Iconic WWII photo canceled, then uncanceled

Maybe this isn't all about 'left versus right'. There are very right-wing (i.e. conservative) people who aren't actually in favour of a fascist takeover of the polity. I guess that this is where Mr Pence is coming from. This is the time when you should be realising that your model of politics is simplistic. You need to add (at least) one more axis. Mr Pence is undoubtedly extremely conservative and religious (BTW, I'm an atheist, but I'm not opposed per se to religious people, I form my opinions on what their religion leads them to believe, discounting big beardy blokes in the sky), and almost every political idea that he supports is opposed to what I think is right, but he's not in favour, it would appear, of supplanting the democratic system with an authoritarian one. That's not to say that he's been exactly explicit about why he won't support Trump, it's just my own extrapolation from that. At present, the desire to hold onto democracy is sufficient reason to vote against Trump (which Mr Pence has not said he will do, again that's an assumption).
As for democracy, I'd go with Churchill (another right wing politician with whom I don't agree on much, but was still one of the greatest British leaders), when he said

The big point about democracy is that it gives the opportunity to eject tyrants in a usually non-violent manner.

Not really, because as JACS pointed out, there are vocalisation mechanisms that will provide you with access to written texts. Plus, there is nothing about the medium of text that stops misinformation and propaganda using it. The Nazis were very proficient in using the printed word to spread their ideas. The real skill you need is in evaluating competing information sources.

So, half the time you're being serious, half the time it's 'mockery'. Of course, we're all too stupid to distinguish them. If you get called out for some nonsense, it'll turn out to be 'mockery' or 'sarcasm'. I've got it now.

Takeover and running the country are two different things. His last attempt at a coup was completely incompetent. He can't do any better, but there are people around him who will have learned.
And then, it depends on who is in the cabinet. Trump operates like a mob boss, surrounded by lackeys eager to find favour. If you've studied how the Third Reich worked it was similar. Hitler didn't do so much, because he was very lazy and not so clever. There was a cabal of very clever people around, and then a whole layer of people just trying to please the leader. Many of the worst depredations of Naziism happened with these people competing to find more and more extreme ways of pleasing the Fuehrer. If you've ever watched 'Death of Stalin' (which I realise is not a documentary, but is well researched), Stalin's politbureau was much the same. Last time round he couldn't choose lackeys, because he didn't control the republican party. Look how he went through cabinet members as one right-winger after another was found to have too much conscience to do his bidding. It's all documents. Now he has complete control of the GOP and the cabinet will be entirely lackeys, and the cabal of real fascists who've been trying to manipulate him from the get-go.

Now I know something about how Stalin operated, and I haven't seen anything remotely similar happening in the USA. Maybe you could give some examples. I realise how wearisome you find it, having to back up your rhetoric with some actual demonstrable facts, but there are some of us inconveniently not inclined to accept something as the truth just because you say it is so.

Yes, well Reagan was wrong. About many things.

I said fascists and I meant fascists. I'm not sure that 'wealth and power' is behind Trump these days, because the chaos and collapse that will inevitably come with him is not in their interests. The mutual enmity between MAGA and the Kochs is not coincidental.

We're talking about communication media here, not the messages that those media might carry.

Obviously you're wrong. I said evaluating competing information sources and I meant it.

You clearly don't ever read the Guardian.

Your sarcasmeter has failed again. You should have bought a proper one, not a $5 gizmo form AliExpress.

But I'm not seeing fascists behind every corner. I'm using it in a very specific and academic way, and applying it quite selectively. The problem that you have is that the selectivity captures your guy.

OK, let's go through them one at a time.

It's an interesting question. Should politicians who commit crimes be immune from prosecution simply for reasons that they are politicians? If the answer is 'no', then suspected crimes committed by politicians should be handled the same way as for any other citizen in a Liberal democracy. Do you not agree?

Of course 'freedom of speech' is not absolute in any liberal democracy. Use speech to hire a hit-man to kill someone and you might expect to be prosecuted (if caught). The same if you use speech to defraud people. I suffer from scammers claiming to come from Microsoft trying to convince me to give the access to my online bank account. Do you think their activities should be classified as 'free speech'? (Of course, I might just be being paranoid and down the rabbit-hole and these guys really are from Microsoft and they really have found a problem with my Mac). Another question where we need to explore precisely what we are talking about before coming to conclusions as to whether what's happening in the US presently qualifies as 'Stalinism'.

Come on, every single nation state in the world ever has always done that. Don't be silly. That's just politics.

Please be precise. Who are these 'black/brown shirts'?

Of course it's not just Stalin. It's a shame that Donald Trump is being treated just like Alexei Navalny, isn't it? Oh, wait...