The New York Times cant make a case for Harris so heres why Im voting for Trump

In endorsing Kamala Harris, The New York Times said many strange things, starting with the headline.It called Harris “The only patriotic choice for president.”Color me curious because the Times frowns on anyone who identifies as an American patriot.

The Gray Lady’s knees jerk at a word it associates with being a white racist who has a blue collar job and lives in a fly-over state.For the snooty jet set, patriotism is for suckers and Donald Trump supporters.Yet here is the Times draping Harris in red, white and blue.It’s as phony as her claim that she’s “fighting” for the middle class.The weird vibe grew weirder because the first three paragraphs of the endorsement were all about how rotten, terrible, awful Trump is.Not until the fourth paragraph did the paper mention Harris, and it came with a backhanded compliment.

After saying, “regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her,” the editorial repeated the claim that she is “the only patriotic choice.”It’s like saying we know you don’t like her or her policies, but the other guy is worse.Trust us.Hell no!There was zero doubt Harris would get the endorsement because the Times hasn’t backed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956.

But what is striking is the extremely weak case the editors present.Unable to find a solid thing to say, the paper claimed she “has offered a shared future for all citizens, beyond hate and division,” as if every candidate doesn’t promise that.It also lowered the bar to say “She has begun to describe a set of thoughtful plans to help American families.”“Begun?” She’s been vice president for nearly four years, the nominee for months — and is just starting “to describe” her policies?Fortunately, making the case for Trump is much easier.

Here are the three main reasons why I am voting for him.First, he’s been right on the domestic issues that are most important — the economy and the border.A Wall ...