This is your argument from yesterday. Motives don't mean a thing when the end result is the same. Thats 100% ends justifying the means.
Yes, motives are relevant.
Man shoots man, DRT.
Police investigate.
Shooter was showing acquaintance his new pistol, had a negligent discharge with fatal result: Accident (stupidity)
Shooter did not know dead man who attacked him with a knife: self defense
Shooter knew man who came demanding money the shooter owed him: ? self defense or not?
Shooter caught the man who had been having an affair with the shooter's wife: manslaughter or more.
Shooter stalked that SOB and gunned him down for taking his girl back in High School. Murder 1
Uh huh, motive counts.
I am disappointed Cruz gave a grudging and belated "endorsement", as the fulfillment of an obligation and without apparent enthusiasm. It seemed apparent from his remarks that he was fulfilling a promise he wished he had not made. To me that is far separated from the enthusiastic and early drum-beating endorsements of Christie and Carson, just to name a couple.
So, if you look at a chart somewhere, in the first example, one shot and dead. As statistics go, checkmark in the box, that is that.
Cruz endorsed Trump, checkmark in the box. But as far as his reputation goes, Self defense or Murder 1?
I won't hold it against Cruz so much because it was the fulfillment of a promise made, and frankly, under pretty serious duress. By not fulfilling that promise, Trump could actually portray Cruz as the liar that Trump had said Cruz was throughout the primary campaign. Cruz stripped Trump of that.