game changer <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>As A Democrat, I'll say it now, I endorse Mitt Romney For President Of The United States <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23MyVoteIsMade">#MyVoteIsMade</a></p>— Jake Gyllenhaal (@Jake_Gyllenhaal) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jake_Gyllenhaal/status/257932532828471296" data-datetime="2012-10-15T19:54:42+00:00">October 15, 2012</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Your opinion might have merit if you don't drag the whole world in your STUPID WAR. So yes, the choice you will make have people on the other side of the coconut guessing: 1. More war (Iran...) Bush/Cheney clone? 2. Or No more stupid war? Bless the American people and hope they see the light.
Lmao. You have 8 years...where a person can genuinely have a couple dozen experiences, conversations, and personal time to sit and reflect to change their position..versus 2 weeks...sometimes 4 days where a guy like Romney will tell one audience he loves the Yankees then be in Boston saying 'we should have never sold Babe". Puhleease!
By the way, is anybody gonna call the feds on the koch brothers for threatening their employees about their vote? In fact, seems a trend with companies these days.
It is a trend, as is happening in many blue collar sectors. I have received numerous phone calls from truck drivers complaining of it. My own employer did the same, and I work as an attorney! They will do anything to win, regardless of whether it is immoral or illegal.
Why is this not considered a "SQUIRREL!" moment? Especially when it turned out to be a fake twitter account. Something that is easy to verify, unless you are Drudge, since celebs tend to have a giant "VERIFIED" logo on their accounts.
duped by fake_jake. does Drudge Report or the user who posted this care to follow up on their report?
What a relief, because had Jake Gyllenhall really said that, it would TRULY be over. Anyone changing their mind or hinging their vote on a twitter feed needs to be put down.
put me down. because that was the game changer for me if it were true. jake and to a lesser extent maggie's opinion is what my vote hinges upon.
<iframe width="512" height="288" src="http://www.hulu.com/embed.html?eid=uawckmpahhdnsy60ejauxg" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe> Not a lot of depth, but still an interesting interview (really only goes into the election at the end of the interview.)
It is disturbing. I felt uncomfortable enough working in 2008 for a huge Obama supporter. She never went so far as to say things like jobs depended on it, but it is pressure just to have somebody so involved and constantly praising one guy while throwing the other under the bus. Definitely a problem when you threaten jobs if one candidate wins as we have seen.
Bad news for people advocating new technologies/electric cars. Another one bites the dust. Romney will probably use this in tonight's debate: The real kicker which GOP will use? "President Barack Obama called A123’s CEO Vieau and then- Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm during a September 2010 event celebrating the opening of the plant in Livonia that the company received the U.S. grant to help build. “This is about the birth of an entire new industry in America -- an industry that’s going to be central to the next generation of cars,” Obama said in the phone call, according to a transcript provided by the White House. “When folks lift up their hoods on the cars of the future, I want them to see engines and batteries that are stamped: Made in America.” "
Wish it could be said his endorsement is meaningless real or fake, but the scary thing is there are people that would be influenced by it.
It's really silly to claim you can't close the deficit and lower rates at the same time. The variable they are ignoring in the tax revenue equation is the income available to tax. If the pie is growing (rising incomes, more income earners), you can mathematically generate more revenue with the same or lower rates. Conversely, if the pie is shrinking as it is now (falling incomes, shrinking workforce), raising rates might not generate more revenue. In fact there is no way to maintain our welfare state without sustained growth. You end up chasing your own tail, raising rates to generate more revenue, which weakens the economy even more. How we generate growth (via public/private investment or spending) is the major philosophical divide between the two parties.
