Wasn't his campaign...he gave up because of the divisiveness between "We the people" and didn't want to a part of that...I heard him discuss it on radio.

Exactly the point!...trumpet is Not someone for whom you can trust and will not uphold the constitution...plus!!!...this was a set up from the beginning.

Good analysis. I think there is a large number of people who are upset at the control the parties have over the election process in terms of limiting the candidates and the whole voting process as well as the economy in general.

Trump took advantage of this upset and basically hijacked a dead-in-the-water republican party. They hated him, but they realized no matter what they did, his hijacking was going to happen through popular support.

The Repub darling was Jeb Bush, who spent 200 million and got NOWHERE. Then they tried for Marco Rubio, who didnt get anywhere either. They hated Cruz already but I think they preferred him to Trump. But the people spoke and Trump just had too much support. The establishment tried everything to stop him, but they couldnt. I kind of loved that part.

I want the delegate system to be dumped, along with the electoral college. The establishment will fight those things tooth and nail, but it would be good I think for us the voters. More choices will be out there with a real chance to win.

I doubt you do in whole very much.
Do you use a computer from a company that pays taxes to an evil institution? Do you receive a pension from an institution supporting evil? Do you benefit from the military stability offered by an evil institution?
If one makes no exceptions, one exists almost alone, and almost no one does that. Rather, almost everyone, puts up with some compromise (evil if you like). I choose to vote and voice in a manner to convert others and try to reform the system. This process is a path from "here" to "there", and the only sterling, no-compromise step is the last. "No compromise", is not an effective strategy in winning any fight or argument, unless you hold all the cards.

I support Gary Johnson, because my vote doesn't really count. If it did, I would vote from Trump over Hillary, because that is on the path to "there". If Cruz really believed in the Constitution, he would also support Johnson and try that path, or throw in with Trump. All he did was throw a childish temper tantrum, and hand the advantage to Hillary.

1) My point is that, based on what I brought up in my previous post, Cruz is not the man of character that many here are claiming him to be.
2) My point had nothing to do with Trump. I was totally on topic as defined by the title of this thread, “Ted Cruz does not endorse Trump Based on Principles | RNC Convention”.
3) Cruz is not a defender of the Constitution in my book. His support of his “Christian faith” is manifested in such activities as defending Texas' "10 Commandments" monument on public property, and his support of County Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on religious grounds. If Cruz thinks that the First Amendment entitles politicians to display the Ten Commandments on public property and deny marriage licenses to couples not approved of by the “Christian Right,” I don’t think much of his ability or willingness to separate his religious beliefs from his alleged Constitutionalism.
4) I’m supporting Gary Johnson for President, as I’ve made clear in other posts. I do, however, consider Trump to be much preferable to Hillary.
5) Finally, to mirror your last paragraph, I notice that you chose to ignore my points about Cruz not being a man of his word. That tells me you aren't nearly as interested in Cruz’s character as merely denigrating Trump. That's all I need to know, really.

Thanks, I'll check out that link...

What's most important? Being a Republican or Democrat or, being an American first?

Both parties have become total tools of the elites. That is the sad fact for those who care to face the Truth! The powers that be keep feeding us this fluff as if there is any real difference between these two major (orchestrated) parties when in reality they are still two sides of the same coin marching to their puppet masters orders!

In Russia, the Communist party gave you one candidate and mandated that everyone "exercise" their duty to vote! In this country, they put lipstick on the pig giving us supposedly two different parties however, the power elite still orchestrate who we will get to vote for, one way or the other. Either candidate will fall in line and being that Congress and the Judiciary are already "co-opted" it becomes a fait' accompli' and we are told "move along citizen, nothing to see here!".

For what its worth!

Yeah, now that's jogging my memory. Fine, I'm not afraid to admit when I' wrong, especially due to a rusty memory. +1 for you.
But now I'm taking a new tack. It is that unaffiliated PAC who started the spouse attack mess, perhaps managing to manipulate the fiery Trump into reacting as he did so he'd still be taking shots about it as he is up until today.

At least now I have an idea who else take my points. Shame of it is there is nothing in what I said that isn't true, and I think you know it.

At least now I have an idea who else take my points. Shame of it is there is nothing in what I said that isn't true, and I think you know it.

Trump's own anti-intellectual Pragmatist mentality seems to have made his actions and these responses to them inevitable, without him ever anticipating them or understanding. What a choice against the Clinton mafia.

All of that is true however let's parse those events:
1) Yes, Lincoln was an R however his real mark on the country besides the slavery issue was killing Federalism, trumping (pardon the pun) states rights.

2) Yes, the KKK was populated by Democrats

3) Yes, Ike was an R however he was also a mediocre soldier and no fireball of a president. He was handpicked for no apparent reason to become General and Supreme Allied Commander...the rest is history.

4) Yes, Byrd was a Democrat and Grand Dragon of the KKK.

5) Yes, LBJ got support from the R's for his Great Society scam (guns and butter to get the hawks onboard - shame on them too).

6) Yes, Nixon did sign the Affirmative Action law (and a host of other "Progressive" bills as well. He was a conservative up to his loss to JFK and after a stint at George Schultz' law firm he comes back, well financed and a total Progressive/Liberal - go figure!!!!

7) And yes, the Democrats did pass law(s) restricting free speech and a host of other Constitutional rights - and they continue their assault (with quiet support from the R's) on the rest of our Bill of Rights (1st 10 amendments).

So! There you have it......The ugly Truth!

Man oh man...I gota learn to leave the can opener in the draw when faced with a can of worms...

Holly crap, we here are just as divided as the nation is.
I thought we were better than that.

Where the "F" did That come from? I've read Lincoln's letters, notes and correspondence...that's not the man I know. See: wallbuilders.com

OK.
I was hoping for Cruz to get a second bite of the apple, in 4 or 8 years. He is a good candidate and a basically good man. I was hoping he would stay away and then he'd have until November to comment or if Trump wins and I think he will, he could be a balancing force in the senate. As it stands, he may just become disregarded.

I did listen to Cruz's speech on TV, and I formed my opinion as stated before there was any negative reaction to him. I just thought it was in poor taste.

I wasnt anti-cruz really. He is a real conservative and constitutionalist, which I actually like. I do think that his manner alienates people somewhat., and apparently makes him sort of hated within the government.

When he started in and concentrated on the never Trump campaign, that DID turn me off. If he wanted to do a "never campaign", I would have thought a "never Hillary" campaign would have been better.

I knew then that he would never get enough support to win the republican nomination or the election himself. He didnt give up though, which is admirable.

I would like to see a more open election where non traditional party candidates actually had some chance of succeeding. That would require primary selection based on actual votes with no "delegates" or "super delegates", and national election selection also based on actual votes instead of the electoral college At that point, perhaps Cruz or Johnson would actually have a chance and it would make more sense to vote for them.

Right now, its either Trump or Hillary. I just cant believe Hillary is the better choice that we will have to live with for at least 4 years. Look what Obama has done in 8 years. We cant have more of THAT.

Trumpet backed out first...there was no longer a pledge as of March 29th this year...

Not even close to Objectivity...I'd refuse to honor anyone that dishonored me, my family, my friends or my country...guess I'm just another slavish slob.

Cruz is hoping that there are still enough people left in this nation who revere the Constitution AND that Donald Trump will be the Donald Trump we have come to see: a narcissistic power-monger and bully. If Hillary wins (which I can't discount despite how truly beyond deplorable she is as not only a person but as a candidate), Cruz gets to stand up and tell the people - including the RNC - "I represent an alternative". If Donald wins, either he carries out the duties of the President as a Constitutionalist would (in which case his "vote for a Constitutionalist works") or he gets to point again to his own stalwart defense of the Constitution and tell the RNC once again - you guys really don't get it, do you.

If that's a gamble, I'm taking those odds.

Very nice