Perhaps it's best to withhold outrage until you do.
> I find it pretty irritating that whenever people want to discuss a potential direct consequence of something a politician did, people immediately act like it's unfair to start talking about things until we have "all the facts".
I find it irritating when someone takes a one-sided account of a developing situation and reflexively uses it to attack their villain du-jour.
> does that mean we shouldn't be discussing potential negative consequences of bad legislation?
You weren't discussing bad legislation, just calling the sitting President a racist for the deportation, for which we don't have full details, which has also been a common feature of a number of prior administrations.
You're not discussing anything, you're ranting and attacking.
I don't know this kid's particular case, but the travel ban has been directly mapped to stuff like this. It's ridiculous.
> so how about we pause for a minute before we jump on the outrage train?
Why, exactly? Can you give me an exact amount of time I should wait before reacting?
I find it pretty irritating that whenever people want to discuss a potential direct consequence of something a politician did, people immediately act like it's unfair to start talking about things until we have "all the facts". Even if this particular case is an outlier, and that the kid is secretly the next Ted Bundy, does that mean we shouldn't be discussing potential negative consequences of bad legislation?