence away. Remember, most of those people who are persuadable to vote for Trump but are not strong supporters are more likely to be influenced by the media. This is not some issue where it can be reasonably portrayed as the media doing a hatchet job on Trump, lying about him or persecuting him - these are his words, spoken in a very public venue.
It all comes down to a risk/benefit analysis. We can all see the risk of Trump making this statement, he will be portrayed as an isolationist, as being pro-dictator (yes, Putin is a dictator), being a loose cannon in foreign affairs, and risks alienating independent voters who might be supportive of NATO. So what is the benefit to his campaign, other than getting the base worked up? How does it increase his chances of getting elected?
funny, it dint cause any problems years ago when he actually made the statement...
Anything special happen before that? Something involving a woman named Victoria, something named Lindsay and McCain? Perhaps a fellow named Damon Wilson, president/CEO of the NED who lives with his husband in DC?
The mutuality of a NATO Alliance has gradually morphed over the decades into the singularity of a NATO Reliance with US’ wealthy EU partners relying on the US to do all the heavy lifting, militarily, monetarily, providing advanced intelligence and weaponry for their land war threats while they are useless to us in defense of our homeland which will come in the way of a high tech air and missile attack, not a land war. As such, the treaty needs to be amended with member states required to form the joint standing military they have been pretending they want to institute for ages to defend Europe by a date certain and immediately required to up their countries’ defense spending to 2% of GDP. Barring that, we should leave the Reliance. We don’t need to be paying child support for someone else’s baby while we are trying to raise our own.
Anyone who has observed Donald Trump very long knows how this ends: To the benefit of the US, one way or the other. It will either make NATO stronger or expose it as a paper tiger. If the latter, better to know it sooner than later.
I’m pretty sure it was a tongue in cheek comment.