>>>>And while Stalin relied on system of citizens spying citizens, and keeping government's hand tightly gripping the media, here it's completely different.
>>>
>>>You are actually comparing Stalin's regime to here?
>>
>>I said it's different. Isn't it?
>
>My fault. I'm kinda used to you being sarcastic and that's what I thought here.

I'm not saying there's no attempt to control the public opinion or to spy on citizens etc here. "Compare" doesn't mean "make them equal", it just means "look at both and count the common traits and differences" (*). And after just a superficial comparison I've found a sufficient number of differences. A brief list of points:

- personality cult: you don't see GWB's picture in every classroom, poets composing odes to him that get published all over the place, and his term isn't life

- suppression of minorities: while there is some, the last mass forced movement of a non-mainstream nations happened more than a century ago.

- fake trials: none of the kind here; the defense is independent. There's the Guantanamo legal loophole, though. OTOH, the judiciary branch is also too independent, making any such trial practically impossible.

- purges: on the contrary, the dissent within The Party is still alive and kicking. The dissenters may have trouble climbing through the hierarchy, but they don't get kicked out, arrested overnight nor sent to Alaska. Prominent members of The Other Party may have an accident, but not as a rule. Vaporizing of John Q Citizen is not a regular activity, more an exception.

- control of media: while the independent media may not reach far, they exist. Existence of internet makes this very different from 1930s.

- satellite countries: there's a vast difference in the purpose. While USSR's worst nightmare was to get surrounded again like in 1919, USA's one is to get surprised with another Pearl Harbour. So USSR's goal was to surround itself with a buffer zone, while USA's is to be all over the globe and know everything that's going on. Hence the placement of US armed forces in faraway places, controlling this or that, and not attempting to create a geographically contiguous bloc.

- bloc politics: in cases like NATO, IMF etc, US does try to show other members who's the boss, but not to the extent of setting up puppet regimes; it respects the results of their elections. At least this is so in the cases of other developed countries. Places like Ukraine or South America are a different matter.

- spying on citizens: not relying on citizens tipping each other that much, massive eavesdropping wins the day. Also, the strong democratic feelings among the employees make strict discipline of the operation impossible, so there are leaks. Fooling all the people all the time is unfeasible in the US.

- secret police: too diverse and diversified, not centralized, and not completely under control of the ruler. The ongoing effort to give it more jurisdiction and dismantle legal limitations is still an uphill battle.

- regular supply of enemies: remains on mostly propagandistic level. Does not produce mass arrests, executions or deportations to Alaska. The propensity for dividing the citizens into patriots and traitors is not prominent, and being branded as unpatriotic doesn't end one's career. The family and friends of a branded person don't suffer consequences. Most of it is actually just rhetoric.

----
(*) this sensitivity to certain words or phrases is actually oh so soc-realism. Some words were sacred - "progressive pneumonia" was an impossible thing to say, how can a disease be adorned with the venerable attribute of progressiveness? Likewise, you (and others here) tend to be sensitive to the word "compare" as if it meant more than an invitation to analysis.