[nathanbedford]

I would refuse to support Ted Cruz if he were to be nominated by some kind of shenanigans at the convention. Do with that what you will.

I am powerless to do anything about it, is up to Jim Robinson.

"Shenanigans" is a word the meaning of which is in the eye of the holder or in the holder of the pen and leaves you with virtually any option you wish. But let us assume that a convention in which no rules changes are made and acting in accordance with those rules votes in Ted Cruz, would you then support the party nominee against Hillary Clinton?

[QuinqueViae2]

No.

[dragnet2]

I am powerless to do anything about it, is up to Jim Robinson.

I'm relieved nate.

And I would guess the owner of this site can exercise any discretion any way he sees fit.

[sargon]

Even though the question is essentially academic at this point (since Ted Cruz will not garner the nomination under any circumstances), for the sake of debate, I ask you to please explain to us how a mathematically eliminated Ted Cruz gets the nomination at a contested GOP convention, having arrived with less than 2/3 of the needed delegates, in such a way that doesn't hopelessly splinter the party and guarantee a Hillary voctory in November. What say you?

Have you seen Cruz's vote totals? Donald Trump has received over 2.4 million more votes than Ted Cruz, and that gap is only going to widen. What say you?

Furthermore, Ted Cruz has performed abysmally in ever single swing state. I posit that he is not a viable national candidate. What say you?

Oh, and as a final request, please try to limit your comments to the questions I posed, rather than lapsing into your typical ad hominem attacks against Donald Trump.