Try the political quiz

2.2k Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

Yes

 @9CLWDVD  from Michigan agreed…6mos6MO

The European states are our most vital allies. To abandon NATO would be to abandon Europe. The U.S. can not face the geopolitical challenges of the 21st century alone.

 @9FMBRM3 from Idaho agreed…6mos6MO

I agree because Europe is the first line of defense against Russian aggression, and abandoning them will facilitate the take over of those nations. In terms of China, NATO provides an additional incentive for the CCP to not attack the USA

 @9FMF5VHfrom Maine agreed…6mos6MO

The US, and the world at large, benefits from close and friendly international relations. Democratic nations should always look out for each others's interests, especially with authoritarian governments rising in prominence. NATO is essential for US and European relations, its a pact of confidence and trust. Pulling out of NATO would send a message of disintrest and apathy, and would lead to losing the good faith that European nations have put in the US.

 @9GFVGXKLibertarianfrom Guam agreed…5mos5MO

Authoritarian growing powers, such as Russia and China, which seek to dominate their respective regions and expand their power and influence in the region, and the wide reach of NATO provides a source of stability and security for North America and Western Europe, as well as providing a framework and a general sense of values which unite NATO members and allow for common goals.

 @TheDesideriusRepublicanagreed…5mos5MO

NATO should remain in its current form, but it should not admit any new member states. The organisation should similarly demand that all nations part of it should meet the expected defence spending of 2% of their GDP.

 @9JDCRYJ from Ohio disagreed…2mos2MO

Nato was formed to counter the Soviet Union and the expansion of Communism. With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and little to none Communist countries remaining, there is no reason for Nato to stay around.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

No, it is obsolete and should be abolished

 @9GMVXFH  from California disagreed…5mos5MO

Why should the US cast away the greatest alliance in the history of Mankind? Isolationism is a fool’s ideology, which failed the Ming Empire, the Japanese, and pre-war US. When threats are knocking at the door, it would be idiotic to hide under your bed sheets and hope they go away. Why should the US do that on the Geopoltical stage, ceding the far east the communist China and Eastern Europe to Putin’s Russia.

 @9GLRGJ3 from Florida disagreed…5mos5MO

Having such a large military alliance benefits every nation that is a part of it and reduces the risk of war

 @9GJMSCW from Virginia disagreed…5mos5MO

Firstly, NATO's core principle of collective defense acts as a powerful deterrent, ensuring that any attack on one member is considered an attack on all, which has effectively discouraged potential aggressors and supports the US-led international order. Moreover, the alliance has adapted to confront modern security challenges, including terrorism, cyber threats, and hybrid warfare, thereby playing a pivotal role in crisis management and conflict resolution. We have much to learn from each other. Its historical role in maintaining peace and stability in Europe is also undeniable. While there may be calls for reform, NATO's proven adaptability stands as a strong argument for its continued relevance as an essential institution for many member states.

 @9CLWDVD  from Michigan disagreed…6mos6MO

NATO is the only serious guarantor of security in the western hemisphere. Without it the Europe will become a more violent continent.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

No

 @9HGVLR8Socialistfrom Washington agreed…4mos4MO

NATO is a exploitive system america has bombed and exploited several third world countries, NATO makes it that the USA can bully the whole world but the countries getting oppressed can't fight back because then the strongest militaries will be against them.

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…2mos2MO

Yes

It’s not a predatory organization, any attacks done we’re done explicitly to save lives, and the risks of destroying it are far worse.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

Yes, but NATO should focus more on counter-terrorism strategies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

No, not until other countries increase their financial contributions

 @9FMKJMT from Texas disagreed…6mos6MO

Well, we have found in history that having an alliance of great world powers (at least those posed in the modern era) has always needed the likes of the US to be successful; without the US, it is hard to put into action any sort of repercussions for a nations wrong doing. Therefore, I find it to be of the utmost importance, that the US remains in NATO.

 @9GYY6SZ from Oregon disagreed…4mos4MO

Don't risk our security over other nations, let them do as they please; defend us, for us, not for them.

 @9FDD6YJ from Massachusetts disagreed…6mos6MO

America is like the security of the world we need to be involved in conflicts so countries don't get strong and preventing another world war or any type of wars.

 @9F4ZSM3 from Utah disagreed…7mos7MO

The United States shouldn't continue subsidizing European welfare states of NATO members who do not meet the 2% contribution threshold while we run massive deficits.

 @8HR8JJFLibertarian from Iowa answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but the United States should not be responsible for funding 50% or more of NATO's operating budget.

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…2mos2MO

Yes

We’re not responsible, our percentage is relatively similar to others, we just have more money overall, so the total turnout is larger, while some of those nations actually fund more percentage-wide than us.

 @8Q3YPW7Reform from Hawaii answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only on the condition that the other member states are required to maintain their budget quotas and armament preparation. The United States should no longer be the primary armer and cash cow for the alliance.

  @Jones4Potus2024  from Oregon answered…6mos6MO

 @8WBW8DYRepublican from Idaho answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but pressure other countries to increase their financial contributions

 @98YQQNBCommunist from Kentucky answered…1yr1Y

Yes, but NATO should focus on the protection of developing countries and the like instead of bolstering capitalist interests

 @8M8BTP2 from Pennsylvania answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but we need to remove members that do not have NATO's best interests in mind or those nations that are not true allies (e.g. Turkey).

 @8HQ9H3Y from Illinois answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but encourage other NATO members to increase their financial contributions

 @8QHFTMW from Pennsylvania answered…3yrs3Y

 @97874CZConstitution from Wisconsin answered…1yr1Y

Yes, but scale back involvement until other countries increase their financial contribution

 @96HPD9Vfrom Pennsylvania answered…1yr1Y

 @8TD6J5R from Colorado answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, as long as other countries increase their financial contributions.

 @8PWFGXQPopulist from Oregon answered…3yrs3Y

 @98W76V9 from Michigan answered…1yr1Y

 @9H8G2T4 from Tennessee answered…4mos4MO

The NATO Call to arms should not be greater than the American Constitution and need for congress to declare wars.

  @Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington agreed…4mos4MO

We should withdraw from NATO as well as the UN.

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…2mos2MO

Yes

Absolutely not, they’re the first line of defense against Russian aggression, and if that dies, there’s not much stopping Russia or any other power from curb stomping Europe.

 @8LMZSFT from Indiana answered…3yrs3Y

 @9CHRMV5from Guam answered…9mos9MO

Yes, but NATO needs to only focus on Europe instead of being a gang that bullies countries in the Global South

  @9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…9mos9MO

Yes

Perhaps it could help be a way to forge peace between Russia and it's border states. Though with what Russia's doing right now, that's out the window.

 @ConstituencyCallerRepublicanfrom Maine disagreed…9mos9MO

Although Russia's actions in recent years have raised concerns, it is worth noting that NATO has been successful in maintaining peace in Europe since its inception. For example, the Baltic states, which were once under Soviet control, have been able to maintain their sovereignty and security with the help of NATO. This shows that NATO can still play a crucial role in fostering stability between Russia and its border states.

However, a stronger and more assertive stance from NATO might be necessary to deter any potential aggression from Russia. What do you think about increasing the military presence in Eastern Europe to ensure the security of these nations?

 @9KZZRXD from California answered…1wk1W

Yes, but nato is an unnecessary level of abstraction - it could just be replaced with “foreign policy towards Russia”

 @9KYTRL8Republicananswered…1wk1W

no but yes depending on how bad it is or if their our allies but like right now the hamas are attacking Israel we should help them out more than we are because thats Gods people and they shouldnt be getting attacked

 @9KWT5RX from South Carolina answered…2wks2W

Yes, but we shouldn't have to answer to every single problem. Other countries should step in, we can't offer help every time.

 @9KTNKLT  from Virginia answered…2wks2W

Yes, but decrease monetary contributions to be equal to the average percent contributed of other countries based off GDP

 @9KTJWB4 from Florida answered…2wks2W

Yes but decrease the amount of funds provided to be more proportional to the contributions of other nations.

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...