Doesn't strength in numbers contradict your idea of kicking out the weak?

When I hear phrases like strength in numbers, I think of elephants. When a herd of elephants watches lions circle their community, the strong ones stand around their young to protect them.

That's analogous to "strong" countries subsidizing ones who can't provide for themselves, because having an allied presence is helpful.

Your wording, both the use of "paying their fair share" and "get them to spend more on NATO"-part made it sounds like countries actually pay money into NATO. Trump also makes it sound like that, and he certainly gave the impression that if other NATO countries started "paying more" (aka spending more) that would mean more money for the US. The fact is that as long as the USA wants to be able to win two world wars at once, they still need their astronomic millitary budget, and what tiny European countries spend makes no difference. My comment was not about "changing your post", it was to make sure nobody else is confused about this after reading your post.

When that is said, its good that most NATO countries are hitting and exceeding 2%. It's clear that Europe can not rely on USA to be the "world police", we need to be be able to defend ourself.

Also, friendly reminder that article 5 has been used exactly once, and that was to defend USA. Soldiers of my country has died defending USA.