Game of Thrones: Bush's Head Gets a Makeover 266
mahiskali writes "After apologizing for using a likeness of former President George W. Bush's head in the season finale of the first season of 'Game of Thrones,' HBO has digitally altered the offending scene. After releasing an formal apology, HBO proceeded to yank the episode off all digital platforms, as well as halt distribution of the Season 1 box sets. The episode is now back with an altered head; more hair, less chin. Show creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss later clarified, 'We use a lot of prosthetic body parts on the show: heads, arms, etc. We can't afford to have these all made from scratch, especially in scenes where we need a lot of them, so we rent them in bulk. After the scene was already shot, someone pointed out that one of the heads looked like George W. Bush.'"
you what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:you what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we're all sensitive douchenozzles.
How DARE someone offend my sacrosanct sensibilities! A pox on their houses! A boycott! A Congressional inquiry!!
I shall not rest until my right to not be offended is acknowledged!
Re:you what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:you what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but he's too much a goober to know he should be deeply deeply offended by this, so the vocal minority has to be doubly offended on his behalf!
(On a serious note, I do agree with your point. This seems like the sort of thing that'd just roll off his back. And note we haven't heard HIS side of the story on this, not that it would have ever mattered...)
Re:you what? (Score:5, Interesting)
I still remember him laughing when that reporter tossed his shoes at him and he ducked. I laughed my ass off at the look on his face. It didn't really even faze him at all. Later he intervened on the guys behalf to keep him from being punished. I really wanted to like President Bush but his policies just made it too hard and I gave up trying.
Re:you what? (Score:4, Informative)
Not even close. The guy that threw the shoes at Bush got 3 years. Bush never lifted a finger for him.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-12/world/iraq.shoe.thrower_1_zaidi-al-maliki-and-bush-shoes?_s=PM:WORLD [cnn.com]
Re:you what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
cpu6502 is a troll, That's why.
the black man won... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm happy a black man won.
Just would have preferred it be Dr. Walter E. Williams - someone who actually understands economics, and that running-up a 20 trillion dollar debt is not the solution.
"there ought to be limits to freedom [of speech]" (Score:2)
That's what he said around 2000 when a site called gwbush.com was making fun of him. He sent a C&D and got the FEC involved.
Re:you what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:you what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think if it had been very obvious that it was Bush or Obama's head, I would have thought it was in bad taste, but when you actually see the head, you would never have known that was a Bush head if they had not have said something.
Re:you what? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:you what? (Score:4, Insightful)
This was discovered because the directors mentioned it in the commentary?
my mind is boggling somewhat at the silliness of mentioning this AT ALL.
Re: (Score:2)
And a visit from the Secret Service.
Re:you what? (Score:4, Funny)
"Personally, while I think it was intentional & tasteless.."
Care to give us a few examples of tasteful heads on a stick?
Re: (Score:3)
Mussolini
Ceausescu
Gaddafi
Assad (soon)
Re: (Score:3)
Probably not.
And you are correct. It's in the background of a couple of frames, with different hair. Hell, there are thousands of people who look like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to do that one. No one knows what he looked like.
Re: (Score:3)
That's doesn't stop the entire Islamic world from going apeshit when someone draws him.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:you what? (Score:5, Informative)
I would be shocked if anyone that was so easily offended was watching the show.
Prepare to be shocked:
Orgs. like the Parents Television Council literally watch these shows to BE offended just so they can complain.
Anyone rational goes, "Hmm, I don't think I'll like the content of this show." *changes channel*
PTC goes, "I KNOW I'm going to be offended by this show, let's take detailed notes and send them to the FCC because that's what Jesus would do!"
Re:you what? (Score:5, Funny)
They Digitally Edited Out the likeness of Bush?
Surprised that they chose to digitally edit his nose and chin. Since this is Game of Thrones I just assumed that they were going to add a pair of tits.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
>>> Game of Thrones I just assumed that they were going to add a pair of tits.
This is the second day in a row I read Thrones and tits in the same sentence. Yesterday someone said it's LOTR with tits. I may have to take a second look at this program because the only ones I recall are the blonde princess near the beginning, and the dwarf with his prostitutes. Oh and also the baby breastfeeding scene..... no wait that was Rome. (Another show I need to rewatch.)
Re: (Score:2)
The Rome breastfeeding scene was sexier.
And who are we to judge? We are grown adults and breastfeed from a foreign organism (cows). Indirectly of course but still... a mud-covered cow. Ewww.
Re: (Score:2)
The last season seems to be trying to catch up with Spartacus. I wonder how their merkin budgets compare.
Re: (Score:2)
does anyone need to remaster post-release films which contain accidental heads?
If it was an accident, then why make mention of it in the commentary? I know they said it wasn't a political statement, but they could have just glanced over it and probably nobody would have noticed.
Re: (Score:3)
They had to keep up with the times.
So they made it look like Obama instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Same reason Disney edited out the topless lady in the Rescuers and the penis in the Mermaid poster. They don't want to offend anyone (or lose money because of it).
Re: (Score:3)
They Digitally Edited Out the likeness of Bush? An apology is one thing, but why the fuck does anyone need to remaster post-release films which contain accidental heads?
or vagina.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's largely been by design.
Unlike some other former presidents who during from 1/01-01/09 spent a great deal of time relentlessly attacking the then President and attempting to undermine him... 43 seems to have opted to allow the current president to succeed or fail on his own.
How horrible is it that a previous President be respectful to their successor... you know... the complete opposite of what this Pres
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Respecting his successor by suggesting that the only reason Obama is targeting the "Bush tax cuts" is because it has "Bush" in the name? Or were you asleep when he started throwing his retard around again back in April?
orly? (Score:2, Insightful)
You LIE!
It's perfectly OK to be disrespectful to a sitting Democratic president, but god save your soul if you dare to suggest anything negative about a past Republican president.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, here we go again...
Granted, I can't blame it all on Obama. Things went downhill before he ever took office.
So, who's to blame? Well, things were going pretty well for last six years of Clinton and the first six of GWBush. In Jan 2007, the unemployment rate was at 4.6%, the deficit averaged about $400 billion and gas was under $2.20/gallon.
Then, in late Jan 2007, the Democrats took control of Congress. Again, this is after the last six years of Clinton and the first six years of Bush. This Republica
Re:you what? (Score:5, Informative)
So your idea that Republicans are somehow to blame for this is not backed up by the FACTS. Sorry, bub! Numbers don't lie!
If you have a problem with any of the numbers I brought up, speak up.
Quoting numbers without context is a good way to hide assumptions and misrepresent a complex situation. And economies are inherently complex. I think to be a Republican apologist for the 2008-2012 U.S. financial crisis, you have to mitigate a handful of factors:
Of course, probably the easiest way to mitigate these is to point out the unclean hands here... Clinton approved Gramm-Leach-Bliley, Obama extended the Bush-era tax cuts, and the Democratic congress went along with the war effort.
I think the Daily Show called it right once: Republicans are the party of bad ideas; Democrats are the party of no ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
There has been no significant policy difference between Obama and Bush. Also, the financial crisis has nothing to do with the parties that were in office at any given time. It was 100% caused by overspending by BOTH parties, and the Fed's eagerness to accommodate false growth by gaming interest rates. They have pushed this game to it's endpoint. The freefall we are in now will end with nothing short of a sickening crunch. Obamney won't be able to stop it, no mater what m
Re: (Score:3)
"There has been no significant policy difference between Obama and Bush"
Clearly you aren't paying attention.
Maybe it'
s the fact the the pubs lie and do what ever they can to stop anything from being passed solesly because they don't like Obama. We are talking about a party they drafted a bill, backed that biklll, then then stopped backing it when Obama said he would sign it.
THAT is what is going on. Obama has tried to get several policy changes through, al of which get stopped simply because Obama likes th
Re:you what? (Score:5, Informative)
There are so many things wrong in your post I'm not sure I can cover them all in limited time.
Citing the unemployment rate a year in to Obama's term and somehow blaming it on him is one of the more spectacular ones. The economy had just entered free fall when Obama took office. There was absolutely nothing anyone was going to do to stop it in a year, other than squander even larger amounts of borrowed money on stimulus than they did.
"was able to get his agenda through the Democratic Congress, where Bush could not"
Speaking of FACTS you just went off the rails dude. Bush had Republican control of the House for six years, and Senate control for four years. Democrats are pathetic and hopeless in the opposition obstructuing anything. The Republicans are extremely good at it.
Bush gutted every regulatory body in sight, especially the SEC, through executive orders and appointments which contributed more than anything to corporate running amuck. He rammed through huge tax cuts which started the downhill slide in to huge deficits, passed Medicare D which also added to the huge deficits, passed No Child Left Behind which did nothing but damage to the educational system, passed the Patriot act which eviscerated civil liberties, and ran two staggeringly expensive and largely pointless wars whose only lasting accomplishment will be a huge pile of debt and a bunch of traumatized vets.
The only two things Obama managed to pass were Obamacare which was a huge giveaway to the insurance and drug companies & will hopefully overturned tomorrow. And then there was the stimulus package, a mostly stupid squandering of money but considering the economy was in free fall it probably had to be done in some form . Other than the hasn't dont much of anything since he can't get anything past the Republicans in the House. So called "financial reform" and regulation didn't fix anything by the time Wall Street was done lobbying it in to the ground.
There is plenty of blame to go around for the collapse, Clinton, Rubin, Summers, Geithner, Greenspan, Frank and Dodd all deserve some. But you can't change the simple fact the economy spiralled out of control and blew up on Bush's watch, Paulson helped, and they deserve massive amounts of credit.
Re: (Score:2)
...then there was the stimulus package, a mostly stupid squandering of money but considering the economy was in free fall it probably had to be done in some form... um if you ignore Keynesian economics it would be "mostly stupid" but from two historic events it seems to be at least mostly true vs. the Laffer curve which has been shown repeatedly to be totally wrong.
Per Wikipedia, "The costs of the War on Terror are often contested, as academics and critics of the component wars (including the Iraq War) have
Re: (Score:3)
You are such a partisan hack there isn't much point in arguing with you anyway.
I'm no fan of Obama or Pelosi, and you will seldom catch be defending them, but your position that nothing is Bush's fault is delusional.
Do you actually believe the stuff you say or do you just regurgitate the crap you hear on Fox News day after day, like a mindless automaton.
About all Pelosi did impacting the economy was to sign off on Bush/Paulson's bailouts. Bush/Paulson no doubt acted on the old axiom, never let a good crisi
Re: (Score:3)
First, I don't get FoxNews. It's a premium channel on Dish Network and we have the basic package. But that is very typical of liberals to attempt to counter arguments they can't refute with "FauxNews" or "Racists!" I know it's a fallacy, but I can't quite tell you which one.
Next, I never said Bush has done no wrong. What I said was that CONGRESS, NOT THE PRESIDENT, CONTROLS THE ECONOMY. The President controls the military, foreign policy, DOJ, etc. The economy is all congress. CONGRESS writes the law
Re: (Score:3)
"First, I don't get FoxNews."
Apologies man, when people start ranting about Pelosi and Obama that is just classic Fox News. They do it all day, every day, day after day. You sound just like them.
One reason the GDP goes up under Republicans is they tend to run massive deficits and pour massive amounts of money in to the military. Win win for GDP. Its the way Republican's do stimulus, they just wont admit it is stimulus.
"CONGRESS, NOT THE PRESIDENT, CONTROLS THE ECONOMY"
Dude, you are wrong again. The Exec
Re:you what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, things were going pretty well for last six years of Clinton and the first six of GWBush.
Absolutely true, as long as you ignore the deficit going from effectively zero at the end of Clinton to very rapid growth during Bush, and guaranteed to get worse as his phased tax cuts continued. And as long as you pretend that the mortgage problems magically started in 2007 and were not a simmering but ignored issue for a decade. And if you ignore that real income for the lower 2/3rds of people was flat or decreased during that time, And if you ignore lots of other warning signs that "things are breaking and will be easy to fix now, but really hard later." Now it's later.
Pretending that things were good for Bush's first six years is a wonderful way of blaming the other guys, but does require lots of selective editing. Not that the other guys did all that well, but lots of indicators went into the red during 2001-2006.
Re:you what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:you what? (Score:5, Insightful)
That was a big part of it, sure, as well as the infighting between the republican congress and democratic president. And a large part of the current deficits are due to income tax losses from massive unemployment, but I figure that if people are going to blame Obama for the deficit now, then we have to thank Clinton for the deficit in 2000. Or we can realize that the deficits under both presidents were greatly affected by external factors.
The deficit under GWBush, on the other hand, should have decreased in 2003-2006 as the economy heated up with the real estate bubble. Since it increased, he gets to own some of that.
To get back on topic: it looks like the Game of Thrones set designers tried to make the head not obviously Bush's. Since nobody noticed until the commentary track came out, I've gotta go with "people are whiners". If people took half the time they spent being offended by little stuff and spent it cleaning up the litter in their neighborhood (yes, even if you weren't the one to litter; see "whiner") then the world would be a bit better tomorrow than it was yesterday. And that's a goal I think we all want.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if what you said was 100% true(its not) that one posture could have saved your country. The government might have had capital to re-institute massive capital works projects a la the 1920s highway projects.
As it was they had everything they could do to keep half of the citizens of the US from having their houses foreclosed on for no other reason than the bank holding their mortgage went under.
Government debt is NOT a good industry to keep around. We had analysts supporting the idea that this was a "good
Re: (Score:3)
"half of the debt exists entirely because of the war in afghanistan(which I actually support)"
What is there to support in it? The government the U.S. is propping up is so massively corrupt, incompetent and hated the Taliban is going to topple it five minutes after the U.S. leaves.
And, the U.S. is going to leave in two years.
As soon as the U.S. leaves Afghanistan is going to revert to Taliban control and look exactly like it did in 2001 with one exception. Bin Laden is dead but he probably hasn't even been
Re: (Score:2)
So if we had people in the US plotting to do harm to Afghanistan, you would be perfectly fine with Afghanistan attacking the us and bombing you neighborhood?
Plus it's a cheesy as pussy war. If you are going to declare war on a country, declare war on that country. Then go it and deal with it quickly.
After words, making it a US state.
Re: (Score:2)
"The deficit going to zero was a result of increasing income tax gains from the internet bubble, something cause by the Fed."
False.
" Clinton had nothing to do with it."
uh, he stood up and told everyone about the internet superhighway that his VP had made public.
Which pretty much got every investor looking at it.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't blame the 2007 Democrats either. It's been a time bomb, who it blows up on is essentially random. I guess that group might have been worse at kicking the can down the road than the previous groups (though more likely the problem got big enough that kicking stopped working).
You don't have to like the guy and can think he's just austrian nutter, but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o [youtube.com] is from 2006, so before those Democrats took over. Seems unlikely those Democrats just fluked making his pred
Re: (Score:3)
Well, things were going pretty well for last six years of Clinton and the first six of GWBush.
Holy shit, what cave were you living in? In 2000-2001, the dotcom bubble burst, plunging the country into a recession. In 2001, 9/11 happened. The war in Iraq was a muddled and expensive disaster, and we later found out it was on false pretenses. Iraq was probably the predominant reason Bush's approval ratings were so low near the end of his term. Deficit spending was in full bloom (including the giveaway to big pharma for drug spending when Bush was trying to get re-elected in 2004). The deficit spending u
Re: (Score:2)
"(both parties are to blame for this)"
no.
The pubs had a veto proof vote. Clinton managed to get them to include middle class people and not just the rich.
The fact that he did that is pretty good.
stimulus spending works. Austerity has never gotten any country out of a situation like this. Never, ever.
Stimulus is about de-leveraging debt through works. And de-leveraging doesn't need to equate to a 1 to 1 debt trade off.
Add to the stimulus creates long term tax revenues, and helps with the infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
Since things have improved steadily since he took office, and what he wanted to do was severally castrated. Why is Obama at fault at all? Because he didn't snap his fingers and make it all better over night?
It takes a few minutes to burn down a house, a lot longer to build one.
I get why Romney would bring up the economy, I don't get why he doesn't get slapped up side the head every time he says it's because of Obama. Seriously, it's not like it a hard to find fact.
Bush was specifically told what was going t
Re: (Score:2)
The dot com bubble was a speculative bubble in the stock markets. There was very little Clinton could do to stop it.
The real estate bubble was largely due to predatory behavior by mortgage brokers and bankers. The Fed probably could have stopped it with their existing powers just by stopping abusive mortgage and securitization practices.
The dot com bubble mostly burned investors speculating in the stock market. When you speculate in stock markets you should expect the possibility you will get burned.
The
Re: (Score:2)
Well if Clinton is not to blame for the dot-com speculation bubble, neither is Bush to blame to the real-estate speculation bubble. Especially since the key cause was passed before he was even president.
Re: (Score:3)
The causes of the real estate bubble were fraud on the part of mortgage brokers and fraud by the banks and rating agencies creating supposedly AAA rated mortgage backed securitues that were actually junk bonds. They were both criminal and or civil offenses, that probably could have been prosecuted in the more extreme cases if anyone had cared, and in all cases they could have been reined in by the Fed under its existing regulatory powers, or brought under control by regulation from Congress and the White H
Re: (Score:2)
And I forgot to mention that they are devious, lying bastards.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah you don't keep things bottled up do you :)
Re: (Score:2)
Zing!
Collectors edition (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd hang on to your copy of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, too. To me, it's always looked like they used a model of George W. Bush for the face of Grawp, Hagrid's giant brother in the woods, then mixed in a little Alfred E. Newman to disguise it.
Trust me, once you see it, you can't unsee it.
Eunuchs (Score:5, Insightful)
This is either some kind of "clever" ploy to make already existing box sets scarce or a way to push people to pirate the unedited versions.
Or HBO really just has no balls and can't stand up for themselves. Probably that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the disturbing
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Eunuchs (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. When I watch something like Game of Thrones it's to escape from the real world for a while. The last thing I want is to see shit from today's political goat rope brought into my entertainment. Leave that shit on FOX, CNN and NBC etc. where it belongs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I dare you to place The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy into historical context.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember how Lucas shit on the prequels by making it into "Palpatine is George Bush". I can only speak for myself, but I kind of wanted to watch a Star Wars movie, not watch Rachel Maddow interview Sean Penn.
I find it hilarious that you thought this at all.
"Palpatine and George Bush are both older white men! Great, now all I can see is a liberal wankfest, I bet they were planning this from when they made Palpatine an older white man in the original trilogy!"
Re: (Score:3)
Damn! It wasn't all that bad. Of course I think what pissed everyone off is that it could have been so much better. All those years of waiting only to be let down made a lot of people bitter.
Couldn't see it. (Score:5, Informative)
And I didn't see the faintest hint of resemblance. Am I the only one?
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I watched the clips. I saw the before and after pictures.
And I didn't see the faintest hint of resemblance. Am I the only one?
Probably. Maybe it'd also fool Lois Lane, I'm not sure if hair makes more of a difference than glasses.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The head was mostly facing away from the camera, and had a big wig on it. Someone had a lot of time to waste if they picked out, from a slight profile, a fake George W. Bush head.
It's amazing what some people will spend time doing, just on the hope of a slight chance of finding something to complain about.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah.. very true..
On the other hand, now they have found it, we all get to laugh.
What's the minimum clip length needed for a 'fair use: satire' exemption? I was thinking of putting a 14.59min rolling loop of this on someones tube, with the single comment 'LOL' and then claiming it was protected satirical speech if HBO objected.
Re: (Score:3)
No one wasted any additional time other than the time it wastes to watch the episode normally. The fact that they used a GWB head was pointed out in the commentary on the DVD, it wasn't something that someone just noticed.
Re:Couldn't see it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Fan Edit? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm hoping this leads to a fan edit in which every dead character on screen is replaced by Bush! I say this not because of hatred for Bush, but because HBO and various commentators have taken this amusing situation way too seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
There is the old saying 'bad publicity is better than none at all'
This sounds more like an HBO publicity stunt than anything....
Pussies... (Score:2)
Four words (Score:5, Funny)
They should use a likeness of ... (Score:2)
... Jerry Sandusky. Or maybe Bernie Madoff.
Who *did* they make it look like? (Score:3)
And why didn't they have a Cheney head beside it?
mark
W.T.F. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:TO BAD SO SAD (Score:5, Insightful)
I see nothing saying the former president is even aware of it, much less has a beef about it.
Re:TO BAD SO SAD (Score:5, Funny)
Re:TO BAD SO SAD (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt he watches much outside of The Cartoon Network...
If so, he's far more intelligent than I previously gave him credit for...
Re: (Score:2)
I can haz screenshot?
Putting Obama's head in is NOT acceptable!!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Your comment is stupid, selfish, and full of foul stenched bitchism. Putting Obama's head in there is devoid of any rational sense and must be based purely on your personal hatred. Such an act cannot be tolerated in the show.
Everyone knows there are no black people in Westeros. Putting his head in there would ruin the suspension of disbelief. What are you, nuts?
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone knows there are no black people in Westeros.
I don't. Of course, I also don't waste my life obsessing over poorly-written, over-sexualized drivel.
Re:Putting Obama's head in is NOT acceptable!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
I don't. Of course, I also don't waste my life obsessing over poorly-written, over-sexualized drivel.
I didn't think we were talking about Slashdot - just a TV program.
Re: (Score:2)
How can something be over-sexualized? Actually most of the sex in GOT is pretty casual. The violence is the real driving force. It's a brutal environment and your favorite characters are subject to get dead at any time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you also hope for unicorns, a Ron Paul presidency and Pandora to be a real planet... keep on hoping, none are going to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
I couldn't agree more (with the intention and sentiment). I LOL'd at your proposal, and I think it's a strikingly good one.
The irony is that the last decade of warfare has basically been continuous and at higher cost than Vietnam with much broader collateral damage. Unfortunately, Bush and Obama can not be held singularly responsible for this: US Congress as well as the people involved on the OF side.
The real tragedy is that it's being waged for political reasons, not actual stabilization. See: the jihadist
Re: (Score:2)
All political stuff aside, the lulz would be epic.
Re: (Score:2)
This. I think that although the choice of head was deliberate, it was never supposed to be obvious: just something the crew could look back at in later years and snicker among themselves, and if someone spilled the beans it could be chalked up to an urban legend.
But two things went wrong. One, the head wasn't quite turned far enough away. Two, some idiot blabbed on the DVD commentaries: the one place where every single person with a copy of the series could easily go to find out about it.
Actually, it looked more like ... (Score:2)
... some slashdoterdood named Anonymous Coward.
Re: (Score:2)
And don't faget it.
Re: (Score:3)
Setting aside I never saw any of that stuff o his website. I didn't go there often.
He had no input into this. none at all.
Why would you think the author of the book would be making set design decisions? why do you think that is more likely then what actually happened? The got a call for a bunch of fake heads, so the grab all they had, slapped some wigs on them, and put them into the set.
The scene they are talking about is a few frames, with the head in the background and turned. You can't even see half of
Re: (Score:3)
If I thought you'd done something so bad that your head should be removed and put on a stake, I'd cut your god damn head off an put in on a stake.
No, you wouldn't, because you're an angry little coward spitting venom from behind the safety of a computer screen. Tough talk like that always comes from the cowards.
Bush was a terrible president. He may very well have dealt the death blow to this country. We're still shambling along for now, but the harm he did... in racking up deficits, undermining civil rights, making enemies, deregulating everything, stacking the court with activists... I don't think it's really survivable. It's pretty clear from h