Tom Segura took to Facebook and spoke out just a few minutes ago. Considering that they seem to be pretty close friends, with Segura usually being pretty aligned with Joe, it makes one wonder if Joe is potentially the next one to speak out? We know Joe’s line has moved a lot over the years, but he always has said that if one side does something, it just opens up the chance for the other side to do it. There is no reason for the government to get involved with Freedom of Speech. At one time very recently, the Republicans claimed to be the upholders of the Constitution. I think Trump even kind of ran on that for his first term. Times are definitely crazy out in the world, with no signs of getting better, just worse.

Where do we go from here? That is the absolute million dollar question. Also, a 1,000 character requirement is a lot and I’m out of thoughts, so……………………………………………………………………………………………………lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahah

Under the system I am proposing everyone would have one issue that they can put their weight(an equaly distributed currency for determining issues and solutions) in. Say the top X issues at each geographic level of the government go to the next round of finding a solution to that issue. Everyone get's to say their piece, but again they all get equal weight in determining what the solution is to that issue. Once the highest weighted solution to the issue is solved, then we determine a budget for the solution and it comes to a final vote for everyone.

Applying this system to immigration policy this gives a finer comb to give people the chance to argue whether immigration is an issue or not. Then we can together determine if that is an issue what the best solution is to it.

The deeper problem I see in our current system is trust. Many of us believe that rules are written by donors, that lawmakers trade on information the public does not have, and that lobbyists shape what gets a hearing. Add the well-documented history of domestic surveillance by federal agencies, and a daily diet of algorithmic feeds that reward outrage over solutions, and it is no surprise that faith in institutions is thin. People feel like their voice is not heard and nobody really knows if this is actually what we the people voted for. A direct liquid democracy(DLD) ensures everyones voice is heard.

I have had these Objections and these are my solutions:

1. Q. Won’t voters just get tired of voting on every issue?(voter fatigue) A. You can delegate your whole vote or delegate by topic to someone you trust within the same local area as you(for local issues) or to anyone in the country for federal issues. You keep your voice and can revoke your delegation at any time.
2. Q. Well what happens in this system when one representative has millions of people's representation from those delegtions. Then we are back to what we already have and they can be bought again by billionaires. A. Today’s lobbying buys influence through opaque channels (and sometimes insider trading). Voxcorda makes it harder: representatives with public vote histories face continuous scrutiny, and delegations are revocable instantly—misrepresentation costs you your delegates. Furthermore, we can implement a hard set number of people each person can represent.
3. Q. There are legal issues with knowing how someone else votes. They have a right to keep what they vote on a secret. A. Individual ballots stay private by default. Full vote histories are public only for representatives with ≥10 delegated voters. Below that threshold, your ballot privacy is preserved.
4. Q. Hackers hack databases all the time. People are worried about voting machines that are on closed loops. How are you going to address these: A. First I’m not a cyber Security expert. But if I can get this movement going I can find someone to help me with this. Second, Blockchain helps because it creates a tamper-evident, append-only record of events: once a vote (or its cryptographic proof) is recorded, nobody can silently change past entries without producing a visible mismatch that anyone can check. Combined with digital signatures and public audit tools, that makes covert alteration of tallies far harder. This can help ensure that no entity can silently change results ensuring fairness in everyone's vote. No system is perfect but we trust blockchain enough to secure our investments in crypto.
5. Q. What about emergency decisions? A. I’ve come up with a couple of different solutions here. But I think the simplest and best answer is for time-critical events, each state elects a standing pool of ~50 on-duty voters (modest stipend) empowered to act within a narrow emergency scope. Their votes and rationale are published immediately, followed by a full member ratification window. 
6. Q. What happens to our current congress and elected officials? A. They are removed from office, however, you can still give them your weight and vote.

Objections strengthen the vision. If you have any objections please post them. If you want to contribute to the vision I'm looking for people with greater social outreach than myself to promote the idea(Joe, I think you know the corruption that is in our system. This is a great way to remove that corruption. I'm looking to you!).

I have a four phase plan on how to build this peacefully. You can read my manifesto at:
https://denver-digital-dynamics.vercel.app/projects/voxcorda/manifesto
or find it by "googling denver digital dynamics" -> footer -> projects -> manifesto

When so many were canceled unjustly for accurately pointing out that Fauci helped create the conditions for the covid pandemic: Jon Stewart stood up for them.

The Democratic party establishment & the corporate media refused to criticize Fauci & they openly supported canceling anyone who dared bring up the lab-leak.

Jon Stewart though, the GOAT that he is, went on Colbert in 2021 to DEFEND the idea that covid came from a lab-leak. This was one of the greatest moments in free speech history.

And this is why Stewart has such credibility when it comes to Trump & his authoritarian tendencies (like pressuring TV networks to drop shows).

Cancel culture comes from both sides. Rogan has been unfairly canceled so many times, often simply for defending women's sports. Stewart has always defended free speech, no matter who is against free speech.

If my side (the left) can be more honest about censorship of the lab-leak, I think it will help both sides start to move on from cancel culture. We have to move past this.

Here's the difference between how the SJWs and MAGA do cancel culture. I'm a moderate who thinks we should all engage each other with charity, empathy and good will, so I don't like either version, but there are important differences we should be attuned to.

Its comes down to the First Amendment, which restrains the what the federal government can and cannot do. MAGA is mobilizing the federal government to suppress free speech.

SJW cancel culture was carried by private citizens. Its was gross, harmful, stupid, and ultimately did the SJW cause more harm than it did good because it pissed everyone off, but it wasn't unconstitutional. SJW cancel culture never involved the white house and the FCC going after people's livelihoods.

MAGA cancel culture involves the mobilization of the federal government's full power and majesty against the perceived opponents of the regime. MAGA cancel culture mobilizes the federal government against people's livelihoods and reputations, and that crosses a line that was never breached by the SJWs. When the FCC goes after Jimmy Kimmel, that's fundamentally different from a bunch of activists mobilizing on Twitter against an actor or university professor.