[teejers1]

Paulson was nice to my son at signing events, so I like the dude. I can't say I completely disagree with his anti-lockdown stance, either.  Not enough was done beyond lockdowns to help us safely re-open.

But Paulson's been pushing some pretty strong views over the last few months on Twitter. He is vehemently anti-lockdown, anti-mask, anti-Fauci, anti-Gates, anti-vax (!), anti-tracing, anti- government statistics, anti- government control, anti-"experts", and so on.  

Here are a few samples...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1304213651608473601?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1304240402153836547?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1301230703716098048?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1299728976278036480?s=20[/tweet]

It's pretty much the whole feed, so you might as well look for yourself if you're curious: https://twitter.com/paulsona17. His views are way more extreme than Kerri Walsh Jennings'.  Of course, he has 100x fewer followers than she does. 

It's hard for me to imagine that he's coming back to college football after the Pac-12 delayed the season. He seems super miffed about that, and a Winter/Spring season really isn't a good option for any draft-worthy player.

Of what you copied here (I have no interest in reading Paulson's other tweets), I will offer 2 points of semi-defense.  First, the reaction to the Kirk Cousins comments was WAY overblown - I heard the exchange which, IIRC, may be distilled to this:  "I wear masks indoors; but I don't worry about catching the virus myself; don't think it poses much of a health risk to me; and if it does, so be it."  It didn't strike me as controversial in the least (but again, there is a lot of conformity-think going around these days).  Second, if I were the Covid bean counting czar, I would try and impose some additional rigor on the death numbers.  As it is, I believe anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies, is considered a Covid death, irrespective of other, potentially overriding conditions.  There may not be a "better way," but I do think the current numbers include in the death totals some cases where reasonable people would disagree.  Undoubtedly a very small %, but still . . .

[teejers1]

Paulson was nice to my son at signing events, so I like the dude. I can't say I completely disagree with his anti-lockdown stance, either.  Not enough was done beyond lockdowns to help us safely re-open.

But Paulson's been pushing some pretty strong views over the last few months on Twitter. He is vehemently anti-lockdown, anti-mask, anti-Fauci, anti-Gates, anti-vax (!), anti-tracing, anti- government statistics, anti- government control, anti-"experts", and so on.  

Here are a few samples...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1304213651608473601?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1304240402153836547?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1301230703716098048?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PaulsonA17/status/1299728976278036480?s=20[/tweet]

It's pretty much the whole feed, so you might as well look for yourself if you're curious: https://twitter.com/paulsona17. His views are way more extreme than Kerri Walsh Jennings'.  Of course, he has 100x fewer followers than she does. 

It's hard for me to imagine that he's coming back to college football after the Pac-12 delayed the season. He seems super miffed about that, and a Winter/Spring season really isn't a good option for any draft-worthy player.

Of what you copied here (I have no interest in reading Paulson's other tweets), I will offer 2 points of semi-defense.  First, the reaction to the Kirk Cousins comments was WAY overblown - I heard the exchange which, IIRC, may be distilled to this:  "I wear masks indoors; but I don't worry about catching the virus myself; don't think it poses much of a health risk to me; and if it does, so be it."  It didn't strike me as controversial in the least (but again, there is a lot of conformity-think going around these days).  Second, if I were the Covid bean counting czar, I would try and impose some additional rigor on the death numbers.  As it is, I believe anyone who tests positive for the virus and dies, is considered a Covid death, irrespective of other, potentially overriding conditions.  There may not be a "better way," but I do think the current numbers include in the death totals some cases where reasonable people would disagree.  Undoubtedly a very small %, but still . . .