Because they share the North Atlantic?

Seriously? Commercial shipping lanes are shared by many in NATO. You could argue allowing the US Navy to police the lanes but there is also the British and Feench navies too.

There is just no reason for America to continue in NATO with European membership now at 32 EXCEPT that all 32 nations seek to have America pay for it.

I think there are two reasons we (the US) need to stay in NATO. First off, the UK has been our ally for at least a couple centuries (aside from a difference during the US Civil War). We need to protect the UK, because they are a prime ally, even more than the other allies in the NATO alliance.

But also the other NATO countries helped out after 9-11. Many of them sent soldiers to Afghanistan. It hasn't all been a one way street.

And personally, as an American, I would prefer that the US remain engaged in Europe to keep internal issues and differences over there from going the way they did in 1914 and 1939, which led to two World Wars that cost thousands and thousands of American lives.

Europe needs the US (and the UK) as a counterbalance for their own, potential internal squabbles. Just because the EU presently is at peace with itself, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will always be that way. That continent has a long history of internal warfare.

Huh? The British signed a decree of neutrality in 1861 when it came to the civil war. No difference of opinion either way.
The civil war had no bearing on Britain being an ally or not

Or did you mean the American Revolutionary War in the late 1770s when America gained it's independence from Britain?

Maybe you haven't read the same history books concerning diplomatic relations between the UK and US during the Civil War that I have. At the outset of the war, British cotton mills in the Midlands needed Southern cotton (other sources had not yet been developed), and the UK was not certain that the United States would survive intact if the Civil War continued, so while they may have been officially neutral, on the more practical level they were playing both sides of the coin for a while, and from a Union perspective, they were aiding our Confederate adversaries and enemies.

The British government also allowed the UK-backed funding of the Confederate commerce raiders, including the C.S.S. Alabama, C.S.S. Shenandoah, and the C.S.S. Florida, UK built ships that destroyed millions of dollars of Union maritime commerce, and the issue was only settled during the Alabama Claims case in 1871. Also, the UK government was aiding the Confederate economy by continuing to purchase cotton that had slipped the blockade, and this also caused friction between the Union and the UK, until Gettysburg, when the UK government realised that the United States would probably not split, the Confederacy had no chance of winning, the Union would undoubtedly win the war, and the UK would have to deal with a growing and more powerful United States government as soon as the war ended. After Gettysburg they became more overtly friendly to the Union and started giving the Confederacy the slip. By this time, alternative sources of cotton were developing in Egypt and other regions.

Also, increased Union production of industrial products, including armaments, factored into the relationship. The UK government did not want to be facing a future potentially hostile, heavily armed, economically and industrially powerful 'United' States. Their leaders weren't stupid.

As we know, declarations of neutrality often are for face value only. The US famously was "neutral" at the start of WW1, but the reality was otherwise.

Such are the vagaries of geopolitics.

So that is why I mentioned that during the Civil War there was a time where the US and UK, although still cordial to each other, weren't exactly on friendly terms. The earlier years of the US Civil War were probably the only time since the War of 1812 that the US and UK were not on great terms.

That said, UK politicians during the 1800's were amazingly prescient, always looking out 50-100 years in the future. That's why they did not use the Royal Navy (or diplomatic means) to try to break what they believed was an illegal Union blockade of the Confederacy. Instead, they let it pass. This was even though the cotton mills in the Midlands started hurting because of the effectiveness of the blockade.

Then, 50 years later, when the US complained about the UK blockade of Germany in WW1, the UK government said "We are just following the precedent you set."

PS I don't mean to sound like Mr. know it all here, but I'm just trying to explain what I meant upthread. There were indeed some diplomatic difficulties between the US and UK during the Civil War.

Well, obviously the Revolutionary War was problematic for the Brits and the US. Same with the War of 1812, when we won at sea but lost on land. After that, relations were generally good. I think even during some of the difficulties during the US Civil War cooler heads prevailed, especially on the UK side.

Which is one reason I am not in favor of Trump's bombastic, bullshit and (in my view) dangerous attitude about NATO. Diplomacy seems to be more effective when cooler heads prevail. Trump is not one of those.

If the US truly wants or expects the EU NATO countries to pony up more money, then persuade them, or otherwise cut a deal with them in private -- not by excoriating them and threatening them in public like Trump does. That's not diplomacy, that's the kind of crap that can eventually trigger divisions, and even wars.

Persuasion comes by leaving NATO to the Europeans.

The future for the USA is Central and South America not Europe.

People said the same thing about Latin America being the 'future' in the 1920's and 30's, and kept us out of the League Of Nations, and we ended up losing a couple hundred thousand soldiers in France, the low countries, and Germany during WW2.

Like the adage says, one should pay attention to history, or they will repeat it.

True on history but then America needed Europe, now it no longer needs it even as it wants trade and commerce. Thus, even if Europe implodes, as it will in time, then let it and let's see what emerges from it.

If that happened the Europe would be considerably weaker. Especially when it comes to nuclear weapons. Although both the UK and France ar nuclear nations, between us we only have a rediculously small amount of them. Russia would see that as an invite to take back (at the very mimimum) the countries they lost when soviet union broke up.
The reason why I would be a bad for America, is that happened. Your bases in Germany, Italy, Turkey would all be taken away from
the US and returned to host nations (you cant have drop Europe in the shit and keep the prizes.) The reason why these bases are so important to America is, for example the biggest Naval base out of the US is in Italy. It give the US a staging point for the aircraft career fleets for when they need to head to middle east. You also have forward operating bases for the nuclear bomber fleet, which if thet were taken it would seriously damage the speed of the US to be able to respond to any nuclear attack by both China and Russia.
Basically - bad idea for everyone