NYT roasted for absurd take after SCOTUS rules Virginia can purge noncitizens from voting rolls: 'Very rare'
The New York Times on Wednesday issued a rather jaw-dropping X post after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Virginia can purge noncitizens from its voter rolls.The Times' post noted that the high court was "siding with Republicans who said it was to prevent noncitizens from voting."'NYT simps for "only a little bit of illegal voting."'Then came the post's last sentence: "Studies show that noncitizens voting is very rare."It would appear those final eight words raised the ire — and eyebrows — of more than a few observers.You know, on the level of that infamous video of a burning building amid a nighttime riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin, during the summer of 2020 as CNN's video caption read, "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting." Or when ABC News anchor Martha Raddatz earlier this month downplayed the crisis of Venezuelan gangs in Colorado by insisting to Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance that gang takeovers in Aurora have been "limited to a handful of apartment complexes ... a handful of problems."So according to the Times, is it OK to keep noncitizens on voting rolls ... because they rarely vote anyway?How are commenters reacting?As you might expect, many commenters took exception to the "paper of record." Here are a few examples:"Rare doesn't make it legal," one commenter stated."'Studies show.' Glad you can at least acknowledge that the number is not zero," another user noted. "Just an FYI, these people in this case self-identified as non-citizens. They cannot legally vote anyway. So removing them shouldn't be an issue.""It doesn’t matter what your studies show," another commenter wrote. "There is no reason for non-citizens to be on any voting roll.""How about just remove any chance of it at all?" another user asked. "NYT simps for 'only a little bit of illegal voting.'""Rare? Since when is rare acceptable? Have you not noticed what's going on at the Washington Post?" another commenter inquired. "Your 15 minutes of bubble liberal politics have come to an end.""This is why you are trash," another user declared."Studies show that a particular crime is rare. Accordingly, laws against it should not be enacted nor enforced," another commenter wondered incredulously. "Is that how this works now?"Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The New York Times on Wednesday issued a rather jaw-dropping X post after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Virginia can purge noncitizens from its voter rolls.
The Times' post noted that the high court was "siding with Republicans who said it was to prevent noncitizens from voting."
'NYT simps for "only a little bit of illegal voting."'
Then came the post's last sentence: "Studies show that noncitizens voting is very rare."
It would appear those final eight words raised the ire — and eyebrows — of more than a few observers.
You know, on the level of that infamous video of a burning building amid a nighttime riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin, during the summer of 2020 as CNN's video caption read, "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting."
Or when ABC News anchor Martha Raddatz earlier this month downplayed the crisis of Venezuelan gangs in Colorado by insisting to Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance that gang takeovers in Aurora have been "limited to a handful of apartment complexes ... a handful of problems."
So according to the Times, is it OK to keep noncitizens on voting rolls ... because they rarely vote anyway?
How are commenters reacting?
As you might expect, many commenters took exception to the "paper of record." Here are a few examples:
- "Rare doesn't make it legal," one commenter stated.
- "'Studies show.' Glad you can at least acknowledge that the number is not zero," another user noted. "Just an FYI, these people in this case self-identified as non-citizens. They cannot legally vote anyway. So removing them shouldn't be an issue."
- "It doesn’t matter what your studies show," another commenter wrote. "There is no reason for non-citizens to be on any voting roll."
- "How about just remove any chance of it at all?" another user asked. "NYT simps for 'only a little bit of illegal voting.'"
- "Rare? Since when is rare acceptable? Have you not noticed what's going on at the Washington Post?" another commenter inquired. "Your 15 minutes of bubble liberal politics have come to an end."
- "This is why you are trash," another user declared.
- "Studies show that a particular crime is rare. Accordingly, laws against it should not be enacted nor enforced," another commenter wondered incredulously. "Is that how this works now?"
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Originally Published at Daily Wire, World Net Daily, or The Blaze
What's Your Reaction?
