1964 1984

prettytaako  asked:

champagne, pearls, satin, glitter

CHAMPAGNE: what topic could you talk about for hours?

the x-men publication history from 1964-1984 t b h one time a friend was sad and wanted a distraction so i ranted to her for… 2-3 hours about how badly the movies did the dark pheonix saga and what REALLY happened 

PEARLS: what’s something about your personality that surprises others?\

iactually dont know ! A lot of ppl have said they were intimidated by me at first and then realized im like…. Not. but also i think my sense of humor catches ppl off guard bc once they know me well i get more. scathing. 

SATIN: what is your most favorite article of clothing?

hmmmm honestly my pratt hoodie and my flannels, they smell like my perfume and r extremely comfy

GLITTER: describe someone special to you.

hmmmm well shes got white hair likes animals and is w i l d and i really like her

anonymous asked:

Out of the following 20th century landslides, 1920, 1936, 1964, 1972, and 1984, which do you think was the biggest?

I mean, if we’re going by Electoral College, it’s 1984 because Reagan beat Mondale 525-13, but I say that the biggest overall landslide was 1972 (Nixon vs. McGovern).

In 1972, Nixon won 49 out of 50 states, just like Reagan did in 1984, and Nixon’s Electoral College margin (520-17 with one faithless elector casting their ballot for Libertarian John Hospers) was only narrowly smaller than Reagan’s in ‘84. But Nixon also won over 60% of the popular vote in 1972 and limited McGovern to just 37.5% while Reagan didn’t quite get to 60% in ‘84 and Mondale crossed the 40% threshold. 

Plus, in 1972, Nixon’s state-by-state margins of victory were significantly larger than Reagan’s in 1984. Of the 49 states that Nixon won in ‘72, the margin of victory was less than 10% in just four states (Wisconsin, South Dakota, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts) and won 36 states by a margin of over 20%. Nine of the states that Nixon won were by a margin of more than 40% of the popular vote, including 59% in Mississippi and 50% in Georgia. Reagan had “only” four states in which the margin of victory was more than 40% in 1984 and there were seven states in which his margin of victory was less than 10%. On a state-by-state basis a bigger margin of voters cast ballots for Nixon instead of his opponent in 1972 than Reagan in 1984. 

And just think, less than a year after that 1972 landslide, Nixon’s Vice President had been forced to resign to avoid prison, and Nixon himself was forced to resign the Presidency ten months after that.

anonymous asked:

What do you think the actual chances of Bernie Sanders being elected into presidency? I like him best but I don't think he will get elected because of his age and that fact that he's Jewish, which is disappointing to me

I like Bernie Sanders and my politics are much closer to his than any Presidential candidate in a very long time, but I very much doubt that he has a shot at the Democratic nomination, and he cannot win the Presidency.

I’ve been over this a few times, so I really don’t want to get too deep into it again because I know that Bernie’s supporters are very passionate and very devoted because they tend to send me very passionate and borderline disrespectful messages whenever I point out his long odds at the Presidency. That’s okay, though. Like I said, I appreciate the passion and I understand that many of his supporters here on Tumblr tend to skew towards the younger demographic that is turned off by politics and may not understand the uphill climb that any outsider has in a Presidential election. 

Presidential politics are completely different from a regular election. Of course, there is the primary season to decide on the party’s nominee, and then the general election once the nominees have been selected. Senator Sanders has ran a good campaign so far – probably the best campaign out of anybody in the field, from either side. He may very well win a handful of early primaries or caucuses, and that would be wonderful. Again, as I mentioned, I’m closer to him on the political spectrum than any other candidate. However, it must be understood that this is very much a party-driven process, particularly when it comes to the Democratic nomination. The Democratic nominee must win a specific number of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in order to clinch the Democratic nomination. In 2008, for example, there were 4,233 delegates overall to the Democratic National Convention, and a candidate needed to win 2,117 delegates in order to clinch the nomination. Some of these delegates are awarded to candidates through the primaries and caucuses (some states have winner-take-all elections while others award numbers of delegates by the percentage of the vote won by the respective candidates in the respective state’s primary or caucus). However, the Democratic Party also has “Superdelegates”. These are people within the party – usually elected officials or former elected officials – who have a vote at the Democratic National Convention, but aren’t bound to give that vote to a certain candidate. In 2008, there were well over 800 Superdelegates, which is about 20% of the overall total. That’s a big group, and it can influence the nomination in significant ways.

Now, why would this matter? First of all, it needs to be noted that Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. He’s running for the Democratic nomination, and he caucuses with the Democratic Party in the U.S. Senate. But he’s had a long political career and has never been registered as a Democrat, and he’s often criticized the party just as strongly as he criticized the Republicans. You can be sure that there are officials in the Democratic Party who have not forgotten that. And it could cost him if the delegate count was close and hadn’t been resolved by the Democratic National Convention.

The bigger issue is this: the Democrats have a history of nominating candidates for President who tend to be the most electable. The Democrats like winning Presidential elections. Sometimes, this results in a candidate who probably isn’t the most exciting nominee (Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry), but it is usually a smart idea because, if you have a candidate in the race, you should probably want them to win. A general election is much different than the primaries – instead of reaching out to the voters of your party, a nominee is trying to attract as many votes as possible, across party lines, from throughout the United States. It’s important to remember that a Presidential election is not one big national election – it is 50 (well, 51 because of the District of Columbia) state elections that decide a national race.

There are many reasons why Bernie Sanders, if he somehow was nominated by the Democratic Party, would be tough to elect in a general election. His Judaism is not high on the list. First and foremost, is his age. Senator Sanders will be 75 years old on Election Day in 2016. Do you know how many Presidents were elected at the age of 75 or over? Zero. Not a single one. Ronald Reagan was the oldest President elected in American history when he won the 1980 election and he served two terms, retiring as the oldest man to ever serve in the office at any point. When Reagan was re-elected in 1984, he was 73 years old – younger than Bernie Sanders will be in 2016. Do you know how many Presidents have turned 75 while in office? Just one: Reagan – in 1986, as he was heading into the final stretch of his two-term Presidency, which ended in 1989. Age is Bernie’s biggest problem. Hillary Clinton’s age is probably going to be an issue in 2016, and she’s a full six years younger than Bernie Sanders.

The second issue is that Bernie Sanders is an avowed Democratic Socialist, and “Socialism” is still largely a dirty word in the United States. I am not happy about that. I think it’s stupid and that Americans are ignorant about what “Socialism” really is, but someone who proudly declares that they are a Socialist is not going to win a general election victory for the Presidency of the United States. Too many people think Socialism = Communism, and that’s unfortunate. I wish it wasn’t the case, and I know that many of Bernie’s supporters are going to attack me because of it, but I want to point this out: I’m a Socialist, too. I’ve made no secret of that over the years. I am about as left-wing of a Liberal as you will find in the United States, so it bothers me, too. But a 75-year-old Scandinavian-style Socialist can’t win a general election for President in the United States in 2016. A 45-year-old Socialist couldn’t win a Presidential election in the United States in 2016. It isn’t happening.

We have very clear evidence about what happens when more extreme candidates are nominated for President by their political party here in the United States. Bernie Sanders would be the most Liberal candidate ever nominated in American history, but the Democrats have nominated a couple of very Liberal candidates in the last 45 years – George McGovern in 1972 and Walter Mondale in 1984.

This is what happens when more extreme candidates (and by “extreme”, I mean “far-left” or “far-right” instead of the more centrist or moderate candidates normally nominated by the Republicans and Democrats):

•In 1964, the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater, a far-right Conservative who actually accepted his nomination by saying, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Conservatives supported Goldwater with the slogan, “In your heart you know he’s right.” He faced incumbent Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson, whose supporters responded with, “In your gut, you know he’s nuts.” On Election Day, LBJ won 61% of the popular vote to Goldwater’s 39%, and dominated the Electoral College 486-52.

That’s what happens when Republicans nominate extreme far-right Conservatives for President. This is what happens when Democrats nominate extreme far-left Liberals for President: 


As in, 49 states for the Republicans and 1 state for the Democrats. And that’s happened twice in the past 45 years. (To be fair, in both instances, the Democrats did win the District of Columbia, so I guess it’s 49-1 + Washington, D.C.’s 3 Electoral votes.)

In 1972, the Democrats nominated the very Liberal George McGovern against President Richard Nixon. Nixon won 61% of the popular vote to McGovern’s 38%, as well 49 out of 50 states, which resulted in an Electoral College margin of 520-17.

And, twelve years later, the Democrats nominated former Vice President Walter Mondale – not quite as Liberal as McGovern, and a borderline Conservative compared to Bernie Sanders – to take on President Ronald Reagan. Reagan won 59% of the popular vote while Mondale won 41%. The Electoral College was far more brutal. Again, the Republicans won 49 out of 50 states, and Reagan won more Electoral votes than any candidate in American history. The final score: 525-13.

That’s what happens when activist candidates are nominated by their party for President. A candidate on the far-left or far-right of their political party has NEVER won an American Presidential election. They’ve never come close. As I said, Democrats prefer to nominate electable candidates – even in losing efforts – because twice in the past 45 years, our party has come one state away from being completely shut out.

I agree with Bernie Sanders, politically. But he cannot win and anyone worried about his Judaism is overlooking the real issues: his age and the realities of American Presidential politics as well as party politics (which is why he won’t win the nomination). There’s more than that, too – he’s not an exciting campaigner (although he’s done well so far), he’s not a proven debater, he doesn’t come across well on television (very important in a Presidential campaign), he doesn’t guarantee any sort of Electoral advantage (Vermont has the 2nd-smallest population of any state and has just 3 more Electoral votes than I personally do). I like Bernie Sanders, but I also want my party to win the 2016 election, and I hope that people understand the reality of the situation and be more rational and reasonable than their passions have proven in the past when disagreeing with my explanation. I hope Bernie Sanders stays in the race and I hope he does well because the longer he is in, the more he can influence the Democratic Party’s platform, and hopefully change the perception that Americans have towards Socialism. But he can’t win.


60 Years of Godzilla! HAPPY GODZILLA DAY!

What happened 22 years ago wasn’t a natural disaster!

Nope, it was me falling headfirst into this fandom. Godzilla is something that I clearly give a shit about. I’ve ravenously devoured each and every adventure. Children’s books to television shows made with toys. Video games to comic books. I’ve been obsessed for years.

It’s probably because Godzilla is the one thing that I always go back to. Although I feel I may have burned myself out in my terrifying marathon of Godzilla stuff (i.e. everything I had, including multiple cuts of the films). Godzilla is the perfect embodiment of everything I love in science fiction and fantasy. It is also intertwined with the memories I shared with a lot of people, many of which are gone.

Godzilla is amazing. He morphs into whatever the story needs, and his ability to change yet retain, more or less (stares at the 98’ film), his core character is the reason he endures. Also, I think, deep down, we all want to destroy the world.

For those wondering how academics divide up the post-war generations:

1945-1964: Baby Boomers
1965-1984: Generation X
1985-2004: Millennials
2005-2024: Likely to be wiped out in a global war over natural resources
2025-2044: Morlocks
2045-2064: Zombies
2065-2084: Clone Thatcher’s Children
2085-2104: Generation Ö
2105-2124: The Gothic Revival
2125-2144: Freddie Mercury
2145-2164: Generation A+++ Would Recommend
2165-2184: The Dalek Invasion Of Earth
2185-2204: Moomins

I’m completely in love with this notebook! The paper is soft and thick, the ink doesn’t cross the page.
I’m studying constitutional law . The current Constitution of Brazil is from 1988 ( wow, I’m older than the Constitution). Before that, we lived a sad period of military dictatorship, from 1964 to 1985. I hope that we will never have to live that again.

Have a great weekend!!


Em 1989, o Brasil voltou a viver as emoções de uma eleição direta à presidência da República, após as duas décadas de ditadura militar, entre 1964 e 1984. A disputa contou com vários políticos experientes, folclóricos e lendários, como Leonel Brizola, Paulo Maluf, Mário Covas e Ulysses Guimarães.

Ao final do primeiro turno, os dois que se credenciaram para a etapa final foram Fernando Collor de Mello, do PRN, à época conhecido como o “caçador de Marajás de Alagoas”, e Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, do PT, célebre pela liderança nas greves do sindicato dos metalúrgicos do ABC, nos anos 70.

Assim como a atual campanha, o segundo turno foi acirrado, com o país dividido ao meio no apoio aos dois candidatos, trocas de acusações e pesquisas com índices apertados. Collor venceu, mas não terminou o mandato: renunciaria em 1992, após denúncias de corrupção. Lula seria eleito em 2002 e reeleito em 2006.