Trumpexit Monthly Update

It's Feb 20th, first Anniversary of the Trumpidency - time to update the numbers.

(Spoiler: Trumpexit probability up from 42% on Jan 20 to 60% on Feb 20)



As a result of new information (new to me), there are now 13 scenarios, as per the table following:

• The impeachment scenario has been extended and split the into three distinct categories (1,2,3). This is because I'd not known that Congress is the sole arbitor of what constitutes an impeachable offense - and it doesn't have to be a criminal offense.  'New 1'. covers impeachment for genuine (external) criminal or quasi-criminal behavior; 'New 2'. covers impeachment driven by Congress in a political crisis situation; 'New 3'. covers impeachment driven by Congress for base political reasons. Obviously there is overlap between 2 and 3.  To distinguish them, we require that 3 has to be associated with major external events such as prolonged government shut-down or large scale civil disorder.
• 25th Amendment removal due to incapacity resulting from mental disorder has been added as scenario 7. The VP and Cabinet has the power to do this. Again, I didn't know about this possibility until recently.

So what's changed in each scenario since Jan 20?



Resulting in the following probabilities revisions for February (yellow column).



Notes:
=====

1 The totals are calculated using Bayes' rule. A way to think of it is: for Trump to make it through four years unscathed, he has to avoid ALL of the bad things (the scenarios described in 1 thru 13) happening to him. So the probability of his surviving is (100% - probability of 1st scenario happening) * (100% - probability of 2nd scenario happening) * (100% - probability of 3rd scenario happening) etc etc; and the The probability of his NOT surviving is (100% - The probability of his surviving). 

Was that Censorship*?

What the heck should Free Speech mean? Was that thing really Censorship?

Spoiler: free speech does not mean that every platform - e.g. town hall or media network - should be available, as of right, to anyone who wants access to it.

Here's the principle in the positive: You can say what you like, to whom you like, using your own resources, or the resources of people who are happy to give, lend or sell them to you^ 

And in the negative: you have no 'right' to access the resources of people & organizations that don't wish to help you or your project^

^ With a mighty big caveat on government owned resources.

Cases in Point

So if you live in Lewiston Idaho, and want to speak at the Lewiston City Hall but you're prevented from doing so purely because of the nature of your views, then yep, that's censorship.

Substitute any venue in Idaho owned by the Idaho State Government, or any venue in the US owned by the US Government. Still censorship. 

What about speaking in a public place someplace in the US? Here your rights as a US resident or citizen come into play. You should have the same right as anyone else. If you don't, that's censorship.

What about your right to speak at the Bellingham WA City Hall. Well, you don't live there and you don't pay taxes there. If you want to speak at the Bellingham City Hall, you will have to ask them, and they can say 'yes' or 'no'. It's entirely up to them. That's not censorship.

Same scenario but now you want to speak at the UCLA and they knock you back. Unless you're a resident of California, that's also not censorship.

Same scenario but you'd quite like to talk on a privately owned University (say Stanford) or radio or TV network and they tell you to hit the road. Sorry, they get to decide who has access to their resources, and it doesn't have to include you. Not censorship. 

Government

Government is a special case. It is not OK for government to make its media platforms - Australia's ABC for example - available to some people or groups of people, but not others. Apart from equality principles, taxpayers paid for 100% of these. 

Since these are finite resources that are inevitably highly sought after, in practice Governments should attempt to give all groups and views access, perhaps in proportion to their prevalence in the population. It's always going to be a rough calculus, but it's a calculus that has to be attempted.

Boycotts

Free speech doesn't mean a free ride.  Boycotts are also a freedom and 100% legitimate. 

People have an absolute right to boycott any person or organisation which promote views they don't like, and they don't have to explain why.

Boycotts are not censorship.

Freedom From Consequences?

Free speech does not mean freedom from (lawful) consequences.

The US Nazi who got punched in the face should not have been punched in the face, because that was not a lawful response. OK, I laughed too and shouldn't have. 

Lower down on the scale, other peoples' right to freedom of speech means they are totally entitled to talk back, shout back, (gasp) rudely talk over you, say mean things about you and make jokes about you. You can do it to them to if you want.

While you have the right to say what you want others need not listen in silence. It might be rude, but it's not censorship. 

In the extreme worst case, if someone is right in your face shouting down every word you say, or a crowd jeers so loudly that no-one can hear you, then yes, that is a form of censorship and they shouldn't do it.


* Not thinking of anyone in particular.

Trumpexit by the Numbers

Let's work out the likelihood that President Trump doesn't see out his full term.  It might be fun, and possibly also cheering, ignoring that he'd be replaced by Pence. (Spoiler: Trumpexit probability as at 20 January 2017 = 43%)



The table below sets out each loss of Presidency scenario. There are six 'impeach/resign' scenarios, and seven 'die/be killed/incapacity' scenarios. They are all mutually independent if we adhere to the definitions, which we will. That means we can multiply individual probabilities to get a total "Trumpexit" figure.



Provided of course, we can estimate each individual probability. On January 20 I made the estimates in the yellow column; grand total at the bottom. Columns to the right will be filled out in coming months.



I get an overall likelihood of 43% that Trump will be gone by the next election. Pleasingly high, but not high enough to my taste. Putting it another way, there's a 57% chance the US will lurch from crisis to disaster for the next four years.

I'll update the numbers every month on the anniversary of Day Zero. Some will definitely go up on Feb 20. While I was imagining he'd be vainglorious and incompetent, the first two weeks have been much weirder and more extreme than I could ever have imagined.

I tried to make a "You Edit" version of this - so you could try out your own numbers - but without success. Will keep trying.

UPDATE 5 Feb 17. Expanded scenario 1 and split it into three distinct impeachment scenarios. This is because I didn't realize Congress is the sole arbiter of what constitutes an impeachable offense (doesn't have to be a criminal offense) until a couple of days ago.

UPDATE 7 Feb 17: Added 25th Amendment Scenario. Didn't know about this possibility before now. Trump almost certainly has Malignant Personality Disorder: he has nine out of nine of the diagnostic characteristics where five are required for a diagnosis. Since this means nothing unless the VP and cabinet decide to act on it, I've made the probability low - 2%.

-->
Notes:
=====

1 The totals are calculated using Bayes' rule. A way to think of it is: for Trump to make it through four years unscathed, he has to avoid ALL of the bad things (1 thru 10) happening to him. So the probability of his surviving is (100% - probability of 1st scenario happening) * (100% - probability of 2nd scenario happening) * (100% - probability of 3rd scenario happening) etc etc; and the The probability of his NOT surviving is (100% - The probability of his surviving). Make sense?

2  Comments on initial probabilities:

1	Trump is dragging huge baggage from his business dealings, and he seems to have very low ethics
2	This would be immediately politically fatal.
3	Would be higher but there is a fair chance he would divest if this happened to hold onto the prize.
4	A scandal that may or may not involve criminality, but which is politically not survivable.
5	President has access to the best medical support that money can buy
6	The number of people who feel alienated by Trump is so large that the minuscule proportion of people with murderous intent towards him will include a small number with the means and motivation to follow through.
7	These people have lots of weapons. A proportion have major anger issues. They will be very unhappy if they perceive he has "betrays" them. And armed.  And he in all likelihood will betray them in multiple enormous ways.
8	For example, if he attempts a first strike nuclear launch, he will likely be prevented from doing so by the military; up to and including by killing him. They may already have a contingency plan.  They'd be derelict in their duty to the constitution if they didn't.
9	If you think this sort of thing can't happen, it already has in the past. Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Robert Kennedy "believed that he was deliberately betrayed by Kennedy's support for Israel in the June 1967 Six-Day War, which had begun exactly one year to the day before the assassination."
10	Not Russia or China, but for example North Korea (they'd do it in the blink of an eye of they could pull it off); or Iran, if they were to perceive an existential threat (whether justified or not).