He also did NOT stop family separations. That’s bogus propaganda. He’s continued and worsened them.

And his beef with Texas is not that Texas wants to hurt immigrants and Genocide Joe wants to protect them; it’s literally a competition between Texas and the feds on who gets to have supreme authority in their sadistic immigrant abuse. I sometimes joke that they’ll probably settle their differences by having an immigrant murdering competition and go home at the end of the day to back claps and a round of drinks, no matter the outcome.

Certain brands of liberal bend over fucking backwards to distort reality in order to defend their favorite fascist. Gross. Don’t step in that.

One of the two fascists is in the process of conducting the most acute genocide since the Holocaust. Not a hypothetical, predicted genocide, but a real one, unfolding in front of our very eyes in real time. There’s not a chance in hell I’m not voting against him. If donkey fans really want to try to make me choose between the candidates on the two mainstream liberal mono-party ballot lines, they’re not going to like the one I wind up voting for. I guess they should be happy I’ve got socialist candidates I can put my check mark next to instead.

Anyway, that’s if I’m not in jail or stripped of my voting rights on election day in retaliation for direct action that opposes that genocide. Back into the streets!

Poor people can’t afford to lend money when they’re struggling just to eat and make rent. It’s not a viable way for them to “keep up” with inflation.

But in a sense you’re right: inflation (by itself) isn’t the problem. The problem is that wages don’t keep up with it. Because the labor movement has been failing not only to make gains, but to prevent failures (e.g. keep our effective wages from going down). Most forms of capitalist passive income keep up with inflation by design, which is no accident.

Generally you should do what:

1. Maximizes your personal well-being (though note I’m not saying “wealth”, because they two are not always the same), and
2. Satisfies your personal and ideological principles as well as possible, at least to the point where you can live with yourself.

Just because we have systemic critiques doesn’t mean we should go live in a cave and eat bugs. To the degree possible we should prefigure the society we want to build, but torturing ourselves individually to do it is both unproductive and likely takes away from our focus on more important things like organizing and taking direct action that impacts the system. We do tend to make personal sacrifices to further our ideological goals, but there’s both a practical limit and one where we shouldn’t be cruel to each other in our expectations.

Many of us are vegans. Most of us probably avoid buying shares in oil companies. But all of our circumstances are different. Perhaps people salting Chevron to radicalize union organizing there will wind up with its stocks in their retirement accounts that are difficult to divest from without harming their ability to retire, due to their particular circumstances. It seems pretty shitty to expect someone to just get rid of them without us having some kind of dependable (e.g. mutual aid) infrastructure in place to take care of each other in our old age.

TL;Dr: Yet you participate in society. Curious!

You should maybe read the article. And watch the linked video.

But I don’t really care. Liberals who support genocide are a dime a dozen and never really worth conversing with. Blocked.

Thusly, any violent revolution stands a STRONG chance of being shunned by those who do not want a government with sanctioned violence.

I disagree with this part. Violent revolution—violent opposition to our oppression—is absolutely necessary. However, turning it on ourselves—that is, in any direction other than that which opposes authority—is a recipe for disaster as you say.

It’s not violence itself that is the problem. There are literally always forms of violence sanctioned by every single political philosophy (including absolute pacifism/non-violence, which sanctions violence performed by the state even if its subscribers often don’t realize this). The question is how and when that violence is performed and by whom, and the anarchist/non-authoritarian answer is that it must only be in the struggle for liberation, not the fight to gain and maintain power over others.