I'm used to seeing the use of ham-fisted and cack-handed, but not this portmanteau of the two.

Is this new, or really old, or just an americanism I'm not familiar with (though I grokked it instantly)?

It's just a cack-fisted attempt of adjectivation

And a perfectly cromulent one.

Hambags at dawn...

No room for two over inflated ego's in the White House. Why am I not surprised.

And not enough toys for two children to play with.

Gives Elon some leverage to run for the office on his own at some point, maybe..... I hope not.

I do not believe that Musk could run for president as he was not born in the US.

Musk is an immigrant who has been naturalised.

Nothing natural about him

Fun pedantic fact, you could be a naturalised US citizen and run for president - but only if you had become a naturalised US citizen at the adoption of the constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5). So no, I don't think Musk qualifies.

It's how George Washington became president - he was born outside of the US at the time.

He also needs to be older than 35 years old, which also seems to exclude him currently, behaving as he is like my toddler. XD

"It's how George Washington became president - he was born outside of the US at the time."

Not quite. Washington was born inside Virginia, which meant he was considered a native-born American as Virginia was part of the US. The same is true of all the presidents who were elected. There were some people who were possible candidates under that rule, though, most famously Alexander Hamilton, who didn't run for election but considered doing so. He was actually born outside of the land that became the US but qualified under that rule.

Washington was not considered a "natural born citizen" because there was no US when he was born. He was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and was therefore eligible to be POTUS.

The first 9 and the 12th POTUS' were eligible due to that part of Article 2. All others were born in the US.

I get what you're saying, but it is not matched by the way citizenship law worked at the time. I know that the US did not exist at the time of the birth of these people. Theoretically, that means that there were no "natural born citizens" until the first birth post-independence. That was not how it worked. The relevant portion of the Constitution reads:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Could that be clearer? Yes, but although it later needed to be expanded, it meant that being born in the territories that became the states was enough to make you a citizen, and the laws upheld this. For example, when naturalization laws were passed quite quickly, those laws imposed race and religion restrictions, but those did not apply to people who had been citizens in British America before it became the US, who by law remained citizens. The presidents you are referring to were born in the colonies that became the US.

As I said in another comment, the distinction is mostly irrelevant; they didn't care at the time, and nobody alive has any effect from it now. Citizenship law is a bit more complex to "no country at the time, therefore no citizenship". You can see many more recent examples with countries emerging from colonialism, splitting, or coming under other governments that reset the laws. There are a lot of more complicated parts.

"It's how George Washington became president - he was born outside of the US at the time."

But when Washington was born, the US didn't exist so he couldn't have been. But tell me this, one criterion to eligibility to be elected is a "natural born citizen". What does that mean? Does it exclude anyone delivered via a C-section? Is that 'natural born'?

Why not elect the 'best person', irrespective of where they happened to be born?

Why not elect the 'best person'...

Because you don't know how good or bad they'll be until they gain power.

No matter how well intentioned a politician may be, they all change a bit on gaining high office. Also the type of character needed to fight all the way to the top is often not the best type of character to run a country. It's almost as if the system itself is broken.

"Why not elect the 'best person'...

"Because you don't know how good or bad they'll be until they gain power.

Yet they went and voted him back in again...

Because when the people were writing the rules, they were nervous about foreigners, and nobody's bothered to change them yet. Nothing says that rule is the best one, it's just what's written there and will be the rule until enough people decide to change it. A lot of the rules those guys wrote have aged badly and either been replaced or should be, although some others have worked out well enough, so perhaps this is one of them.

And what "natural born citizen" means is that you have to have been a citizen at the time of your birth. That means that being born in the country or to citizens counts, everything else doesn't. The complexities of 18th century US citizenship law which decided who was a citizen when the country was founded are not very important nowadays since they no longer affect anyone alive.

Why not elect the 'best person'

We sure as hell haven't been doing that even amongst natural born citizens. Opening it up to nazis like Musk isn't likely to improve upon the super low standard of candidate voters have been picking for my entire life.

If we were going to try something different I'd suggest electing a woman before we change the constitution and elect foreigners. But given that voters both in polling and at the polls have demonstrated they're more willing to vote for a non-white man than for any woman of any color I'm not gonna hold my breath on that.

**** natural born citizen

Put simply, it means that the individual was born inside the US. There are also rules about people born outside the US but to parents that are citizens.

"He also needs to be older than 35 years old, which also seems to exclude him currently, behaving as he is like my toddler."

That doesn't seem to have disqualified the current holder of the office.

Ted Cruz ran for president he was born in Edmonton, not being born in the US doesn't seem tio be a barrier for running.

Ted Cruz's mother was a citizen of the United States when he was born, making him a natural born citizen.

> I do not believe that Musk could run for president as he was not born in the US.

True. And nothing of value was lost...

Honestly, given the shitshow he pulled with DOGE, his sociopathic tendencies and the number of fanatic fans he commands, he'd transform the U.S. into a dystopian cyberpunk setting much faster than Trump is able to.

Trump is an idiot who surrounds himself with other idiots and a few intelligent sociopaths.

Musk is an intelligent sociopath who surrounds himself with other intelligent sociopaths and a few normal people. No idiots involved.

He'd achieve his targets much more efficiently - I just believe Musk reaching his targets would result in an even worse outcome for the general population than another 3.5 years of $Trump

Musk is an immigrant who has been naturalised.

There are some serious questions surrounding whether he is legally naturalised or not. It seems to boil down to having illegally worked while in the US on a student visa and not declaring that infringement.

Whatever the truth, last week Musk could have relied on Trump, and probably the Supreme Court, to protect his naturalised status. I doubt he can today.

I'm wondering if Trump now hates Musk so much he'll have him shipped off to El Salvador's death camp. Trump should force him to take his sink with him.

I believe you meant to say that there were enough toys in the White House pram for two children to throw out. Although that hasn't stopped them trying....

"The electric vehicle pioneer has been the worst performing large-cap stock in the world so far in 2025" ... " Tesla shares losing more than 20 percent of their value this year."

As entertaining as the epic fall-out is and will uncertainly continue to be, the recent stock price is a misnomer really. What's actually happened is the Tesla stock has come back to the pre-October '24 love-fest where it overinflated by nearly 100% due to the expectation its CEO would have some sort of omnipotent power due to having such Trump favour. Even with the corrective crash, it's still sitting 20% higher than the start of the bromance.

It's the weird thing about stocks and relative increases/decreases. If a stock went from £1 to £2 overnight, it would have grown 100%. If it fell back down from £2 to £1 the next day, it would be a 50% drop. Gives the impression the stock is up over two days, when in reality it's the same price. It's also the reason market cap is a terrible measure - it's not like the company had an extra £1 to spend for the day.

...it's not like the company had an extra £1 to spend for the day...

Unless they sell a shedload of shares at the higher rate.

Which is exactly what all the board members of Tesla have been doing while at the same time advising shareholders to stick with them because they will be selling a billion trillion humanoid robots next week - or some similar stupid lie the fanboys still lap up.

So, when's the pay-per-view Octagon fight in Las Vegas ?

I want them to set it up like Thunderdome- two men enter, one man leaves- but with one fewer men leaving.

(Which is quite plausible anyway, as the most likely outcome is that they try to slap each other a few times then both die of heart attacks from the exertion on their out-of-shape bodies...)

I want them to set it up like Thunderdome- two men enter, one man leaves- but with one fewer men leaving.

Maybe that's the true purpose of the "ballroom" Trump is building - The one no president or anyone else has been able to figure out how to build in 150 years - LOL.

I thought it would be the venue for where foreign leaders were forced to come to kiss Trump's backside but it could be dual-purpose.

Triple if someone can fill it with tigers and entice Trump through its entrance.

Jousting, in driverless Teslas* up Pennsylvania Avenue!

* Rocket attachments permitted

You might be onto something there as mercury is very slippery to both control and contain and is as toxic as hell. Just saying.

Both derive from the Roman god Mercury.

Oh good, Another trophy downvoter. I wonder who this one is.

It certainly wasn’t me, you’re on my shortlist for Favourite Commentard. Have a good one from me —->

Perhaps this is because certain figures are acting like they may have Mad Hatter Syndrome...?

They did better than expected, I'd guessed six weeks.

I had money on 2 months.

Bah! I want "a photo of Elon showing how high Tesla stock will get compared with DJT".

1 owner from new, delivery mileage

Contact: DJT 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC

Any outstanding loans against it?

Check with Deutsche Bank

We the non-MAGAs are making the same mistake as always, namely assuming there is any rational rhyme or reason behind all this, which can be used for meaningful analysis or extrapolation.

Keeps the pundits in bread and us non-pundits entertained, but forgets that within the next 30 minutes the opposite might be said and done by either of the allegédly "fighting" parties.

They'll do this phone call, it was all just a little misunderstanding, blown up out of any proportion by the LUNATIC LEFT RADICAL FAKE NEWS PRESS!!!

(And somehow Joe Biden is to blame. They'll find a way, trust me.)

And 48 hours from now it'll all be forgotten. Or eclipsed by the next Executive Order.

You read it here first.

While a lot of these things get blown over, the infighting is one of the few things that did have lasting effects in Trump's first term. It doesn't happen every time, but Trump does jettison people who are too troublesome or are seen publicly disagreeing with him. He can't throw Musk out like a press secretary, but there still could be some harm between them.

Trump and Musk are both attention-seekers. Trump in particular has spent his life bombastically cosplaying an idiot's parody of a "dealmaker" and despite his failings at that (*) it certainly got him attention as a "personality" and ultimately led him to the White House.

So I'm quite willing to believe that they'd both go along with a manufactured spat if if didn't make either of them actually look bad.

But they're both also highly egotistical, thin-skinned and- especially in Trump's case- vindictive and there's no way Trump is *ever* going to tolerate someone making him look bad, insulting his economic competence and telling him he wouldn't have won the election without Musk's help.

Musk accusing Trump of being named in the Epstein files certainly *isn't* the sort of thing one does if they don't seriously want to threaten someone, and similarly, Trump isn't likely to take being threatened well.

While I'm sure the ego-driven Trump would ultimately forgive Musk if he flattered his ego by capitulating, arselicking him and agreeing with everything he says in future, I can't imagine someone as equally egotistical as Musk being able to do that, let alone while a failed businessman much poorer than him drives his business into the ground.

(*) No richer than he would have been had he stuck daddy's inheritance in a tracker fund.

Well spotted.

Popcorn sales skyrocket

...the Trumpian leopard he helped elect wouldn't eat *his* face too.

The same person who thought that telling an individual as pathologically narcissistic, think-skinned and vindictive as Donald Trump- someone infamous for turning on loyal "friends" and colleagues in a heartbeat and throwing them to the wolves as soon as the flow of flattery is tempered with the slightest hint of criticism- was going to take being told that "Without me, Trump would have lost the election" at all well.

I heard a Trump supporter on the radio today saying that he thought Musk should leave the country. *That's* how quickly they turn on you when you upset their cult leader. He's fucked around and he'll find out very quickly that MAGA only ever loved him when he went along with everything.

Even when they were friends it must have rankled with Trump that Musk is *far* richer than him. And as someone suggested, since his ego will never accept that this is due to his own incompetence (*), he'll most likely find a way to rationalise this a Musk having "taken advantage" of the US and see him as the foreigner he was, and once again is.

And it musk rankle with Musk that while he clearly *is* richer and more successful than Trump- despite having had a leg-up from *his* daddy's money too- he's not the guy in charge and knows at the back of his mind that he's subject to the whims of this idiot.

But his anger and arrogance- and the increasing air of someone who sees himself as a rival (**)- are also most likely blinding him to the danger that, he *isn't* the guy in charge and that, for all his money, isn't as powerful- and has a lot more to lose- than the guy in the White House when the corrupt power he'd hoped to take advantage of is turned against him by a vindictive Trump.

Trump is, of course, notoriously capricious and ego-driven, and that has seen him embrace and become friendly with those who have insulted or disagreed with him in the past if they "repented". But how do you expect that to work with someone as equally egotistical as Musk, especially when Trump keeps doing things that lose him money and he's expected to keep his mouth shut and sacrifice himself for an ungrateful Trump?

I don't think so.

And I can certainly see us ending up in the position where Musk is the first white Afrikaner that Trump wants to evict and send back to his homeland.

Edit: This was before I remembered that, as someone else mentioned, Musk has also linked Trump to the Epstein case. True or not, this isn't the work of someone doing this as part of a a for-show manufactured spat (as Musk's Dad tried to suggest it was). It's very much someone playing with fire *and* deciding to pour petrol on top of that and thinking they can get away with it.

(*) Let's never forget that, while Trump *is* very rich, this is only because he inherited a *lot* of money from his father and that he's no better off than he would have been had he invested all that in a tracker fund and done nothing. In short, he's a failed businessman that used daddy's money to cosplay his entire life as an idiot's idea of a "dealmaker".

(**) Not, let's be honest, that he ever didn't, but in the short term it's easy to be "friendly" when you're both getting what you wanted. For a while.

"A senior White House official confirmed to The Register that Trump had no plans to speak to Musk today."

Considering that Musk basically called Trump a 'pedo guy' by accusing him of being in the Epstein evidence and that is why the US government won't release it, I don't see the bromance ever getting rekindled. As that's a pretty hard one for Musk to row back from. And no doubt those who take everything that Musk posts on Twitter as gospel will believe their is something to the accusation.

So its going to be a hard choice for all the hardcore MAGA and also Elon worshipers to pick a side in this one.

I understand puberty can be a difficult transition, especially for an entire nation, but constantly jerking off in public is NOT acceptable behaviour.

The 200 years is like the "terrible twos" for anyone that has had children