I also would like to see some sourcing on your claims that "He believes in using the power of the government to force those views on others."
"

Cruz, as are all of them with the possible exception of Gary Johnson, is a puppet of Israel. IMO any person, politician or not, who pledges their support and/or allegiance to Israel is not to be trusted.

http://tinyurl.com/zfjjol9

thx

Polling, however, (if you believe it) has Cruz beating either Sanders or Hillary in a popular election. While Trump still defeats Bernie, he loses badly to Hillary. I don't place a lot of stock in the polls, but I do view them as a better indicator of performance than personal opinion in general.

In either case, until the Primary nominee is selected, the General election is a moot point. I will wait until then to worry about it.

Or you could vote for Gary Johnson, who will actually be on the ballot. He is going to receive a lot of votes this year from disaffected D&R's, and the higher his vote totals, the more the media and the public at large are likely to take notice.

How does the 10th Amendment supercede the 14th? States' rights do not override individual rights. Cruz appears to be selective regarding which portions of the Constitution he defends.

I'd strongly suggest you review several of his filibuster efforts. He was joined only by Mike Lee and Rand Paul in condemning both Republicans and Democrats alike on both the budgets and TPA/TPP. Yes, Cruz is a Senator and therefore by definition a politician. But I think his support (or pointed lack thereof) in the Washington, D.C. balloting for President is a particular indicator of how he fits as an "establishment" candidate. In point of fact, he doesn't fit in with the Republican Party elites - they haven't back his Presidential campaign, preferring instead Jeb Bush and then Marco Rubio. Even now, the only reason Kasich remains in and he has even admitted it is in hopes of a brokered convention. Both Trump and Cruz (remarkable for the candidate in second place) have decried the brokered convention.

If they use that to deny Obama's two terms worth of actions, I'd accept the ineligibility of Ted Cruz as collateral damage!

I agree that Cruz is the "least worst" of the mainstream candidates, but I still plan to be one of the 11% (hopefully more) voting for Gary Johnson. I think the continued growth and public acceptance of the Libertarian Party is more important than the outcome of a single election.

Prior to the Arizona decision, Trump had need of only about 55% of the remaining votes while Cruz needed like 80%. Cruz has won several contests since then so although Trump's need is still only about 50%, Cruz' has dropped as a percentage. The current trend is that Cruz is closing the gap with each successive race. Current odds: http://www.2016election.com/2016-repu...

It is going to be much closer than anyone thought after the first month or so, but Cruz' organization is adept at marketing and he hasn't made key missteps like Trump has. The other thing "The Donald" has to face is that unlike Cruz, he already has 100% name recognition and people have already pretty much formed their opinions of him - either positive or negative. That's not necessarily a good thing, however, as Trump has a decidedly negative overall rating which is close to Hillary's overall negative rating. If it comes down to those Hillary v Trump in the Generals, you are going to have a lot of people who just don't vote at all - in general a boon to the Democrat.

what makes you think that he will NOT attempt to do things like 0 has and be successful?
he will or would be a mistake.

That would be interesting. I'm still mulling over the logistics and effects, length of term, etc. of such a proposal. As it seems you have already put substantial effort into such, if you feel inclined to share your ideas I'm sure we would both profit.

My apologies if I was mistaken. The way it was presented to me implied that Trump himself was so inclined.

Please let me know if you find out more about the suit, as it likely has implications into the current President...

I think the issue that everyone is missing, including the professional pundits, and why I am in such a muddle over who to vote for in the primary is that we live in a Kardashian-esque Twitterverse. It is why Trump's campaign has been so successful so far, because he's been running his campaign to cater to the micro-attention spans people have. And why I fear that any D candidate will likely beat Cruz in a general -- because he is SO DIS-LIKEABLE ! Regardless that I'm in agreement with most of his positions, I can't even stand the guy ! So if I, as a political ally feel this way, how on earth will political opponents feel about voting for him ?! I'm very torn about voting for who I think will be most likely to win a general election or most likely to be a good, lawful president. And unfortunately I don't think they are one in the same.

Is it possible that Cruz could even get 1257 votes at this point?

It is my impression, but I am not following closely is that all Cruz can do is keep Trump from getting 1257

It is interesting that while the media hammers Trump for stating he would bomb the s__t out of ISIS, they let Cruz "carpet bomb" statements pass. When Trump wouldn't respond to a leading question about whether he would use nuclear weapons in the Middle East, the interviewers said "See, he's going to use nukes!" Yet Cruz can talk about "making the sand glow," which is an obvious inference about using nukes, and again gets a pass.

Once a candidate starts getting positive media strokes, even when they make outrageous statements, I get suspicious. It appears that the GOP establishment is holding its gorge, reluctantly, holding out the hope Cruz can stop Trump.

The issue of "natural born" is not a dead issue regarding Cruz, and you can bet the DNC is going to leap on it like a demon if he's the GOP candidate. His wife's connection to Goldman Sachs is a rich target for Bernie Sanders, if he's the Democrat candidate, and even if Hillary is the one, super-Pacs will unload on that subject.

Ted Cruz has a delivery style of an evangelical Baptist minister delivering a hellfire and brimstone sermon. Maybe my disgust with pious hypocrites and my rejection of the Baptist church as a young teen clouds my judgement, but I think he would make many less conservative voters uncomfortable.

Cruz may look better than the Trump circus, or the "undead" Kasich campaign, but it's hard for me to picture him as the only viable candidate.

No. Actually Trump said someone will file a lawsuit to challenge Cruz's legality of becoming president. He didnt say that he, Trump, would do so. And in fact, someone HAS filed such a suit already, I believe in TX, by a Democrat. I have not heard where the case currently stands.

As a public servant, Cruz received government sponsored health insurance coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. But for Cruz, that privilege only highlighted the inequality of America’s health care system. If he is OK with this I am not OK with him.

Yes, I am debating that. I would like to see Presidential Electors run for the office under their own names, and to have the voters judge them by the content of their own character, not their pledge, nor even their inclination, to prefer one candidate for the office of President over another.

I am personally acquainted with an activist who sought exactly that--a total Mulligan on every EO, every legislative act, and every appointment by this President. The twists and turns in the judicial system, whereby they systematically denied him standing, would amaze even Judge Narragansett of AS.

So here's the way I look at the matter: If Cruz isn't eligible, neither is Obama. And that is the reason I don't see too many Court cases getting accepted on the matter: can you imagine what chaos would ensue if President Obama's two terms in office were declared null and void as a result of him being ineligible retroactively?

You probably would be denied standing if you filed suit in a court other than that of your home state in which you were a registered voter. As to whether or not a Court allows standing, generally, the complaint must be filed with the Secretary of State or other elected official who is charged with certifying the eligibility of the candidates.

Electors are bound by the rules of their respective States. Some States still allow Electors to vote however they choose, but most don't. A few require that their Electors vote in proportion to the popular vote obtained in those states, but most require the Electors to vote entirely for the candidate who wins the popular vote. Whether or not this is Constitutional is perhaps a subject for another post. Remember, originally, the President was supposed to be elected by the States and the Electors were agents of the State. The Twelfth Amendment is responsible for making the President a popular vote decision, so you would be debating it as well.

Glad you brought this up. I wasn't aware and looked it up. This one item clearly indicates that Johnson has not clue about libertarian philosophy or the concept of free market and personal property. I suppose that just like the Republicans who have their RINO's, Libertarians have their LINO's.

No the "good ole boys" don't like him cause he threatens their status and he stands up for the rule of law as defined in the constitution.
We got into this mess cause we allowed government to break those laws.

Correct.