517

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
[-] dhork@lemmy.world -3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

The Presidency is a bridge too far, though.

Ask yourself: why did Joe Biden, of all people, win, where Clinton and Harris didnt? It certainly wasn't because he had fewer "crappy policies" than they did.

America, as a whole, is simply too misogynistic to elect a woman as President right now but, they are at least self-aware to know they can't say that out loud. So we get excuses, instead, like "I don't like her laugh" or "I just don't agree with her".

My favorite was a dude who said "I can't vote for Harris, she reminds me too much of my ex-wife". At least he's honest.

[-] Formfiller@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I do think this is a huge factor. My lived experience backs this up and the fact that so many women and mostly girl children were abused by powerful men and there’s literally no consequences backs this up. This country has a very serious mysoginy problem and we still can’t even talk about it without having our experiences dismissed and discounted. It’s undeniable that our system enabled the abuse of those women and children from top to bottom and were still not even allowed to talk about that reality. There’s a reason why most women you know have had an experience of sexual violence and no men that most people know have ever had any consequences for this and every time women try to discuss this online the conversation devolves into whataboutism with guys crying and mobbing on women about some guy they know who falsely accused or some issue they had during a divorce that proves all women are liars. Anyway I know I’ll probably get downvoted because honesty on this stuff always does and I’ll vote for a woman for sure but failing to acknowledge the mysoginist problem this country has is a mistake. At the end of the day the real issue is will a candidate who is actually popular with the people be allowed to make it through the corrupt DNC’s primaries?

[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Yeah, going to call bullshit again here.

Let's take a look at the 2016 election

Popular vote was 65 million Hillary to 62 million to Trump.

Let me repeat here, Hilary, the vaginal candidate, WON the popular vote.

She lost because she didn't listen to Sanders and other Democrats that told her don't do your quixotic Southern strategy and listen and talk to your disillusioned working class voters in the rust belt.

And because she's was a stubborn, neoliberal ass hat that thought she knew better, she lost the electorial college.

As for Harris, fuck, there's so many things she just did wrong along with Biden.

So again, with all due Internet respect, get out of here with your anti woman BS and America as a whole won't elect a woman. We just need a non-shitty neoliberal one.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

Both she (and Harris) lost because their votes were not in the right zip codes. Biden got those votes. Biden was not a magically better candidate than either woman. There's only one explanation that makes any sense at all.

Some voters may not even be aware of it. They might not even realize they are giving male candidates the benefit of the doubt, while assuming the worst about female candidates.

Did anyone ever say they couldn't vote for Bill Clinton or GWB because they didn't like the way they laughed?

[-] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Okay, so let's get some data behind your Ludacris' Area Codes Theory of Misogynistic Voting caused the loss of the 2016 and 2024 elections then.

You're anecdotal evidence of some guy who said they would never vote for Hilary or that one guy who went and said they didn't like her laugh, the only thing that proves is that America has people that are misogynistic, which of course is true, but isn't proof of your premise that women can't win elections. I can point out people that said they wouldn't vote for her because Harris was black but that doesn't provide enough of a basis that she lost due to racism. Anecdotal stories does not equal causation.

Here's some more supporting evidence that Americans are becoming more open to women in office.

https://www.genderontheballot.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025-GOTB-Deck-c4_release.pdf

Some highlights because I'm sure you won't read:

  • four in 10 Americans personally know someone who would not elect a woman to the White House
  • 83 percent of people polled think it's important to elect more women into office.
  • 82 percent are open to a qualified woman candidate for president.

So again data allows that women still have a hurdles but supports that a woman can win the presidency and I'll continue to vote for a qualified progressive women in the primaries to counter your misogynistic vote.

[-] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago

Ask yourself: why did Joe Biden, of all people, win, where Clinton and Harris didnt?

Because he was an already known name that evoked memories of better times. He was Obama's VP and people liked him in that position, that's why he won, it's very simple. Clinton wasn't VP, wasn't well liked, and was known to be an unreliable prospect. Harris was not known to the majority of people. Both Clinton and Harris had contentious campaign statements that worried and alienated a significant percentage of their potential voters. Harris, in addition, also was never voted for in a primary, she was simply assigned as Biden's heir and we were supposed to just run with that and be okay with it. She really never had a chance no matter who she was. Clinton was consistently cringey and reeks of moneyed interests, she was never an attractive option to democratic voters, and would never stand a snowball's chance in hell of converting any Republican voters like she seemingly wanted to because her husband was one of the favorite Republican whipping boys of all time. They all hate the Clintons, for poorly defined reasons.

this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
517 points (98.3% liked)

politics

28349 readers
2315 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