But he did instantly condemn and disavow David Duke.
No, he didn't For all my searching, I can not find a single sound byte of him disavowing Duke. Even when he did -eventually- stand up in front of cameras and disavow, he did so with extreme disdain and sarcasm, as if he shouldn't even have to say it. I don't think most would have to say it, but with Trump, and his excessive, divisive words, he needed too. When first presented with the information he said he had a bad ear piece. Then he said he didn't know much about Duke. Then he said he'd need to look into organizations. The sad point is, the only organization named was the KKK, the question was a simple hypothetical, asking if he would refuse the support of organizations based on white supremacy. There is nothing to research there, it's a very simple question, and one that should be met with an immediate YES! He did condemn Duke long ago, but that before this political season, and before he was relying on tons of closeted racists to fuel his political fires. The simple fact that so many white power groups are supporting him should speak volumes on his policies towards minorities. If you've got a link to him instantly disavowing Duke, please do provide it.
Unless you're suggesting that his argument is that the rapists are good people, he's clearly drawing a distinction between those who come over using illegal means but are otherwise "good people" and those who come over using illegal means and are rapists, drug runners and criminals... which it's not particularly hard to find examples of.
He did say "Some, I assume, are good people". Some. Some.. after listing off three other groups and heavily implying that those are the majority. If he believed that most of the people being "sent"(as if it's something the Mexican government is doing) over were good people, he would have lead with that, and then mentioned that SOME of the immigrants were bad people. He did not, he did quite the opposite. It's as if the possibility of some of them actually being half decent human beings was nothing more than an after thought too him.
1) That's not the context that Sanders used the quote in, or clarified it to after the event.
2) That doesn't touch, and arguably doubles down, on the criticism that certain black people made of his comments, criticizing them for presenting all black people as living in poverty and in the ghetto and seemingly saying that they couldn't understand racism unless they did. The exact same logic used to present Trump as supposedly saying that all illegal immigrants are criminals and rapists would hold Sanders as saying that all black people are poor and live in the ghetto when applied to Sanders words.
3) You're doing exactly what I criticized the media for; quite happy to remove all context from Trump's words for the worst possible implication but also happy to add context to a candidate you do like's words to make them more palatable and not a big deal. It's a trend you see fairly often within the Sanders supporting camp in that they'll rage about how the media reports on Sanders and twists things (the whole "Bernie-bros" for example) but then take what they say as gospel when it comes to other candidates.
1) I didn't say it was the context that Sander's used, though at the time I did believe it was what he meant to say. He has since clarified the context in his own words.
2) You lost me on this one. I'm talking statistics, so it's hard not to lump, say, "all dogs" into one group, when your statistic is talking about all the dogs. You do realize you're doing some world class word manipulation here, right? I'd applaud you if what you were suggesting wasn't so damaging. The Black Experience in the United States is something that does indeed apply to all black people, no matter their income level. There are people who hate them all, regardless of any factor, so long as their skin color is dark. It is in no way a stretch to lump together entire races, when the issue at hand... is entire races. You sort HAVE to lump them together, just to talk about that particular topic. Sanders could have handled it better, but what he said was in no way comparable to Trumps slandering of Mexican immigrants. These two topics are in no way related. One was the answer to a question "Where are your racial blind spots", a question that asks where you might not understand the feelings, thoughts, and life experiences of an entire group of people. The other wasn't even an answer to a question. It was trump sensationalizing immigration as a topic, and villainizing an entire population for the sake of polarization and popularity.
To give a better example here, these comments would be a lot more similar if when asked his question, Sanders started off his response with "Well, you know, Black people are doing drugs, and they're stealing, and they're rapists, but I assume some of them are good people". He didn't even come CLOSE to saying that. Your comparison is flawed.
3) Explain what context I removed.