‘Trump derangement syndrome is real’: Elon Musk compares it to rabies in Fox interview

Tesla CEO Elon Musk, along with US President Donald Trump, explained what he called the left’s “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” and said that he didn’t realise it was a real thing until he was at a friend’s dinner party before the presidential election.
During a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity, Elon Musk, describing about his friend’s dinner party a month or two ago, compared Trump Derangement Syndrome with rabies.
“This whole thing they call Trump Derangement Syndrome – you don’t realize how real it is until you see it. You can’t reason with people,” Musk said.

He shared an anecdote about a friend’s birthday dinner “a month or two” before the election. He recounted: “A nice, quiet dinner and everyone was behaving normally. And then I happened to mention the president’s name, and it was like they got shot with a dart in the jugular that contained like methamphetamine and rabies.”
When Hannity remarked that liberals should appreciate having the world’s largest electric vehicle company, Musk responded by noting his diminished popularity amongst the left, stating: “I used to be adored by the left, less so these days.”

Meanwhile, Musk’s department of government efficiency continues reducing federal government positions and services, resulting in widespread disruption and job losses.
During an episode of On With Kara Swisher podcast, Musk faced criticism for maintaining substantial government contracts whilst reducing government programmes.
The podcast featured economists Mariana Mazzucato, Paul Krugman, and Oren Cass. Swisher addressed Mazzucato, saying: “You said people like Elon Musk act like parasites because they wanna destroy the public investments that helped them build their companies.”
Swisher highlighted that Tesla had received nearly $5 billion in government funding by 2015.
Mazzucato responded: “I mean, more than a parasite, he should have even just said thank you.”
Cass described Musk as “literally humanity’s greatest subsidy farmer”, adding that whilst state funding usage is typically positive, it becomes problematic when recipients attempt to “pulling the ladder up” afterwards.