Banning visas originating in a particular country as part of sanctions v. banning travel/immigration based on someone's religion? Because they're complete separate things. To the point where even implying they're comparable would make me think you're a troll if it weren't such a widespread thing to say.
For for starters, I don't think he actually said "ban all Muslims." He was talking about temporarily halting anyone from the Middle East until better screening could be put in place.
At any rate, it was pretty clear to me that the actual implementation would be people from north Africa, the Middle East, Iran, ect. When Sanders says that he wants to "make college more affordable," I doubt that the actual bill he would present to Congress would be one sheet of paper saying "make college more affordable."
Finally, if you are incapable of having a discussion without attacking people, find another forum. I hear Twitter is good for vitriolic people.
Firstly, he certainly did say 'all Muslims' - it's easy to check since it was surely reported and repeated in his campaign television Ad. It doesn't look good for you when you try to distort this.
Secondly - there is no such clarity around this being a ban on people from specific countries. If he wanted to clarify this, he could have done, but he has not.
He has specifically mentioned the UK as place where there are radical Muslim terrorists (which is true). Would they be freely allowed into the US?
How about non-Muslim people from North Africa and the Middle East?
It may be temporarily reasonable to put a list of countries on a 'no visa' list, but that is not what he said at all.
Given that people across the world have not understood this as what he meant, he could easily have clarified himself but he has chosen not to.
Since he knows how he was understood, either he did mean what he said, or he is intentionally inflaming the situation.
Either way this is disqualifying behavior for a presidential candidate.
You're editing it into a more reasonable-sounding version. Whereas there are plenty of people who think he means it literally and might vote for that.
Plenty of us would say that Trump's "ban all Muslims" is itself attacking people! So we're kind of in the land of ad hominem to start off with. We could discuss Trump's attack ads, and measure them for vitriol?
I think the idea of banning a religion is idiotic (obviously?), but comparing banning Muslims entering the country to Carter banning Iranian visas is on the same level as saying "Well it snowed today, so much for global warming hue hue"
