‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Trump Derangement Syndrome and the 2020 Election

 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1555
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
07 September 2019 11:58
 
EN - 06 September 2019 03:46 PM
Nhoj Morley - 06 September 2019 12:29 PM

What makes Sen. Warren an extremist? Are the issues she raises unworthy of concern and attention? Is she alarmed about things that are not worthy of alarm? Are her proposed solutions too ambitious or misdirected? Is her method of making her case dishonest or misleading? Does she propose too massive a course correction and too quickly? Is her take on reality too unreal?

I am not a supporter but not for any extreme reasons. Is there a consensus on what makes her (or Sanders) an extremist?

The total cost of all her proposals, which is in the multiple trillions.

I’m not all that well informed on Warren’s policies, but she said she would roll back the tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations that Trump and the Republicans just made that come to 1.7 trillions dollars. Then there could be cuts in the bloated military budget. And also eliminations to tax write-offs that oil companies and other large corporations get for no good reason.

It would be a lot of money, if it could be done.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18127
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
07 September 2019 12:10
 
Cheshire Cat - 07 September 2019 11:58 AM
EN - 06 September 2019 03:46 PM
Nhoj Morley - 06 September 2019 12:29 PM

What makes Sen. Warren an extremist? Are the issues she raises unworthy of concern and attention? Is she alarmed about things that are not worthy of alarm? Are her proposed solutions too ambitious or misdirected? Is her method of making her case dishonest or misleading? Does she propose too massive a course correction and too quickly? Is her take on reality too unreal?

I am not a supporter but not for any extreme reasons. Is there a consensus on what makes her (or Sanders) an extremist?

The total cost of all her proposals, which is in the multiple trillions.

I’m not all that well informed on Warren’s policies, but she said she would roll back the tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations that Trump and the Republicans just made that come to 1.7 trillions dollars. Then there could be cuts in the bloated military budget. And also eliminations to tax write-offs that oil companies and other large corporations get for no good reason.

It would be a lot of money, if it could be done.

This is why we are doomed! You heard take money from from the rich and corporations and creamed all over yourself and ignored her policies giving away 10’s of trillions to “save” everyone.

 
 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1555
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
07 September 2019 12:30
 
GAD - 07 September 2019 12:10 PM
Cheshire Cat - 07 September 2019 11:58 AM
EN - 06 September 2019 03:46 PM
Nhoj Morley - 06 September 2019 12:29 PM

What makes Sen. Warren an extremist? Are the issues she raises unworthy of concern and attention? Is she alarmed about things that are not worthy of alarm? Are her proposed solutions too ambitious or misdirected? Is her method of making her case dishonest or misleading? Does she propose too massive a course correction and too quickly? Is her take on reality too unreal?

I am not a supporter but not for any extreme reasons. Is there a consensus on what makes her (or Sanders) an extremist?

The total cost of all her proposals, which is in the multiple trillions.

I’m not all that well informed on Warren’s policies, but she said she would roll back the tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations that Trump and the Republicans just made that come to 1.7 trillions dollars. Then there could be cuts in the bloated military budget. And also eliminations to tax write-offs that oil companies and other large corporations get for no good reason.

It would be a lot of money, if it could be done.

This is why we are doomed! You heard take money from from the rich and corporations and creamed all over yourself and ignored her policies giving away 10’s of trillions to “save” everyone.

Do you think there was any good reason to give the rich and giant corporations 1.5 trillion in tax cuts?

I don’t.

This was purely a case of bought-and-paid-for political lackeys doing what they were bribed to do — giving tax cuts to their masters.

Warren is not stupid. She knows very well the push back she we get from the powers that be; the powers that are entrenched in the corrupt status quo. She will make her case to the nation in the coming months about her policies, and how she will pay for them.

At the moment, I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7057
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
07 September 2019 15:02
 
lynmc - 07 September 2019 10:29 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 06 September 2019 04:25 PM

The potential problem with the phrase, “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” is the degree to which its definition, “equal parts inaccurate, apoplectic and hysterical,” is a matter of opinion. Take, for example, Trump’s “good people on both sides” comment after the violence in Virginia. His detractors insist he meant that there were good people among the racists and neo-Nazis; his supporters insist he meant there were good people who opposed the removal of a civil war statue. If you take his supporters’ interpretation, then of course his detractors’ interpretation sounds “equal parts inaccurate, apoplectic and hysterical.” But if you take his detractors’ interpretation, then it’s none of those things.

That said, I do think that the leftstream media’s tendency to obviously and persistently mischaracterize Trump and overreact to the things he says probably helps more than hurts him. Trump claimed that his supporters were so loyal that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and they’d still support him. I think the converse is also true: he could stop global warming and rid the world of nuclear weapons; the leftstream media would still criticize him for it. Which means that valid criticism tends to be dismissed as just more “fake news.”

It’s the “boy who cried wolf” problem.

I think Trump got support from leftists when he tried to get peace with North Korea, see https://truthout.org/articles/peace-with-north-korea-should-be-a-priority-for-us-progressives/.

Isn’t truthout.org the exception (or one of the few exceptions) that proves the rule? From the linked article:

Democrats — including North Korea watchers, media pundits and politicians — have issued an overwhelmingly negative response to the meeting [with Kim Jong Un].

 

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7057
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
07 September 2019 15:29
 
Cheshire Cat - 07 September 2019 12:30 PM
GAD - 07 September 2019 12:10 PM
Cheshire Cat - 07 September 2019 11:58 AM
EN - 06 September 2019 03:46 PM
Nhoj Morley - 06 September 2019 12:29 PM

What makes Sen. Warren an extremist? Are the issues she raises unworthy of concern and attention? Is she alarmed about things that are not worthy of alarm? Are her proposed solutions too ambitious or misdirected? Is her method of making her case dishonest or misleading? Does she propose too massive a course correction and too quickly? Is her take on reality too unreal?

I am not a supporter but not for any extreme reasons. Is there a consensus on what makes her (or Sanders) an extremist?

The total cost of all her proposals, which is in the multiple trillions.

I’m not all that well informed on Warren’s policies, but she said she would roll back the tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations that Trump and the Republicans just made that come to 1.7 trillions dollars. Then there could be cuts in the bloated military budget. And also eliminations to tax write-offs that oil companies and other large corporations get for no good reason.

It would be a lot of money, if it could be done.

This is why we are doomed! You heard take money from from the rich and corporations and creamed all over yourself and ignored her policies giving away 10’s of trillions to “save” everyone.

Do you think there was any good reason to give the rich and giant corporations 1.5 trillion in tax cuts?

I don’t.

This was purely a case of bought-and-paid-for political lackeys doing what they were bribed to do — giving tax cuts to their masters.

Warren is not stupid. She knows very well the push back she we get from the powers that be; the powers that are entrenched in the corrupt status quo. She will make her case to the nation in the coming months about her policies, and how she will pay for them.

At the moment, I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Warren is the perfect person to go after Wall Street and the Big Banks. Just watch her interrogating Wells Fargo executives after the unauthorized accounts scandal, here and here. Too bad she’s so far out in left field on other issues—for example reparations, which will be a non-starter in the general election.

 
 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1555
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
07 September 2019 16:32
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 07 September 2019 03:29 PM

Warren is the perfect person to go after Wall Street and the Big Banks. Just watch her interrogating Wells Fargo executives after the unauthorized accounts scandal, here and here. Too bad she’s so far out in left field on other issues—for example reparations, which will be a non-starter in the general election.

Yes Anti, those same Big Bank Bastards, who through their corrupt, criminal, negligent and greedy mortgage loan practices led to the collapse of the American economy, hate Warren.

To me, this is a badge of honor.

Those CEOs, who should have done time in prison, got off scott-free, leaving the American taxpayer to pick up the bill and for ordinary people to lose their homes. And in the passing time, those same men have become even richer and more powerful.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6609
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
07 September 2019 20:12
 

Sharing info can be like a card trick. The trick for the trickster is to make the trickee not focus on what the other cards are doing, as shown in a recent Funway thread.

The post-Charleston remarks remind us that many card-tricks can be performed with a single deck. If dealt one way, natzis are claimed to be fine people. That is condemning our Chosen pres with a card trick. Show a few more cards and now there are fine people on both sides of the statue debate. That is exonerating him with a card trick. Show even more cards and the remarks can be seen as tone deaf to a public that was reeling from images of violence, torch parades and motorized murder. Exonerating the ‘fine people’ is a given for the public. The old poof will need every vote he can get. The remarks expose the priority of not offending any segment of The Base.

He is fixated on exoneration as Alabama-Bump or, Sharpie-Gate continues. He may insist on an investigation by the Justice Department. There may be a subpoena for Dorian. A failure to appear would be exonerating for the chosen one.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18127
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
07 September 2019 20:21
 
Cheshire Cat - 07 September 2019 04:32 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 07 September 2019 03:29 PM

Warren is the perfect person to go after Wall Street and the Big Banks. Just watch her interrogating Wells Fargo executives after the unauthorized accounts scandal, here and here. Too bad she’s so far out in left field on other issues—for example reparations, which will be a non-starter in the general election.

Yes Anti, those same Big Bank Bastards, who through their corrupt, criminal, negligent and greedy mortgage loan practices led to the collapse of the American economy, hate Warren.

To me, this is a badge of honor.

Those CEOs, who should have done time in prison, got off scott-free, leaving the American taxpayer to pick up the bill and for ordinary people to lose their homes. And in the passing time, those same men have become even richer and more powerful.

You continue to make my point. Someone says she went after a rich bastard and you fall all over yourself and make her king without caring about anything else she says or does. Same mentality is what got Trump made king.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7057
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
08 September 2019 12:08
 

Here’s an article from The New Yorker about Warren. As much as I like her standing up to the financial industry, she’d have to pivot pretty hard to the center on a lot of other issues before I’d support her in the general election.

 
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  524
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
08 September 2019 17:45
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 07 September 2019 03:02 PM
lynmc - 07 September 2019 10:29 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 06 September 2019 04:25 PM

The potential problem with the phrase, “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” is the degree to which its definition, “equal parts inaccurate, apoplectic and hysterical,” is a matter of opinion. Take, for example, Trump’s “good people on both sides” comment after the violence in Virginia. His detractors insist he meant that there were good people among the racists and neo-Nazis; his supporters insist he meant there were good people who opposed the removal of a civil war statue. If you take his supporters’ interpretation, then of course his detractors’ interpretation sounds “equal parts inaccurate, apoplectic and hysterical.” But if you take his detractors’ interpretation, then it’s none of those things.

That said, I do think that the leftstream media’s tendency to obviously and persistently mischaracterize Trump and overreact to the things he says probably helps more than hurts him. Trump claimed that his supporters were so loyal that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and they’d still support him. I think the converse is also true: he could stop global warming and rid the world of nuclear weapons; the leftstream media would still criticize him for it. Which means that valid criticism tends to be dismissed as just more “fake news.”

It’s the “boy who cried wolf” problem.

I think Trump got support from leftists when he tried to get peace with North Korea, see https://truthout.org/articles/peace-with-north-korea-should-be-a-priority-for-us-progressives/.

Isn’t truthout.org the exception (or one of the few exceptions) that proves the rule? From the linked article:

Democrats — including North Korea watchers, media pundits and politicians — have issued an overwhelmingly negative response to the meeting [with Kim Jong Un].

Yes, maybe so

 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  586
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
08 September 2019 20:22
 

Trump Derangement Syndrome—i.e. the tendency to be equal parts inaccurate, apoplectic and hysterical over Donald Trump…How can such a disconnect between what a candidate actually says and what a candidate purportedly represents persist?  What explains Trump Derangement Syndrome?

I am not convinced that the image of Trump that you are attributing to a “derangement” is inaccurate and I think the short simple explanation for why there is a disconnect between what Trump has actually said and what he represents is because people don’t follow a simple mechanical procedure or algorithm - tabulating everything that they have heard a person say, assigning equal weight to each statement, and then taking some kind of average - when deciding what to think about someone. Nor should they.

When people are transforming inputs - which include much more than what a person says but also how they behave, their tone of voice, posture, and so on - into outputs - a representation of who they are - they operate like a connectionist network. Some inputs are given little weight and some inputs are given more weight. This is not necessarily irrational. In fact, it would be irrational to assign equal weights to everything.

The fact that a politician in the middle of campaigning for votes at a Black Church says what any politician in that situation should say and promises a new Civil Rights agenda in a tone of voice that indicates it is being read from a speech that we know was written by someone else and carefully crafted to win votes from African-Americans without alienating other voters should count less in our estimation of who a person is than an unhinged tweet that is clearly in the person’s own voice and was clearly not crafted specifically to win over voters.

I think it is perfectly rational to (mostly) ignore the first and pay more attention to the second. There is a ton of background information that has to go into interpreting what a person says: why are they saying it? where are they saying it? what do I know about their past behavior? and so on. Sifting statements is not necessarily irrational. There is no doubt that Democrats and Republicans sift Trump’s statements differently because of their party affiliation. So our party affiliations are capable of distorting our images in various directions.

It is hard to say which distortions are really distortions. Unfortunately, we cannot compare our images to any original. I already hated Trump before he started running and I can’t simply forget that when I hear him speak. Since we are always filtering our image of people through all sorts of filters, and since we don’t have any access to any original, I think it is a mistake to conclude that the image of Trump as a racist is a “derangement” simply because he said some things that don’t sound at all racist.

I actually think that people are usually pretty good at figuring out what people are really like. So, when I see huge numbers of people who hate racists also hating Trump and claiming he is racist, and when I see genuine racists loving Trump and also claiming he’s a racist, I am inclined to give those “intuitions” some weight even if you can find some quotes that suggest Trump is not a racist.

I maintain that that the middle voter that could go either way in any given election, depending on the candidate (Obama skunked Romney, for instance), is sick and tired of the politics of hate.  They are sick and tired seeing derangement and hysterical outrage rule politics, whether it is deranged support for Trump or deranged opposition against him.

I am not convinced this is true either. I don’t think people are sick of hate or anger. They may say that but hate and anger are addictive. I think we are in a dynamic at the moment that is only going to get worse before it gets better. And while there may be a majority of Democrats and independents who would prefer a moderate Democrat to an “extreme” Democrat (I don’t actually think any of the Democrats are all that extreme) there are also lots of people - especially young people - who are going to be extremely disappointed if they are told they have nothing to hope for beyond another moderate Democrat who is basically going to uphold the status quo.

For as long as I have been an adult I don’t feel like the Democratic party has really stood for much. When I watched debates growing up it always seemed to me like Democrats spent most of their time trying to prove they were really Republicans. Republicans would claim Democrats were socialist and anti-free-market so Democrats would have to prove they loved the market just as much as Republicans. Republicans would claim Democrats were wimps who hated America so Democrats would have to prove they loved America and our troops and were just as ready to use force as Republicans.

I am not a huge fan of Bernie Sanders but it still felt like a huge breath of fresh air when he entered the scene. He was not on the defensive. He openly claimed to be a socialist. So even though I would not vote for Bernie Sanders in a primary I still think it would be sad if we went back to the way things were.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3503
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
08 September 2019 22:12
 

I enjoyed your post, no_profundia.  Nice to see you back, even if it might be just for a little while as it often is.
Jan

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1262
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
09 September 2019 07:25
 

No_profundia

I am not convinced that the image of Trump that you are attributing to a “derangement” is inaccurate…

Fair enough.  Do you have “unhinged” Tweets or statements “in his own voice” during the campaign that show he’s “running on pure white supremacy,” was “an openly white supremacist nominee,” or his win is a “reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism”—something that would indicate that “there’s no such thing as a good Trump voter”?  That would go to the main point of the OP.  Or Tweets or statements while President (which would go to its extension to the present)?  And I don’t mean “good people on both sides” of a protest over a Confederate statue because that’s just an idiotic platitude—yet a true one—given what actually happened.  I mean something indicating “open white supremacy” or “pure white supremacy”; something that would indicate a victory of the “unbeatable power of racism” that “tells people of color they aren’t welcome in America.”  To make the generalities you speak of about weights, connectionism, and cognition applicable to this case, you would need to produce these specific inputs that are being—in your argument—weighted appropriately.

I actually think that people are usually pretty good at figuring out what people are really like. So, when I see huge numbers of people who hate racists also hating Trump and claiming he is racist, and when I see genuine racists loving Trump and also claiming he’s a racist, I am inclined to give those “intuitions” some weight even if you can find some quotes that suggest Trump is not a racist.

The real racists love Trump because of his failure over Charlottesville, when every other politician under the sun would have condemned them; Trump didn’t.  And the “huge numbers of people who hate racists” and see Trump as one is, in my opinion, the result of the ‘poisoning of the well’ driven by the “woke” minority who see racism everywhere, so naturally they see—given their biases—the failure to condemn as an endorsement (and so forth with his other so-called “racist” comments). In any case, the belief whether he is or is not falls right along partisan lines, and neither the logic of the failure to condemn nor the biases of the “woke” minority reliably indicate the truth of what Trump is, or is not.  Any appeal to numbers one way or the other is tantamount to a majoritarian view of truth, where if greater numbers believe it, it is more likely true.  By that logic the existence of God is a near certainty and Trump’s racism would still be questionable because about as many believe he is as isn’t—and again, right along party lines, so the assessment is hardly informative.

I am not convinced this is true either. I don’t think people are sick of hate or anger. They may say that but hate and anger are addictive. I think we are in a dynamic at the moment that is only going to get worse before it gets better.

Like opioids, hate or anger is addictive only for those who indulge and rely excessively, beyond their useful function.  Polls indicate that the majority of Americans are tired of the extremism in politics—the extremism of undying love for Trump and undying hate against him (the addiction you speak of; what I called “derangement”).  But, I agree that as a matter of political dynamics it is likely to get worse before it gets better.  I don’t think we’ve hit the bottom yet, but I hope we will have by the time this election is over.

(Thanks, by the way, for the sensible, non-deranged, examination.)

 

[ Edited: 09 September 2019 13:46 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  586
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
09 September 2019 18:32
 

Thanks Jan smile

Do you have “unhinged” Tweets or statements “in his own voice” during the campaign that show he’s “running on pure white supremacy,” was “an openly white supremacist nominee,” or his win is a “reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism”—something that would indicate that “there’s no such thing as a good Trump voter”?

This is a fair point. I will concede that it was an exaggeration to label Trump an “openly white supremacist nominee” (still not 100% certain whether the exaggeration is mostly about the word “openly” or mostly about the term “white supremacist”). But I think this is the simplification and exaggeration that is endemic to politics. A politician on the left proposes a policy that involves government intervention and they are a “socialist”, or a gun regulation and they want to “take all guns”, or a politician on the right disapproves of M4A so they want “all poor people to die.”

I think people need heuristics to make their decisions. If Trump proposes a detailed immigration policy that would greatly reduce the number of immigrants coming to the US lots of people - including me - are not going to know how to evaluate it. I have probably read more on immigration than the average person but what I have read is not enough for me to evaluate a detailed policy and reach a confident conclusion about whether I support it or not. But, if someone tells me the policy is “racist”, I know I don’t like racism, so now I know what to think.

I suspect that any system that requires the average person to make decisions about candidates or policies is going to require short-cuts like this. The short-cuts go both ways. While I hear that it is “racist” and decide I don’t like it someone else hears that a caravan of asylum seekers are “invading” our country and they don’t like that. So this is how we make our decision.

It is frustrating that these short-cuts are often so inaccurate. I am not sure what to do about it.

the result of the ‘poisoning of the well’ driven by the “woke” minority who see racism everywhere

I think it is an exaggeration to say that the “woke” minority sees “racism everywhere.” There probably is a true minority, that is so small as to be totally insigificant, that sees racism almost everywhere.

Perhaps you could give me an example of when the “woke” crowd considered something racist, when you think it wasn’t, so I can see what I think?

Any appeal to numbers one way or the other is tantamount to a majoritarian view of truth, where if greater numbers believe it, it is more likely true.

So would you say there is likely no relationship at all between the number of people who believe something and whether it is true?

I guess I would have to think about this but my intuition tells me that more people believing something probably means it is more likely to be true. Of course, we can think of lots of famous examples where the majority (sometimes a huge majority) turned out to be wrong but the examples we think of are almost all related to scientific knowledge where we are trying to discern deep causes behind extremely complex phenomena. If we really want to know whether more people believing something means it is more likely to be true we would have to include lots of every day things like “the sun is far away” or “there is a hill behind those trees” or various social judgments. I suspect if we included those kinds of judgments - and I think that is the kind of judgement I am talking about - we would find the majority is usually right.

Let me give you the kind of social judgment I had in mind and see what you think. I was thinking about this a while ago but imagine two comedians that both make jokes that might be considered “racist”. To make this more concrete I am going to pick two real comedians: Sarah Silverman and Gallagher. Both have been accused of being racist at some point by some group. Now, obviously I have not run this study so this is just a surmise but I would be willing to bet some amount of money that if you sampled their audiences (and you had a precise way to determine if someone was ‘racist’ or not) you would find very few, if any, genuine racists in Sarah Silverman’s audience and quite a few in Gallagher’s.

Why? Well, I suspect it is because most people can sense that Sarah Silverman is not really racist and Gallagher is or might be (even though there were “woke” activists trying to convince people that Sarah Silverman was racist, or at least her jokes were). This is not full-proof but in a case like this I suspect the nature of a comedian’s audience provides us some information about the comedian that tips the odds at least a bit in one direction. I was thinking the same is likely to be true of a President.

Trump’s racism would still be questionable because about as many believe he is as isn’t

Have you seen a poll where they try to determine what percentage of the population thinks he’s racist? I have not but I would be interested. I actually didn’t think he was racist when he was running but I am less sure now.

Polls indicate that the majority of Americans are tired of the extremism in politics

Yeah, and this could be true. I guess I am a little suspicious of polls that say this though my reasons for being suspicious are far from scientific. I know that I would probably say I am sick of the extremism in politics if a pollster asked me, but I still find myself on Twitter everyday even though I know it just makes me angry, and I suspect part of what I mean when I say I am sick of the extremism in politics is “I am sick of the extremism of Republicans.” I am not sure if I am sick of my own self-righteous indignation or I am just sick of arguments that go nowhere which I blame on people who are unwilling to see the world the same way I do smile

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  805
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
09 September 2019 18:44
 

“The Widom of Crowds” (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/68143.The_Wisdom_of_Crowds ) lays out some criteria that are related to when collective opinion is likely to be reliable.

 
‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›