This is a bit of the classic "both sides being the same" argument. The first article you linked even calls it out.
In the Fox case, Carlson was presenting his own narrative, not even one extrapolating from known facts.
Maddow was like "hey this journalist is working for Putin and writing for OAN. OAN is Russian propaganda." When in reality, the journalist in question wrote for Sputnik News, which is affiliated with the Russian government. Granted it is a bit of a stretch to say all of OAN is Russian propaganda.
Carlson, on the other hand, just completely made up a story about Karen McDougal blackmailing Trump. A completely made up story.
So yeah, I wouldn't go saying both sides are the same here.
I think the thing that's catching you up the most is that you're assuming Elon has the slightest clue what he's talking about about. In your mind, you've read the words "the social security database" from his post and have made assumptions about what that means.
I've worked with databases for 20+ years, several of those being years working on federal government systems. Each agency has dozens or possibly hundreds of databases all used for different purposes. Saying "the social security database" is so fucking general that it's basically nonsensical. It'd be like saying "Ford's car database".
Elon clearly heard someone technical talking about something, then misinterpreted it for his own purposes to justify what he is doing by destroying our government institutions. His follow up of saying the government doesn't use SQL just reinforces that point.
Trying to logically backtrack into what he actually meant - and what the primary keys should be - is just sane washing an insane statement.
JFC is their moto seriously "The people voted for major reform"? First, they barely won and are acting like there was some monumental landslide victory.
Second, none of what they're doing is actually what they campaigned on. Trump actually tried to distance himself as much as possible from Project 2025 during the campaign.
Hegseth said Trump was “the best negotiator on the planet”.
If that's the case, why are they starting from the position that they'll yield Ukraine's territory and will not allow them in NATO? That's kindergarten levels of negotiating here.
You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*****, n*****, n*****.” By 1968 you can’t say “n*****”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*****, n*****.”
campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves, in 1981
At least he had the good sense to hit the ENTER key before he passed.