263

US Democratic Senator Mark Kelly has said he will "seriously consider" running for president in 2028 as he battles the Trump administration over a video in which he urged military personnel to refuse illegal orders.

The Arizona senator, who was accused of "seditious behaviour" by Donald Trump over the November clip, said he and his wife, Gabrielle Giffords, received "many" death threats after the president's comments.

"We get them on a weekly basis now," he told BBC Newsnight. "We had to get security to protect us 24 hours a day."

Asked if he was considering a White House run, the retired Navy captain said he was considering it "because we're in some seriously challenging times".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago

Kamala lost because she abandoned her voters. She told her own base to pound sand while fruitlessly trying to appease Republicans. The voters didn't "not show up." She simply made herself not their candidate anymore. It's a fools' errand to blame voters, as they're not an individual you can actually hold accountable. Blaming voters for not voting for your terrible candidate is like blaming consumers for not buying shitty overpriced items at a store. You can whine, "well you have to buy something somewhere anyway!" But that's just unproductive whining.

[-] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 3 points 7 hours ago

I think the only unpopular stance she had was on Israel and even thats only a few percentage points, about the same as those concerned with the economy among those who voted for Biden but not Harris. SOURCE

Do you have any examples of policies that you think made Harris a worse choice than Trump?

[-] HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 7 hours ago

I think she did a poor job of saying what she brought to the table. I understand not wanting to throwJoe under the bus, but opening some daylight on policy would have given her a chance to deflect the affordability problems the last months of Biden had, for example.

[-] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 4 points 6 hours ago

She had a campaign website which is no longer up and it detailed every stance very clearly. One of my favorite parts was a proposed Unrealized Gains Tax on amounts over $1M which would cripple income for billionaires, removing the cap on social security so that the rich payed their share, and no tax inceases on anyone who made less than $400k.

There was a large orchestrated effort to keep the conversation off of those important topics, though. Including social media psyops, such as giving lower priority and exposure to DNC on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok.

The news surrounding her and her campaign advertising were generally pretty ass, though, yeah.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world -1 points 7 hours ago

First, you can cut that shit right out with your leading question of "was she worse than Trump." That isn't how a large portion of the electorate acts, thinks, and believes. Some vote on utilitarian ethics. Some vote on respect for persons. You can't just whine, stamp your feet, and pretend that utilitarianism is the only way to vote. You're trying to hand waive away an branch of moral philosophy that has centuries of scholarly work behind it. If you view voting as simply an either/or choice, sure, Kamala was the only choice. If you view voting as an endorsement of candidate, then it's perfectly valid to not vote for a candidate simply because you consider their actions to be morally abominable. The other guy being worse doesn't change that.

She abandoned Palestinian Americans. The strongest defense of trans people she could offer "she would follow the law." She cozied up with the Cheneys and offered no real policies that would move the needle on wealth inequality. And she couldn't even offer a robust plan on how to protect abortion rights. And she gaslit everyone on the economy, telling people to believe the inflation figures and not their own lying eyes.

And before you claim that utilitarianism is the only valid voting philosophy, realize that is not how our own government behaves. We've literally vaporized millions of innocent civilians over the decades. The justification has always been, "well, they supported the evil regime and their evil actions." Yet every dictator has come to power on the backs of people who thought they were the lesser evil. Hell, almost every Republican thinks Trump is a monster, but they vote for him because they consider him the lesser evil. I'm sure we incinerated thousands of Iraqis who voted for Saddam because he was the lesser evil on the ballot.

Vote how you want. If you view voting as a utilitarian exercise, so be it. But part of living in a democracy is recognizing that other people can have different belief systems and ways of life. Your way is not the only way. You believe that the ends always justify the means. Others recognize that as a road to Hell.

[-] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 3 points 7 hours ago

The Biden administration she was Vice President of had Trans cabinet member and judges appointed, the most LGBT+ administration in US history.

Biden protected the ranks and jobs of LGBT government employees and servicemembers attacked by the previous Trump admin including reinstatements. They also signed the respect for marriage act which gave protections for Gay Marriage.

No matter how you expect the electorate thinks, there were two options and the people of the US collectively made the wrong choice, blame falling on the few million who could have changed the outcome.

[-] BenderRodriguez@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Also, Palestine does not have the emotional pull in the real world that Lemmy thinks it does. A lot of people simply choose not to have awareness or care about the middle east.

[-] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Also, also, the Trump admin's change of policy to explicitly "death or exodus of every Palestinian" is far worse than what was going on in the Biden era.

If you measure them by number of bombs shipped or by number of food deliveries allowed into Gaza, Trumps is worse for Palestinians in every way.

I never believe that criticisms of the Harris campaign on the topic of Gaza come from a genuine or well informed place. It's insane to me that people would say they both cared about the innocent men, women, and children of Gaza but are somehow able to allow the "kill their families" guy back into office.

this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
263 points (98.5% liked)

politics

28312 readers
2136 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS