Ron Paul is only an opponent of war in a campaign. That is not to say that he is insincere in that conviction of that his words would change if elected. His "constitutionalism" though prevents the presidency from ANY effective role, good or bad. Specifically, he regards the role of the president as to execute the legislation passed by Congress, and very very little else. (only powers defined within the US Constitution literally). That combined with his similarly ideologically motivated stand that money in politics for elections and for lobbying is constitutionally protected free speech, means that he would not oppose the worst recommendations from whatever lobby that trickles through Congress and enacts law that the president must execute. That applies to war resolutions, sanctions resolutions, etc. Another institutional impact of his presidency is that he's brought the nutcases, the racists, the conspiracy thinkers/and doers, into the mainstream of discourse. His candidacy is NOT a repudiation of the Tea Party in any respect. It is the tea party raised to another power. Thankfully, he will not get elected. I agree with him in one respect, that is to make the choice to go to war a much much more deliberative process, requiring clear consent. He doesn't talk about his conditions for funding wars, which is the key question. "Do you think this war is important enough to fund by some sacrifice on your part?" He hasn't acknowledged the conditions by which war would have to be funded, by debt or taxation.
German authorities accused of playing down refugee shelter sex crime reports (Reuters)
from the article: Thank God for Ron Paul