Which nobody has ever proposed. This is not a binary decision of “ban Muslims” or “issue engraved invitations to terrorists to come in by the millions.”
For all the hair-splitting of whether “ban” is or is not a synonym for embargo, halt, moratorium, freeze, or suspension, one would think that you could appreciate the nuance of immigration law not being an all-or-nothing proposition.
Interesting thesis proposal: look at archived footage from network and cable news shows for, say, the ten days following the rollout of the Travel Ban. Count the number of Trump-defenders who fail to say or at least imply that this IS a binary decision: either Trump’s Travel Ban, or mass entry of TERRORISTS!
My prediction, based on having watched a lot of that footage already: zero Trump defenders who fail to invoke the ‘either let the Ban stand or ANNIHILATION!’ “defense.”
A victory? Hardly. More like a step towards better communications. Asking for clarification is not immoral, illegal, or fattening. However, I’m beginning to suspect that the LSM (lame stream media) is allergic to clarification and clarity.
*clarify
verb /ˈklær·əˌfɑɪ/
to make something clearer or easier to understand:
-I hope this analysis will clarify the debate.
-Talking it through with you has helped me to clarify my own thinking about the problem.
clarification
noun /ˌklær·ə·fɪˈkeɪ·ʃən/
-Two of your points deserve further clarification*.
Oh bullshit. You’re just trying to distract, much like the Trump administration, from what a horrid group is now in charge of our government. Try arguing the topic instead of quibbling over spelling.
Former Bush officials and Wall St. will drink to that.
Hahahaha. The “topic” is listed in the title of this thread - 49% vs. 41% in favour of Muslim ban
You chose to go all looney tunes with your Bowling Green Massacree. I saw no difference between your statement and Conway’s statement. As it turned out, Conway’s statement was a mistake, and yours was deliberate. Good communication is a wonderful thing, ain’t it. 
The LSM chose to make the issue of Conway’s misstatement a high priority. I wonder what was happening elsewhere in the country while the LSM was repeatedly feeding you the Conway misstatement?
“A video inspired the attacks” was a mistake that your side called a lie, and spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars investigating.
The “video inspired the attacks” claim may originally have been a mistake but JugearS Obama/Hillary team bitterly clung to that mistake/propaganda/lie. A simple mistake is easy to correct. A dedicated effort to defend that mistake indicates that it wasn’t a mistake but a calculated effort to promote fake news.
Obama said it was an act of terror like what, the day after? What, did he wait too long?
Besides, you’re talking about statements that came out in the hours and days immediately after a chaotic event. KAC’s statement was FIVE FRIGGIN’ YEARS later, for which the “confusion” can only be deliberate.
Or if such a senior policymaker is so easily confused by facts, like whether or not there was a massacre, maybe she shouldn’t have a job where her confusion can cause so many problems? After all, you don’t put your senile uncle (or whomever) in charge of important things, like paying the bills or feeding the dog, right?
Mistake? Misstatement? I know that’s what she claimed.
But in fact the February 3 interview with Chris Matthews is not the only time she’s tried to sell the “Bowling Green Massacre” idea. During a January 29 interview with Cosmopolitan, she attempted the same gambit:
Kellyanne Conway Claims 'Bowling Green Massacre' More Than Once | Fortune
Her claim about Obama instituting a formal ban is false, too (no one will be surprised to hear).
As for her claimed defense of a “mistake”–it doesn’t wash. Look at what she said (in the Matthews interview) :
Bogus 'Bowling Green Massacre' Claim Snarls Trump Adviser Conway : The Two-Way : NPR
What actually happened was that the two men she references were charged with supporting a terrorist group at their 2011 arrest.
No massacre–not even any violent crime. They were caught trying to send money and weapons to al-Qaida in Iraq.
So how does that make sense in light of what she said? ----‘two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalized – and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green attempt to send money and weapons to Iraq’…her story is that she intended to say “attempt to send money and weapons to Iraq” and it just happened to come out “massacre”…?
It was no slip of the tongue. It was no mistake. It was a deliberate and planned attempt to create fear and hatred of Muslim refugees.
Kellyanne Conway: lying hatemongering FUD spreader.
Across the pond, the majority of all people in 10 countries do not want Muslim immigration into their countries, according to a new reputable poll conducted in 10 European countries.
Only a very low 1 out of 5 was in favor of it and this is why the EU will soon be nothing more than a failed governmental system that will end up in the scrap piles of history, because the people are rising up and revolting.
*A survey of more than 10,000 people from 10 different European countries has revealed high public opposition to Muslim immigration.
The Chatham House Royal Institute of International Affairs carried out the survey, asking online respondents their views on the statement that “all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped”.*
How were respondents selected? All the article says is that it was an online poll.
The Chatham House Europe Programme, with Kantar Public, surveyed nationally representative samples of the population aged 18 or over in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain and the UK. Fieldwork was carried out online using quota sampling (age, gender and region) between 12 December 2016 and 11 January 2017. The total number of respondents was 10,195 (c. 1,000 per country). - See more at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/What-do-europeans-think-about-muslim-immigration#sthash.vGoRNtPC.dpuf
Honestly, it doesn’t matter how many people in the country are in favor of a ban. What matters is the rule of law. In the US, Trump and his crew are discovering that’s an actual fact of government today. Part of a representative, constitutional democracy is the concept of “protection from the tyranny of the majority”. What these polls do show, though, is the percentage of the population that let prejudices govern their thinking.
What the polls show is that quite a few govts and the elite are on a collision course with the majority of their citizens, and they will soon find their power to have been evaporated.
Well, no. “Do you favour ban on Muslim immigration” is not the same question as “do you favour overthrowing the rule of law in order to secure a ban on Muslim immigration”. You don’t know that a majority would answer “yes” to the second question.
They are already being elected out, totally legal, and more countries are going to be having their elections soon, like the Netherlands and France.
You can elect them out all you like, but until you get European countries to remove their constitutional prohibitions on religious discrimination, and until you get the same removed from the European Convention on Human Rights, you’ll have trouble implementing a ban on Muslim immigration without overthrowing the rule of law.