205

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".

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 1 points 47 minutes ago* (last edited 46 minutes ago)

I'd vote for him. Back when Biden was dropping out, I posted the question of peoples preferred democratic candidate, and Kelly was suggested by several people.

I think he could have won the '24 election had he been the candidate, and I think he could win the next election also.

The fact that (as he said in the video) he "Doesn't consider himself a politician" is a huge plus.

It's a bit sad that he's starting to get old though. 60 seemed perfectly okay, 65 is a bit on the high end.

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 32 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

And I will seriously consider voting for just about anyone else left of him in the primary. No offense to him, he seems like a very solid dude, but the time for half-measures, centrists, and people that believe institutions will save us is well beyond over.

[-] SuiXi3D@fedia.io 5 points 1 hour ago

You nailed it on the head. If AOC runs, I’m absolutely voting for her. If not, Kelly seems a lot better than Newsom.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 41 minutes ago

Yeah Kelley seems to be a centrist with a soul. I don't want another fucking centrist but I really must insist on a candidate with a soul

[-] Wataba@sh.itjust.works 1 points 35 minutes ago

As opposed to the literal Nazi puppets that were pushed into power?

[-] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 13 points 5 hours ago

He would be 65 in 2029 when he actually took office. Can we get someone who is about 20 years younger?

[-] theherk@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

Agreed but he’d still be a spring chicken in modern terms. I’d rather see max age 50 than min age 35.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 51 points 6 hours ago

Either the next president will be a Democratic Socialist, or it will be a fascist. Democrats need to get back 20% of their base, plus the margin they need to pick up in the places they need to make up the differences they'll need to win the big house.

Ask yourself this without looking at this announcement: Can a corporate Democrat do that?

I'm telling you now, either the next president will be a Democratic Socialist, or the Republicans win. No amount of glazing liberals is going to make them capable of winning an election.

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 1 points 6 hours ago
[-] Kn1ghtDigital@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 minutes ago

Let Bernie rest :'(

[-] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 18 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

I love Bernie, but that ship has sailed. AOC is our next best hope, but we have to back DSA candidates at every level in every race. Even if we succeed, there is a real chance we don’t avoid violence. The Republic of Gilead is already here and the Republican pedo nazis don’t intend to ever allow or accept another fair, democratic election again. They are nothing if not open about that fact.

[-] yonderbarn@lazysoci.al 0 points 2 hours ago

That Munich conference has me in doubts about AOC

[-] khannie@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

What happened there?

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 37 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

People dragging out Bernie in 2028

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 42 points 6 hours ago

As a Canadian, can you please stop picking ridiculously old people?

Find someone in the 45-65 year age range, you're going to get a better outcome that way.

Our oldest Prime Minister in the last 50 years started when he was 65, most of them have been under 50.

[-] I_Jedi@lemmy.today 8 points 5 hours ago

No can do. It will be a day of national pride when we elect someone with a triple digit age.

[-] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 8 points 6 hours ago
[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 11 points 6 hours ago

What a shame.

He’d only be eighty six years old.

[-] EpicMuch@sh.itjust.works 74 points 7 hours ago

I’d vote vote for anyone (Mark Kelly) over anyone who protects pedophiles. Plain. Simple. Straightforward.

[-] SailorFuzz@lemmy.world 43 points 6 hours ago

Honestly, I'm just happy if theres an alternative to Newsome. Kelly isnt a progressive, but hes not a full blown corpo shill that the DNC would happily shove down our throats if unopposed.

[-] daannii@lemmy.world 11 points 5 hours ago

Maybe he could be AOCs VP, maybe.

Id have to look into his voting history first and his donors.

[-] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 27 points 7 hours ago

He might have to clarify a lot of his stances to get widespread support. For examples,

he opposed the Republicans tax bill giving cuts to the rich, but he has no comments on Kamala's proposed unrealized gains tax for the rich

he has a 100% scorecard from reproductive freedom advocates, but exactly how far he supports bodily autonomy and by extension trans rights is unknown

Sadly one thing he has been clear and consistent on is when the war in gaza began several years ago, he supported aiding Israel and moving a carrier group to threaten Iran and Houthis into deescelating. He still as recent as January promises to continue "aiding" Israel despite acknowledging the carnage.

Honestly, I don't like the idea. But he's a little better than Newsom and he's 10,000x better than Trump.

[-] thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world 12 points 6 hours ago

So basically, just another dem. I'll vote for whoever wins the primary, but he probably wouldn't be my first choice.

[-] BenderRodriguez@lemmy.world 13 points 7 hours ago

Yeah, he's not perfect, let's just elect Trump for the third time.

[-] NoSpotOfGround@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)
[-] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Primaries are picking. If you think your opinion matters more than tens of millions of people it's a you problem.

Bender is poking fun at how we threw the 2024 election when millions of people who voted for Biden in 2020 did not show up for Harris, which is relevant because of how I nitpicked Kelly's stances.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 6 points 6 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 5 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 5 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 3 points 4 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 5 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 2 points 4 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 55 minutes 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 1 points 32 minutes ago* (last edited 31 minutes 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.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago

Being willing to throw an election is one of the only tools voters actually have to fight fascism. It's the only way to prevent a bait-and-switch candidate. If you're not willing to potentially lose an election when your candidate betrays you, future candidates will betray you every time. You've told them that you're perfectly fine with being betrayed. You've proven yourself a spineless cuck that will let people walk all over you.

Actions have consequences. Voting has consequences. And Trump isn't the worst possible leader out there. He's a monster, but there are many gradations of monster. There are far worse monsters out there waiting to be elected. If you're not ever willing to walk away from a traitor candidate in the general election, you guarantee that the Democrats will just keep sliding to the right forever. Nominating a corporate Dem in 2028 will almost certainly see another Republican win. But even on the thin chance they do win, electing a corporate Dem in 2028 guarantees someone even worse than Trump winning in 2032.

We've degenerated so far precisely because Democrats don't take responsibility for their votes and will just blindly vote for whatever corporate tool is placed in front of them. It's the political version of the "next quarter" thinking that plagues corporate America. All that matters is the election today. Don't think about the long term consequences. Focus only on today, even if it hurts you in the long term. Trump is the result of decades of Dems kicking the can down the road, holding their nose, and voting for the lesser evil.

Notice, we're only starting to see some progressives gain traction in the party after Democrats have suffered badly at the polls. There has been real change at the DNC. That and candidates like Mamdani would have been completely impossible if Trump hadn't been elected. It's only when the old guard loses horribly and has to run away in shame that the opportunity arises for new voices to take the reins of the party.

[-] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 5 points 58 minutes ago

There are people who have been murdered. China might take over Taiwan. Ukraine has lost many more people than it would've, given more support. The Gazan people might wind up displaced in favor of Trump resorts.

None of them volunteered to be martyrs for social democracy. Tell them how much worse we could have it. People who are so quick to sacrifice others instead of doing the work to build a better world get no claim to moral righteousness. If people want social democrats, that's what the primary process is for. You don't need to punish them for choosing wrongly. As a parent of five I can tell you punishment doesn't motivate anyone to do the right thing — it motivates them to remove your ability to punish them.

The more I reread your words, the more I reject your vainglorious recklessness. You must do what you can with the means you are given for the situation you are in.

[-] BenderRodriguez@lemmy.world 2 points 48 minutes ago* (last edited 47 minutes ago)

"Letting Trump win fights fascism."

You think the voters are that smart?

[-] DontRedditMyLemmy@lemmy.world 22 points 7 hours ago

I will vote for anyone that promises to hurt Republicans

[-] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

Is there an American equivalent to Lord Buckethead?

Sheriff 10 Gallon Hat perhaps?

[-] TwistedTree@piefed.social 3 points 5 hours ago

Vermin Supreme! Why not elect a real loon!

[-] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

Don’t push it Mark

this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
205 points (98.6% liked)

politics

28312 readers
2252 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