Sami

Any popular posts that involve a minority/enemy of right wingers doing something bad or sticking out get brigaded. A blatant example is PublicFreakout where threads are usually fairly normal unless it’s a black/arab/Indian person doing the antagonizing then pretty much all the top comments are dog or regular whistles. Similar “brigading” can happen even in a city subreddit similar to r/Canada even if they are regular users otherwise. If the post is good enough fodder the subreddit will suddenly resemble a klan meetup even if it’s usually otherwise “normal”.

ActualPublicFreakout is an alternative that doesn’t need brigading because it’s already similar to WorldNews.

Keep projecting your own insecurities

If they are decided by a fraction and you made the correct the political choice then you win. Hope this helps.

Either it makes political sense for her to adopt her current position or it doesn’t. You can’t get voters on both sides of an issue but you can mark where you stand on it and have people vote accordingly.

Not voting for a candidate who is tacitly supporting a genocide on that basis is not “doing bad things” no matter how much bad faith spin you try to add. The candidate has to earn the vote and that applies to non-voters too. Some people care about certain issues enough to abstain from voting on that basis and others vote strategically because its not a team sport. You just want validation for your own voting decision by implying those abstaining from voting are directly or indirectly responsible for your candidate’s opponent winning which they are not. If Harris wins or loses it will be based on her and her party’s policy and campaign decisions.

Since being primarily concerned about the genocide is that unpopular of a position then why are you so concerned? If Harris made the decision that those voters are not as important to her then that’s that. You can’t have it both ways no matter how many self-righteous posts you make online.