Ron Paul to Trump: Don’t Listen to Neocons!

Ron Paul, known for his promotion of the United States following a noninterventionist foreign policy, presented Thursday his take on the prospects of Donald Trump’s foreign policy as president. Paul set out his analysis in an extensive interview with host Peter Lavelle at RT.

Paul started off the interview saying that he is keeping his “fingers crossed” regarding Trump’s potential foreign policy actions. Paul says he views favorably Trump’s comments in the presidential election about “being less confrontational with Russia” and criticizing some of the US wars in the Middle East. Paul, though, notes that Trump has presented “vague” foreign policy positions overall. Paul also comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice.

Regarding Trump’s foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview reason for concern. Paul states: “Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don’t think that is a good sign.”

Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched “deep state” that favors foreign intervention and war, special interests that have “sinister motivation for these wars,” and media propaganda that “builds up the war fever” can provide significant headwinds against Trump pursuing such an objective.

Watch Paul’s interview here:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

32 thoughts on “Ron Paul to Trump: Don’t Listen to Neocons!”

  1. Oh, this is really precious. Ron Paul is offering Trump unsolicited advice, when he didn’t even endorse him over Hillary Clinton. Sorry, Ron, but you lost your voice. Your son did the right thing, you did not.

    1. I beg to differ, Ron Paul like Pat Buchanan have long been “non-interventionist.” Ron Paul is RP, sure I listen to him, I don’t hold his word as gospel though. Neo-Cons have kind of gotten areas of the world mucked up.

      1. I beg to differ, Ron Paul like Pat Buchanan have long been “non-interventionist.

        Pat Buchanan supported Trump. Ron Paul, throughout the campaign, made the false equivalency between Trump and Clinton.

        In this interview as well, he basically throws up his hands and says it doesn’t matter who’s in office.

        I like Ron Paul but he’s been very unhelpful towards the “peacenik” cause in this election.

        His problem is that anything less than “perfect” is all equally bad.

          1. I think you meant to reply to The Basilica. Thomas forgot to quote the phrase ‘I like Ron Paul but he’s been very unhelpful towards the “peacenik” cause in this election.’ He had intended it for responding to The Basilica.

          2. As I said, Ron Paul makes the false equivalency between Clinton and Trump on the issue of war. Trump and Clinton stand on almost opposite ends of that spectrum.

          3. Clinton is certainly a known bad. Where Trump lies on the spectrum depends on how much hope a person has had for breakfast. If Trump delivers greater peace I will be happy and thankful for each and every morsel of peace delivered. So far, so good. Thank you for your words of response.

          4. So… voting for Hillary is anti-war? Stop saying ridiculous things. Trump is the most anti-war candidate we’ve seen in decades.

          5. Being Anti-Trump does no mean being pro-Hillary. I am anti-Trump, Anti-Hillary, and Anti-War.

          6. You’re anti-war but support neither? That’s the same move as the neocons who chose to support neither or support Hillary.

            I’m not sure where you got the idea that Trump is pro-war. One of Trump’s policy pillars is non-interventionism.

          7. Wrong. due to the bs Obama and the whole rest are pulling with blaming Putin for Hillary’s loss (which is a lie), and the neocons siding with Hillarys camp – Russia is being surrounded by Nato forces all based on lies. Trump should pull us out of NATO as a defunct alliance. Russia right now is being surrounded – meanwhile being slandered as if the west wants to start another cold war. It’s as bad now as cuban missile crisis.

            Trump never wanted this. they are pulling this with hopes of stopping trump from allying with Russia.

            Also, we don’t need to have any alliances with an EU that is so pro Muslim. To hell with the EU. Time to exit that crap.

        1. I would have used different words than Thomas, but in essence he is correct: Ron usually stands for principle, while Rand is a partisan hack.

      1. RP talked a good game, but when it came time to vote, he was always lock step with the Neocon Repubs in the House. He was never true opposition. RP, fool us once. . .

    2. Actually he DID do the right thing seeing as trump shouldn’t even be considered to run our country based on his merit.

  2. Ron! There was not a Republican bill or vote you could not wait to attach your name to show your support. Too bad your actions never delivered based off of your words of moderation! Thanks but no thanks.

    1. Ron Paul has always stuck to his values. He’s never been compromised by special interests.

      I think you’re either very mistaken about Ron Paul, a troll, or a complete fool.

    2. Ron voted against virtually every war, all foreign aid, all violations of civil liberties, and almost every spending bill. I think you are confusing him with his son Rand. He was many times the lone vote in opposition to a bill. He was a thorn in the side of the Republican Establishment, to a much greater degree than many or most Democrat Congressmen.

  3. Getting a sinking feeling that we’ve just gone from the frying pan into the fire. Trump already talking about recending the Iran Nuclear deal. Oded Yinon plan for Greater Israel still on track.

  4. Unlike Steve Bannon, Trump struggled to convince voters he did not support the 2003 invasion of Iraq, resulting in a failed state and new spawning ground for al Qaida and then ISIS. Bannon is on board all the way with military interventionism and invasive foreign policy, the polar opposite of RP and his warnings regarding “blow back”

Comments are closed.