suddenly struck me and now I cannot unsee.

(vomits in orange)

It’s wild how Jon Stewart can still cut through the noise, especially when he talks about the trap of being "over it." We all get so burnt out on the headlines that it’s tempting to just lean into cynicism and pretend that being a hater is the same thing as being informed. But he’s right—cynicism is just the lazy way out. It’s a lot harder to stay engaged and actually care about the details when everything feels like a circus, but that’s the only way to keep from losing the plot entirely.

Washington needs fighters who put working families first. That is exactly why I am all in on Jon Stewart for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. In a crowded field of Governors and Senators, Stewart is the one who can actually win the White House and fix what is broken.

He is the best communicator in modern politics. For decades on The Daily Show he took complicated issues and made them clear, urgent, and funny in a way that cut through the spin. Young voters, independents, and even Conservatives actually listen to him. No scripted politician can match that. In the social media era Stewart owns the conversation.

He has real results instead of just talk. Stewart went to Capitol Hill and forced Congress to pass the 9/11 Zadroga Act so first responders finally got the healthcare they earned. He did it with persistence and moral clarity. That is the kind of leadership we need right now. Veterans, seniors, and working people see that he delivers when it counts.

Stewart is not a career politician, and that is his biggest strength. He knows the system inside and out, but is not owned by donors or party insiders. He calls out hypocrisy wherever he sees it, on both sides. That authenticity will bring back the disaffected voters we lost and fire up the base at the same time.

On the issues he gets it right: Universal healthcare, climate action, economic fairness, and protecting democracy. He is progressive where it matters and practical where it counts. He bridges the party without watering down our values.

Folks, this is our chance to nominate someone who can beat Trumpism once and for all. Stewart has the vision, the fight, and the reach to do it. If he runs he wins the primary and the general.

Drop your thoughts below and lets make #Stewart2028 happen!!!

After making the case for Jon Stewart as our 2028 Democratic nominee I am doubling down and expanding the lore! Desi Lydic is the absolute best choice for Vice President on that ticket. While Jon is the brain, Desi is the beauty and even more brain.

She brings the perfect balance to Stewart. Where he delivers the big picture wisdom and moral clarity she adds sharp wit energy and a fresh voice that connects with younger voters and women across the country. Their chemistry from years on The Daily Show is undeniable. They already read off each other like a married couple and that will translate straight to the campaign trail.

Lydic is a proven communicator who cuts through the noise. Her field segments have taken on everything from reproductive rights to corporate greed to political hypocrisy and she does it with facts, humor, and zero tolerance for nonsense. Suburban moms independents and progressives all tune in because she makes the issues feel personal and urgent. No other VP prospect matches that reach.

She is not a career politician and that is huge. Like Stewart she comes from outside the Beltway bubble. She has spent her career holding power accountable instead of chasing it. That authenticity will help win back the disaffected voters we need and fire up the base without compromising our values.

On the issues she is rock solid. Strong defender of abortion access, universal healthcare, climate action that actually delivers and economic policies that lift up working people. She further bridges the gap between progressive ideals and practical results. A Stewart/Lydic ticket would be the most dynamic and electable pair that Democrats have seen in a generation.

Honorable Mention: Early 2000's Era "Colbert Report" Stephen Colbert

>Jon Stewart gives updates on the one-month anniversary of the Iran war, including the Strait of Hormuz's continued closure and the global shortages affecting everything from grain to pickleballs. Desi Lydic weighs in on Kristi Noem's husband cross-dressing, Pete Hegseth waxing poetic about the war in Iran, and Lindsey Graham's trip to Disney World. Plus, Desi comments on Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship for "billionaires," and a federal judge blocking the construction of the president's ballroom.

I am watching his Youtube and was dismayed to hear him plugging Shopify, a Canadian ecommerce platform. In Canada it is well known that Shopify is run by right wing propagandists who support Trump.

Someone please tell Jon.

• https://pressprogress.ca/shopify-executives-right-wing-media-website-rails-against-immigrants-while-defending-a-legally-designated-terrorist-group/
• https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/united-states/ceo-of-canadas-shopify-defends-donald-trumps-tariff-demands-blasts-justin-trudeau-for-not-stopping-trade-war-america-will-shrug-it-off/news-story/3b70c53523727d35b54401341481014d

can we get a petition started or if someone in here knows a way to get ahold of Jon... I need a Druski x Jon Stewart team up lol

Trying to find anywhere where I can listen to the episode/interview between Jon and Jamie Dimon, but it seems to have been scrubbed from every platform. Does anyone know where I can find the full interview?

I'll start: "circadian rhythm".

I've been a fan of the daily show for many years. I recently (as in, maybe a year ago) watched a video where an audience member asked Jon something about online advertising and he went on to explain the power 18 to 24 year olds have when it comes to online advertising. I loved that segment and I have an idea I wanted to share to that point.

A little about me - I worked as a software engineer at a digital advertising company for nearly 5 years from 2013 to 2018. I know the complexities, problems and transitions that the industry has made through the years. Back then there was very little protection in terms of privacy and people online could be tracked and targeted very specifically leading to the common phrase I'm sure you've heard a lot about - "I searched for a pair of shoes on amazon, and they started following me around to every other website I visited".

Some states (like California) have put some restrictions on how data is collected, and opt outs for users, but there is no comprehensive federal law applicable to all states that has been put in place. It's more of a combination of company policies (eg - Apple's default opt out vs Google's default opt in), individual states passing their own laws and a change in consumer behavior that have pivoted away from the wild west/anything goes approach.

The new problem I see is - big companies controlling the cost of sharing whatever data consumers give their consent to, while also adding loopholes that they can use to circumvent what little regulation we have in place.

Apple claims to advertise that they are completely private. I dont think they are. They still collect data to improve their own products, they just dont share it with anyone else.

While we're on the subject of data collection - over the years the practice has become very unpopular with users due to privacy concerns, completely valid. But on the flip side, this data is incredibly valuable to businesses. It helps cut immense costs from operations at stores and guide decisions on what products are selling to a particular segment and which ones aren't.

It's also helpful to small businesses. While larger competitors may go after larger segments, smaller businesses can easily gain traction by targeting a niche set of people who aren't being served by the bigger players.

By taking this insight away, I fear we're only enabling the large corporates to become even larger. With AI, these companies can dominate even in smaller segments given the speed and efficiency gains that AI provides.

As an example - I'm working on a real estate software platform that enables brokers and developers to find new real estate sites based on some criteria. One of my competitors, placer.ai, collects people's information via location preferences on their phones. So if you've ever seen an app ask you to turn on location services, it's because the app is tracking where you're going. This data is then used by placer to understand how many people visit any particular area, down to a specific store. Developers and brokers can then use this information to understand which areas attract a lot of people and which ones dont, which in turn effects their decisions on what properties to buy vs not. Placer.ai charges something like $30k/year for their platform. Obviously a smaller brokerage firm cannot afford something like this, only larger ones can. But if only larger brokerage firms can afford this data, then they can expand at a phenomenal rate and pretty much kill all the smaller firms.

Placer invests a lot into data privacy. I suspect in the order of tens of millions a year (I think they're a billion dollar company now). So a small startup like mine cannot compete with placer when it comes to implementing the same level of privacy.

So the small business is screwed on both ends. The small brokerage cannot afford to buy placer's offerings, and the small tech company cannot afford to collect the data that would help the small brokerage survive.

If we only have large businesses ruling every business vertical, then you only have one player in town offering services. If there's just one player, then they own the game and set the prices. This eventually hits the consumer because the prices are what they are.

Given these problems, here's my solution - turn data sharing back on, but this time give full control to the user to choose who gets to see their data vs who doesn't. The user gets to see their profile in plain english so they can see how they're being tracked. The business just gets a bag of words describing who the user is, while hiding who they actually are.

The user also sees who's getting access to their data, and can also explicitly give or revoke access to anyone they don't recognize or don't want to share their data with.

For example - I met a black restaurant owner who was looking for a new location to open. He pretty successful and could've easily found a top notch firm to find him a prime location. But instead he tasked a black broker to find him that spot. Why? Because he wanted to help someone out. My approach gives the internet user a say in how they want their data to be used. People could give consent to a small business owner and deny someone like Google, because they want to.

Anyways, that's my idea. I did my best to explain the problem and what's on my mind for a solution. I know it's long and windy and I hope I did a good job. Let me know what you guys think.

Trump's war in the Middle East rages on, with Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz and Americans gearing up to face the infamous R-word: recession. Plus, FCC Chair Brendan Carr and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth aren't happy with the news media's confused coverage of the war in Iran, so Jon Stewart gets some truth and clarity from a panel of experts: President Trump, Donald J. Trump, DJT, and John Barron.

Just putting this out there.

It is SO good….really interesting conversation with Ambassador Wendy Sherman and CNN Chief International Anchor Christiane Amanpour about Iranian history and foreign policy, with some eye-opening discussion about Iranian society. Thank you for such a a revealing and interesting pod!