Here's why Donald Trump keeps talking about suing Ted Cruz

Christian Science Monitor ^ | FEBRUARY 16, 2016 | Peter Grier

[GodGunsGuts]

...

"He sues, most of all, to make headlines and to reinforce the notion that he is powerful," wrote Daily Beast reporter Olivia Nuzzi in an overview of his lawsuits last July.

...

His goal in this may not be paving the way for an actual bolt from the party so much as establishing a narrative about why he lost - if he loses, which is far from a sure thing. That’s what some right-leaning pundits suspect, in any case.

"Trump's image depends on him being seen as the consummate winner; if he loses to Cruz, he'll need to explain how that possibly could have happened. The only tolerable excuse is that he was cheated," writes Allahpundit...

[Axeslinger]

{Do you hate America so much you would allow an enemy to lead us?}

Thank you! Youve nicely and perfectly summed up why I will never vote for Trump...because I love this country too much to ever vote for an enemy of the ideals upon which she was founded. Same reason I won’t ever vote for any other liberal statist.

[Axeslinger]

I don’t think they’re bright enough to get paid to spout their drivel. I think they are just true believers. If you ever wanted to know how Goebbels was so successful, just view any trump thread...it’s an excellent case study. You can’t fix stupid.

[X-spurt]

How much does trump pay you to say that?

[X-spurt]

The DONEald may go 3rd party, but not in 2016.

Why you so blindly ask? Because he signed a contract that he would not run as a 3rd party candidate. Now regardless of his “reasons”, he will be tied up in Federal Court at least through all of 2016 and 2017.

Being treated “fair” by RNC is a very subjective and difficult to prove cause through which to break a contract, which will be most difficult to prove in a court of law. Trump or at least his lawyers know that.

In the far fetched scenario that Trump won the suit, he would have missed being on any ballot in any state in 2016.

DONEald would be very welcome to run as 3rd party Presidential candidate in 2018........ and he, very fittingly, would have the campaign all to his kiddy self.

[X-spurt]

The truth just set you free.

[X-spurt]

No dull and annoyed, anchor babies should not be considered citizens. For the most part they were delivered within the USA in false pretense simply to gain access to USA benefits and of course to enable dragging every cousin they can remember up here to be with them.

Any dual citizenship automatically given by Canada has no effect toward USA law. It does not nullify the right of a USA mother to convey NBC onto her child regardless of where the birth occurred. Had Ted Cruz, himself, applied for Canadian citizenship, then he would have become ineligible. He did not and thus us not ineligible.

Only a simpleton would keep thinking NBC is any issue.

[X-spurt]

That does appear to precisely the demographic Trump is playing to.

Never doubt that Trump would not pay operatives to try to undermine conservative thinking through asinine disruption.

[Smokin' Joe]

We’ve even elected a man who only knows how to win against his own side rather than our enemies.

When you figure out Donald Trump IS his own side, you will be closer to the mark.

[null and void]

I take it you have absolutely no idea why the White House is white?

[trebb]

Right, the lefties should decide who is president.

???? Really? That's what you got from my post?

Better bone up on reading comprehension.....

[X-spurt]

Proof positive! Dull and annoyed is a Poster Boy for trumpbot lemmings that is nearing the cliff edge.

Its time for a good FR wash and rinse cycle.

[null and void]

So I was right? You really don't know why the White House is white?

BTW, from what you said you think Irainan born Valerie Jarrett would be fully Constitutionally qualified to be president, right?

Hint:

This law...

...was repealed in 1795.

It's perhaps the only place Natural Born Citizen was legally defined by Congress.

Repealed.

Until the Supremes clarify exactly what the founding fathers intended, neither you nor I can know the true legal definition.

I believe they fully intended that the president must have no hint, no scintilla of foreign allegiance.

Imagine a world where John McCain was elected.

Suppose Columbia decided the wanted Panama back (you DO know Panama was taken from Columbia by force of US arms, right?)

Would the democrats excoriate Panamanian born John McCain for any action he took, or failed to take regarding the Colombian power grab based on his personal Panamanian connection?

Would this internal strife impair the president's ability to defend the US? Would the grandstanding and wailing and moaning during congressional deliberations to recognize the threat and fund the efforts to restore the Canal to free flow of commerce interfere with the presidents ability to act?

Only a total idiot would imaging a world where the democrats didn't politicize and degrade a republican president's ability to defend US interests, and and open Panama canal is unquestionably in the best interests of the USofA.

The president must be free of any hint of foreign entanglement. Period.

[X-spurt]

Ku-KU Ku-KU Ku-KU....... we have a winner!

[null and void]

Yup, you are a winner, alright.

[RedWhiteBlue]

That’s what I suspect as well.

[X-spurt]

NOW we know why Humpty Trumpty has been so pouty mouth these last few days.

NBCWSJ NATIONAL: CRUZ 28% TRUMP 26% RUBIO 17%...

The thrill is gone...... DONEald.