Will the democrats change and represent their membership?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Will the democrats change and represent their membership?

Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed.
Yes	33	6.38%
No	343	66.34%
Keith Ellison	54	10.44%
Pete Buttigieg	71	13.73%
Jehmu Green	16	3.09%
Total:	416 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

JeffersonClay posted:

OK, then this statement you just made...

must be wrong if republicans stopped giving a poo poo about communism in the 90's. You also need to explain why Republicans were lying in all the political polls from 1990 to 2016 where they reported hating Russia and loving free trade. There was a massive change during and after Trump's candidacy, not before.

Also, it ignores the neocons that ran the last loving Republican administration's foreign policy whose ideology was formed around hating Russia. Like are we gonna pretend that Bush wasn't the poster boy for the conservative movement now?

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 00:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 00:38

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

icantfindaname posted:

Yes, the man who stared into Putin's soul and saw that it was good, was a Russia hater through and through

The neocons stopped caring about Russia when Communism went away, and were actually pretty eager to get the new, white-nationalist Russia into their orbit through at least the end of Dubya's term

Having good personal relations = everything's hunky dory geopolitically

That's not totally idiotic, friend

Nothing to see here.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 00:57

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

icantfindaname posted:

I'm saying that the hostility to Russia was a tenuously held conviction and a holdover from decades prior, and that the seeds of a friendly attitude towards Russia based on their shared far-right ideology and whiteness, were deeply rooted and existed for a long time. Which means Trump actually was pretty smart and tuned in to the Republican base. Which is why he won.

Same with the Bushes and the war in Iraq, people backed them out of pure team loyalty, once it became OK to change your mind on them many right-wing voters did

so you're gonna ignore the orange and rose revolution, the missile defenses in poland, bush backing out of the abmt etc etc

so what's it like denying reality

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 01:06

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Condiv posted:

bush isn't russia

If you click here:

icantfindaname posted:

The GOP base was never meaningfully pro-free-trade or anti-Russia after they dropped the Communism and replaced it with alt-right white nationalism

Trump won by giving the GOP base what they wanted, which the Gingrich/Ryan generation did not do

You're a dumbass

then scroll down and read every post, that might help you understand the context of what's being discussed, hth

e: autocorrect

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 01:27

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

VitalSigns posted:

See I don't think of it as being against integration, I just see it as being very very positive about black schools!

wat

quote:

Playing down her flat Chicago accent, she told the school�s guidance counselor that her husband had just taken a job in Dothan, that they were a churchgoing family and that they were looking for a school for their son.

The future Mrs. Clinton, then a 24-year-old law student, was working for Marian Wright Edelman, the civil rights activist and prominent advocate for children. Mrs. Edelman had sent her to Alabama to help prove that the Nixon administration was not enforcing the legal ban on granting tax-exempt status to so-called segregation academies, the estimated 200 private academies that sprang up in the South to cater to white families after a 1969 Supreme Court decision forced public schools to integrate.

Her mission was simple: Establish whether the Dothan school was discriminating based on race.

bad analogy buckaroo

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 05:36

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Frijolero posted:

I don't post often, so I doubt it.

Holy lol, you were way worse.

Frijolero posted:

This is an impossible question, but what is the current status of Feminism and the Feminist movement?

I don't subscribe to a linear history of progress, but what is the next "step" for equal rights and treatment for women? Is it policy thru a new ERA and labor laws (maternity/paternity leave, female medical coverage, etc.)? Should we focus on personal, socio-cultural progress?

I feel like women who makes strides in Hollywood and Washington get all the praise, meanwhile everything else stays the same for 99.99% of women. I understand they're the most visible, but I also think it's dangerous to rely on mass media to frame the feminist narrative.

Hey dames, what feminism is?

# ¿ Mar 29, 2017 04:56

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Frijolero posted:

Buen post!

Those were questions in good faith and I got bullied out of the thread by minion av.

I'm glad they were resurrected for the Democratic Party thread!

I'm glad you're also here to post such good things as........

Meanwhile,

Brainiac Five posted:

You didn't answer my question. So let me lay it out for you, in a mean, nasty way.

The people who were displaced from jobs in the 1990s were displaced at least 18 years ago. If they were fired at the age of 22, they would be 40 by now. If they were 40 when they were fired, they'd be 58. So people displaced by NAFTA are in this range from 40-58.

People who were displaced by the Great Recession that were 20 then are 28-29 now. People who were displaced by the Great Recession that were 40 then are 48-49 now.

That is, the people who have been hurt by deindustrialization in the time spans you are considering are in their late twenties at the very youngest. Most of them will be anywhere from 30 to 60.

Please keep that in mind.

The kinds of jobs that we are talking about are well-paying jobs. Entry-level jobs that paid 50-60k a year, and then you would have increases with seniority and so on. These were also jobs with extensive benefits, like high-quality healthcare plans and vacation time and so on.

People who lost those jobs want jobs like the ones they lost. If they were satisfied with the kinds of jobs that are available they wouldn't be suffering, by definition.

The kinds of jobs that pay that kind of money and offer that kind of benefits package are mostly professional white-collar jobs.

So, we have people that are middle-aged or older, who are competing, at the end of their retraining program, with people who are fresh out of college, and who will settle for smaller salaries and worse benefits and will live in loving flophouses. They are also people who are settled and relocating them would be a major hassle beyond the monetary cost, and mass relocation would exacerbate the housing crisis.

So why would any company hire them without 1) a major shortage of qualified workers and/or 2) a shitload of bribe money?

Along these lines, would your plan @Majorian also include some sort of incentivization to big corporations through tax breaks or what?

Why should we give companies who are responsible for the global supply chain shift rewards for taking back the people whose lives they've destroyed a boon, and why don't you support a GMI or a UBI instead?

e: I mean, is this enough to really ensure people have the mobility and freedom necessary to move out of their dying homes? Just $1250 in relocation funds and up to 300 dollars a week? I mean I don't think even this revised version is robust enough, surely!

quote:

Support to pursue training or look for work: To ensure that workers have the support they need while pursuing training, the program would provide a weekly stipend for childcare, transportation and other expenses of $150, ranging up to $300 for low-income workers, for up to 78 weeks, in addition to 26 weeks of UI benefits, . To assist with relocating for job opportunities in other cities and states, and to supplement their job-search, the program would provide workers job search and relocation allowances of up to $1,250 each.

stone cold fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Mar 29, 2017

# ¿ Mar 29, 2017 05:04

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Crowsbeak posted:

Wait so suggesting that strides for equality matter alot more when everyone is benefiting rather then some window dressings in movies or boardrooms is really just a huge sexist?
I do love how the neoliberals here seriously attack people trying to advance equality for all.

Hey, nazi-beak, coming into the feminism thread all Kramer like expecting all the dumb broads to explain what feminism is to you is sexist, especially when you condescendingly say "gee can't you dumb broads do more, here's my ideas that I'm sure your broad brains haven't come up with and agitated for, also having any approach with multiple parts is dumb."

And by the way, people who kvetch about seeing women in media tend to be gamergators so that's just adorable. But I'm glad you'll lead us to the promised land with your ideas that none of us dumb women have ever thought of like

e:typo

# ¿ Mar 29, 2017 05:07

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Frijolero posted:

I like that you got all that from the 3 posts I made. Please continue. I'm sure the denizens of the Democratic Party thread would love to hear about how you can't get over a random dude's posts.

So any policy ideas or you just here to shitpost and meltdown, my dude?

Majorian posted:

I have been keeping that in mind, yes. The fact that they're older hardly makes them unemployable though.

The kinds of jobs that we are talking about are well-paying jobs. Entry-level jobs that paid 50-60k a year, and then you would have increases with seniority and so on. These were also jobs with extensive benefits, like high-quality healthcare plans and vacation time and so on.

Of course they'd like jobs like that, but they'll take steady employment at at a living wage, at this point. As I've said, these are people desperate for work that will reliably help them pay their medical bills and the rent. What jobs, exactly, do you think are available in these communities?

You know, I don't know the answer to these questions, but what I do know is that a lot of other developed countries manage to do it, and it involves playing more than .13% of our GDP (down from .24% before the Great Recession).

Did you read your quote?

quote:

A decade ago the United States had the lowest share of long-term unemployed workers among developed nations. But today U.S. long-term unemployment levels are nearly as high as those in Europe, despite stronger overall U.S. economic performance. In 2000, 11.4 percent of unemployed American workers had been out of work for more than six months, compared to 51.9 percent in the rest of the Group of Seven (G7) countries. Throughout the recession those numbers were converging. In 2013, 37.6 percent of unemployed workers in the United States had been out of work for more than six months; that rate was 53.8 percent in the rest of the G7.

U.S. federal employment and training programs that assist job seekers do little to help the long-term unemployed prepare for different careers.

What that says is that we had been doing better than the rest of the G7 and not now.

Doesn't that suggest a different cause then than a restructuring of the global supply chain?

Moreover, I'm totally ok with slashing dod's defence and raising taxes but as your quote says, of these programs aren't efficacious, perhaps we should research other policy or begin thinking about restructuring along the lines of a gmi or ubi.

E: a second thought occurs

quote:

Of course they'd like jobs like that, but they'll take steady employment at at a living wage, at this point. As I've said, these are people desperate for work that will reliably help them pay their medical bills and the rent.

Doesn't the American marginalized displaced worker deserve better than steady employ with no benefits? I mean, if you're pro labor, don't you think the worker deserves benefits? Why should we funnel money into training them to lick corporate boot and work under significantly worse conditions, particularly if these training programs don't work, rather than invest in researching other policy avenues?

stone cold fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Mar 29, 2017

# ¿ Mar 29, 2017 05:21

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Frijolero posted:

Oh snap, this is the policies thread?

I got some great policy ideas:

1) Push constitutional amendment declaring healthcare a right.

2) Prosecute Bush and Obama for war crimes.

3) Investigate and prosecute wage thieves and white collar criminals.

4) Invest a trillion dollars on infrastructure and another trillion on green energy industry.

5) End financial support for Israel, end alliance with Saudi Arabia, lift sanctions on Iran.

7) Make Nov. 8 a federal holiday, name it "Bernie Would Have Won Day"

I'm good with all of those except for number 7 cause lol

Why are you only prosecuting Bush and Obama instead of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer, Wolfowitz, et al?

Also, I'd amend number one to also include housing, and access to clean food and water. Also, also, slash DoD's budget, imo.

Majorian posted:

Well, first of all, why would it need to be the same companies who destroyed these people's lives rehiring them? With enough government investment, there are a lot of green industries that could easily employ blue collar manufacturing workers, after some retraining. Secondly, I don't see a GMI or UBI as an "instead" sort of thing; I fully support mandating a living wage on a federal level.

Ok, but if these retraining programs haven't been shown to work so far, shouldn't we also research other policy for alleviating this problem?

How do we incentivize these relatively newer companies to take these older workers who will want benefits versus dumb kids straight from college who are obviously younger though? Like what's the mechanism you see being used to implement this?

Moreover, what gaps do you anticipate being filled and where are these green companies based? Would you be willing to raise the support money and moving expense stipend if these companies and jobs are based somewhere where the cost of living is significantly higher than where they live?
Can we guarantee good employment opportunities and should we make benefits like health care, pensions, etc mandatory?

# ¿ Mar 29, 2017 05:44

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Majorian posted:

Solar companies and other green energy industries require factories, line workers, and unskilled supply chain workers. I'm 100% in favor of requiring benefits, the government or the company paying relocation costs, etc.

Do these factories exist in significant numbers in the US though, I mean as long as we're talking global supply chain?

Just off the top of my head, the bulk of solar photovoltaic cells is in China, iirc so is the bulk of CFL light bulbs. How much green labor is available here for these workers?

# ¿ Mar 29, 2017 05:56

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

JeffersonClay posted:

. This isn't data from trump voters as a whole. It's data from Obama voters. It demonstrates pretty convincingly that the mindsets and issues that made Obama voters receptive to trump were racial resentment and immigration. If you think that's irrelevant because we're only talking about the rust belt (we're not, Florida was a big deal as well) then by all means, find something more concrete than your earnest assertions that rust belt voters did not follow this pattern.

What's your point here, then? what difference does it make if Obama to trump voters were motivated by racism about employment? That doesn't make the assertions about obama voters abandoning Dems because they didn't expand the welfare state enough, or because of NAFTA, or neoliberalism, any more true.

Not only that, but doesn't this data show us that we should be appealing to the people who didn't bother to vote rather than these racists?

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 01:55

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Majorian posted:

Actually, it pretty clearly demonstrates that economic anxiety, and disappointment with a lack of assistance from Democratic politicians, played the dominant role in Rust Belt Democrats defecting to Trump. Even their preoccupation with immigration has a significant economic component; they almost certainly wouldn't care that much about undocumented workers, if they hadn't been fed the lie that those workers have stolen their jobs.

I'm kind of amazed that I keep having to explain this to you, particularly when literally every piece of evidence on the topic backs me up.

But they weren't motivated by economic anxiety, they were motivated by racism.

At the end of the day, why should we appeal to these people rather than the people who were too fatigued or did not have the ability through say structural issues like suppression or being forced to work and didn't vote?

e: Moreover, given who vital POC voters are to the democratic base and retention and growth, why should we invite in people who actively voted for a racist rather than those who didn't vote? Where is the room in the party for people who despise minorities and why should we welcome them over those some 45% plus of registered voters who didn't vote?

stone cold fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Mar 30, 2017

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 01:57

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Majorian posted:

Because appealing to voters in the Rust Belt who didn't turn out to vote, will likely similarly appeal to the voters represented in this data as well. Racist or not racist, they voted for the candidate who balanced antiracism and promises to strengthen the social safety net in 2008 and 2012. So I don't buy JC's argument that left-wing economic populist appeals will be rejected by these voters unless they are also explicitly racist.

I mean or they voted for the guy from the non-recession party, if you buy into your argument that these people don't really care about politics. So why should we throw our loyal mass turnouting consistent Dem voting minorities and POCs for racists over apathetics?

And I mean, they turned out for Trump, so pretending they're not racist is willfully naive at best. Maybe you should question why you sympathize with them over minority working class voters. Just a thought.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 02:09

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Majorian posted:

Yes, but stone cold asked about them and I answered her.

No, you didn't, you provided zero answers or analysis as to either their political views or why they didn't vote. You said a load of nothing.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 02:11

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Majorian posted:

Why would we be "throwing" anybody? Again, the Dems have managed to hold together all these groups of people under one coalition. They did it twice: in '08 and '12. So why must we assume that by appealing to blue collar workers in the Rust Belt, we have to necessarily jettison another part of the coalition?

By appealing to Trump voters who were one time Obama voters, over the people who didn't vote, you somehow don't see how that would be a slap in the face to the people Trump has sought to oppress and these people enthusiastically nodded along to? Again, why don't we appeal to the people who didn't vote?

Majorian posted:

I don't "sympathize" with them over anybody. These were voters whose votes were decisive in the 2016 election. I am interested in finding out why they voted as they did, and what can be done to make them return to the Democratic fold that doesn't abandon left-of-center principles.

I find that very hard to believe. Also, if we're talking about decisive votes, I mean Trump only won Michigan by 13000 votes, so is this an appeal to racists deal or get the loving vote out spend money and get actual boots on the ground kind of deal? Or maybe we can focus on labor principles that help all labor not just the wwc? You are aware that the working class broke Hillary in no small part due to POC working class voters....right?

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 02:19

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Majorian posted:

As someone posted a couple pages back, Democratic voters staying home was not a particularly large factor in Clinton not winning. Turnout was not the decisive factor in this election; Obama voters who defected to Trump were.

hmmmmm

quote:

It's a very odd result. Turnout up slightly in terms of raw numbers, but down as a percentage of those eligible.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 02:22

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Majorian posted:

Because there is a lot of overlap between why the people who stayed home didn't vote, and why the people who defected to Trump did so as well.

Some people chose a racist; some didn't. Why do you think they're the same? Is somebody who hears about hate crimes the same as somebody who commits them? I mean, by your logic, yes.

quote:

That's literally what I"m advocating, Jesus Christ.

No, what you're advocating is to once again tell minorities to step aside in the name of the rising tide lifting all boats. Typical.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 02:25

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Majorian posted:

That's nice that you found article that's older and has data that's less up-to-date than the NYT one.

It's nice that you're so set in your sympathy for the poor oppressed middle class whites that you think you're a leftist.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 02:25

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

MooselanderII posted:

How about we get to the inevitable part of your posting cycle where you start issuing death threats?

So, do you have any actual points to make dear or are you just gonna keep slapping your genitals on the table?

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 02:28

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Majorian posted:

You tipped your hand too much here. Your trolling game is weak, young'un.

This isn't trolling you, you idiot, you've repeatedly told the consistently Dem voting base of POC and minority voters to step aside so you can appeal to the "economically anxious" whites. Then, when confronted by the evidence that these voters were motivated by racism far more than economic or trade policy, you doubled down. You're an intellectually hollow racist.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 02:31

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Crowsbeak posted:

Yeah considering more blacks and latinos turned for Trump then for Romney it might just be that its not just Whites who are economically anxious.

[citation need]

And please don't cite any non-bilingual polling numbers for latinx polling, tia.

Majorian posted:

Nah, I haven't done that at all actually.

Also, there are a lot of people of color in the Rust Belt who would benefit tremendously from the programs I've advocated here, so your argument is about as dumb as it gets. I know you're not actually that dumb. So, nice try.

A rising tide lifts all boats, claims local man who doesn't think Trump voters are racists. What policies have you proposed to ensure that minorities also benefit so it's not Great Society all over again, exactly? And why, again, do you think we should slap our minority and POC voting base that consistently turns out for us for the middle class economically anxious whites?

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 02:38

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Frijolero posted:

Except there's no evidence that a majority of Trump voters were motivated by racism, and good evidence that they were motivated by Clinton being dogshit.

JeffersonClay posted:

Ok, if you think that data is flawed, here's another independent data set showing exactly the same thing.

1) The issues where a significant number of Obama voters could have been peeled off were trade, immigration and Obamacare.

2) Racial resentment among former Obama voters was highly correlated with positive opinions of Trump.

3) Opposition to free trade agreements among former Obama voters was far less correlated with positive opinions of Trump.

4) Blaming competition from minorities by former Obama voters was significantly correlated with positive opinions of Trump.

5) Negative feelings about the direction of the economy by former Obama voters were correlated with positive opinions of trump, but the effect was not as large as immigration and job competition.

These graphs are from this post http://www.salon.com/2016/11/27/obama-to-trump-voters-are-not-a-myth-mdash-but-theyre-also-not-the-real-story/, which has a conclusion about turnout that we now know is incorrect. Obama to Trump voters were a more significant factor in the election than turning out the base.

I think this data is pretty close to what you wanted. It certainly suggests the narrative I'm articulating isn't wildly off-base.

This isn't inane. We learned only recently that Obama to Trump voters were a bigger issue than base turnout. The reason democrats lost is former obama voters abandoned them for trump. So figuring out exactly why they made that decision is vital. It sure looks like it had a lot to do with racism and immigration policy.

I think data about why Obama lost vote share to Romney would be interesting and relevant to discuss as well.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 02:39

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Brainiac Five posted:

So a majority of Republican voters stayed home in order to make room for all the Trump voters who only cared about Hillary Clinton, just like you. I see. Next, you'll freak out about the existence of anime again.

Local man sees klansmen commit hate crime, quoted as saying "must be a group of lone wolves."

Same man sees black child gunned down by cops, "why that kid must've been a thug gangster!"

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 02:40

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Frijolero posted:

Hmm yes, I make all my assertions from one source with a broken web link.

No, you make your assertions without any sources at all. But please tell me how the people who voted for the man who promised to kick out all the Muslims and brown people, wants to terrorize the black community, and thinks all undocumented immigrants are rapists weren't racist at all.

But please tell me more about how middle class whites are the paragons of progressivism and haven't consistently been reactionary fucks for, forever.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 02:47

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Crowsbeak posted:

Hey that's also why there was less turnout in parts of Michigan. https://www.google.com/amp/www.mlive.com/articles/19635829/detroit_flint_voting_muscle_we.amp

Its funny effectronica demands evidence as all they do is pull everything out of their rear end.

Hm, and this wouldn't have anything to do with rampant GOP-sponsored voter suppression?
That's not a tried and true Republican tactic, because they don't like know explicitly that reducing turnout esp. POC turnout favors them or anything. 🤔

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 03:07

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Crowsbeak posted:

Which was not in place in Michigan till after the election.

Also lol @ jc admitteing to misunderstanding data.

sorry you can't read, dear

quote:

Poll workers in Michigan incorrectly told voters that they needed to show identification to vote. While Michigan does have a voter ID law, it does not require an ID to vote; instead, voters have the option of filling out an affidavit swearing to their identity. There are no hard data on how many Michigan voters were improperly turned away for lacking an ID.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 03:34

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Crowsbeak posted:

Hey if he'd won we would be collectivizing the firm you work at right now.

Also voter suppression affects elections by 2% . The fact dems have been falling in turnout in those states comes from lack of engagement not those laws.

That surely would have zero impact in an election decided by 77k votes!

:hurr:

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 03:39

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Remind me, please, somebody, what 2% of 130 million~ is?

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 03:41

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Crowsbeak posted:

Michigan doesn't have a population that large.

numbers hard oog

quote:

A total of 7,481,074 Michigan residents were registered to vote as of Thursday, Oct. 13 -- the highest number ever for a presidential election, according to numbers from the Michigan Secretary of State office.

A total of 120,565 people have been added to the voter registration rolls since July, according to state data.

Michigan has a little more than 7.7 million residents age 18 and older, according to the 2015 U.S. Census estimate.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 04:03

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Which do you think is more likely:

1. a dozen-odd regular d&d posters have formed a conspiracy to shut you down by complaining about you being a bad poster

2. you are a bad poster

i mean you all suck and b5 kind of rules so, i'm gonna go with number 1

like here I was thinking after i came back to thread there'd be some sort of actual discussion, but it's idiots like you and nazi crowsbeak cheerleading so it makes your genitals happy
(here's a hint fish, you don't want to be on the side of a man who calls people "illegals who need to wait in line")

what's even the point of your posting, friend

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 20:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 00:38

stone cold: Feb 15, 2014

I'm pretty pleased with how tight Ellison and Perez are and how they're working together moving forwards. Like, Perez could've totally blown off Ellison and destroyed the party, but he's not a W-level idiot....guys, am I centrist or worse, a librul now?

:ohdear:

# ¿ Apr 4, 2017 01:11

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Will the democrats change and represent their membership?