reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
They're not registered. He explains Republicans tell him they'd vote with him but "would just take too much flack back home," and that "everybody but me has an APAC person"—an "APAC babysitter" embedded with a congressman. He notes four members said they'll talk to their APAC person to "dial those ads back." He asks why this isn't more widely known, saying "It doesn't benefit anybody. Why would they wanna tell their constituents that they've basically got a buddy system with somebody who's representing a foreign country?" He contends "it's the only country that does this" with an APAC liaison; "they pay for trips for congressmen and their spouses to go to Israel," describing the trip as "vacationy"—seeing the wall and the Dead Sea. The dialog contrasts love of Israel with "the government of Israel" and ends with "That's a completely different thing from taking orders from its government."

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: The RJC, APAC, and Miriam Adelson and Paul Singer are described as part of “the Israeli lobby,” and Speaker 0 says this is where “all the money comes from.” Speaker 0 characterizes the situation as a referendum on foreign policy, saying Israel would be able to dictate foreign policy through “bullying members of congress.” Speaker 0 says they have been the one they “haven’t been able to bully,” so “they’re putting all the brunt and the force on me.” Speaker 0 claims they are ahead in the polls and that opponents are “desperate,” adding that “they’re sending the secretary of war to my district tomorrow,” the president is “losing sleep and tweeting,” and APAC “dumped another $3,000,000 into my race this weekend” because they are “panicked” and have “really haven’t been able to gain a lead” in the race. Speaker 1: Speaker 1 says the president is not necessarily desperate, pointing to a “pretty good record of defeating people he wants to target in Republican primaries,” citing Bill Cassidy and what happened in Indiana. Speaker 1 asks how Speaker 0 will overcome the president’s opposition. Speaker 0: Speaker 0 says their situation is different because they have endorsements from “the right to life organizations” and “the gun organizations.” Speaker 0 also says four members of congress came to “this” yesterday and campaigned with them. Speaker 0 adds that they have received millions of dollars from the grassroots, with “tens of thousands of donors to my website, thomasmassey.com,” and says funding is still coming in. Speaker 0 concludes that this is how they will beat opponents.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues that Israel, through its lobby, has manifested so much power over the United States Congress that the country is embroiled in wars they believe they should not be in. He states that whenever Israel is mentioned, someone claims you’re an anti-Semite, and he contends that policies in the Middle East have been one-sided and subjective, leading to many enemies and the importing of terrorists as a consequence. He asserts: “Israel through their lobby has manifested total power of the congress of the United,” and expresses a concern that taxpayers and the citizens of the United States should control their government, not a foreign entity. Speaker 1 challenges these assertions, saying: “You did. That’s not what you said. You said they’re controlling our foreign policy. They’re controlling our domestic policy.” He presses back, stating: “That quote, they are influencing and the sole control of influencing of our domestic policy is an absurdity. It sounds like you are a kook.” He explicitly disputes the idea that Israel controls the Congress and domestic policy. Speaker 0 clarifies, “I believe they control the senate and the house foreign affairs committee.” Speaker 1 repeats that claim as insane, prompting Speaker 0 to insist: “I’m not suggesting it. I served in congress for seven…,” implying a longer service and experience to support his concerns, though the sentence is cut off. The exchange centers on claims of disproportionate Israeli influence in U.S. federal policy, the objectivity of Middle East policy, and the contention that foreign lobbies, particularly related to Israel, have undue power over congressional decision-making, contrasted with direct rebuttals labeling such claims as irrational or insane.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Hello, I'm Ted Pike, and this is my wife, Alain. Israel operates a powerful lobby in Congress through AIPAC, receiving nearly $5 billion annually. Elected officials avoid criticizing Israel due to fear of being labeled antisemitic, which can end their careers. The President also knows that to oppose Israel is political suicide. The media, largely controlled by Jewish interests, promotes the narrative that criticism of Israel equates to antisemitism. Consequently, our leaders are constrained by political correctness regarding Israel, unable to address its role in Middle Eastern conflict or suggest ending aid.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims they were offered $20,000,000 to withdraw from the senatorial race and run against Rashida Tlaib. They assert the pro Israel lobby will go to any length to remove anyone from U.S. Congress who opposes their agenda and their total unequivocal support for Israel, good, bad, or indifferent. The speaker emphasizes that money should not be the main catalyst for getting people elected, arguing that the pro Israel lobby uses money as its primary tool to threaten politicians. They state that the lobby will spend money against or for politicians to influence outcomes. The speaker urges Americans to elect people who truly represent their values and not those with special interests. They conclude by addressing APEC, saying, "APEC, keep your money in."

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Two speakers discuss U.S. policy on Israel, lobbying, and domestic politics. Speaker 0 says she’s pro-Israel and defender of Israel’s right to defend itself and of American Jews on campuses, but has no loyalty to any lobby group and has refused trips to Israel. She notes rising pressure to stay in a stance, saying, 'you're not allowed to' move off the lily pad. Speaker 1 explains APAC’s influence in Washington: 'APAC takes every single that they can, freshman, member of Congress, their first year... they take them on a very special trip to Israel' and that Israel receives '3.8 billion dollars in funding for Israel' annually, with an exception allowing purchases from Israeli defense contractors. He contrasts Israel’s economy with the U.S. debt and asks why Americans fund Israel. They emphasize America First, say 'any anti Israel people are welcome here,' and mention Judge McFadden's flag ruling about Israel.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
APAC is ostensibly a group of Americans who lobby on behalf of Israel, and they're very effective. As a candidate, they wanted me to do homework for them on Israel. When I refused, they suggested I copy Rand Paul's paper. I may be the only Republican in Congress who hasn't done homework for them. They tried to get to me through churches, using organizations like Christians United for Israel to co-opt evangelicals. After I was elected, they ran ads against me, so I banned them from my office. This cycle, they spent $400,000 against me. I think they're afraid of one person speaking the truth. They've called me a bigot and an anti-Semite, which is disgusting. I'm not anti-Semitic, but I don't like APAC. They should be registered with FARA, like anyone lobbying for a foreign government. Many Republicans agree with me privately but fear the backlash. Everyone has an "APAC person" they talk to, which is crazy. No other country has this kind of influence.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker expresses disbelief at why Netanyahu—"an absolutely disgusting warmonger, who has dragged us into terrible wars, who is committing massive war crimes"—gets 57 standing ovations in the US Congress. He asks if the causes are "the APAC lobby, the Israel lobby? Well, partly," "Is it blackmail by Israel? Because there's no doubt a lot of credible claims of Epstein and more about blackmail," "Is it direct bribes?" "Is it fear of American politicians?" "Is it the mainstream media, which for a lot of reasons owned by a lot of billionaires that tend to be rather arted Zionists?" "Is it the larger Christian Zionist vote base, which is also a real thing?" He says, "none of it really adds up." "it's not in America's interest" to be "isolated in the world together with a murderous rogue state." He calls Israel "the most lawless state in the whole world right now," "at war in seven fronts." He notes UN exposure: "the UN... Israeli politicians come and they yell at the whole rest of the world," while "the US representative says, yes. Yes. We we are with Israel." Finally: "first, it's disgusting. Second, it is no rational basis. And third, if it is the money, the lobbying, the mass media propaganda, the really strange beliefs of some people, whatever it is, even all of that, doesn't add up because a president of The United States should be able to figure this out a little bit better."

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 stated that the Congress of the United States is like an Israeli occupied territory because of the influence of the pro-Israel lobby, which is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. They believe that the automatic votes for aid to Israel may not always be in the national interest of the United States. Speaker 1 also mentioned that members of Congress often vote in favor of powerful lobbies because they cannot withstand the pressure. When asked why they singled out the pro-Israel lobby, Speaker 1 explained that it was in response to a specific question about Israeli aid.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript presents a viewpoint asserting that a foreign government, Israel, operates a powerful influence in the United States through a political lobby called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (APAC). The speakers claim that through this influence in Congress, Israel demands and secures nearly $5,000,000,000 each year. They assert that elected officials refrain from criticizing Israel because they fear being accused of antisemitism, which they describe as the “kiss of death” for any politician. The speakers contend that the president also understands what Israel wants, and that to act otherwise would be political suicide. They argue that the mass media—described as founded and controlled primarily by Jews—shapes the information that the American Heartland consumes, promoting the message that criticizing Israel equates to antisemitism. Additionally, the speakers warn people to “be safe,” keep their heads down, or risk becoming targets, referencing a “Zionist shooting gallery.” They imply that this political dynamic compels officials and the president to align with Israel’s preferences, effectively limiting serious criticism, calls to end aid to Israel, or protests against what they attribute to “Zionist control of Congress.” The second speaker reinforces the claim by stating that the president and elected officials are “slaves to political correctness when it comes to Jews and Israel,” and that they cannot seriously criticize Israel, particularly as the source of Middle East strike and terrorism. They assert an inability to propose ending aid to Israel or to protest Zionist influence over Congress. In summary, the transcript communicates a perspective that there is a powerful, covertly manipulating influence attributed to Israel and its lobby within American politics. It emphasizes monetary leverage (nearly $5 billion in annual aid), reputational risk for critics (antisemitism accusations as the “kiss of death”), control over political discourse through media, and punitive consequences for those who dissent. The speakers frame this dynamic as pervasive, unchallengeable, and dangerous to open political debate about U.S. policy toward Israel.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
"If Bibi Netanyahu, if he does something I don't like and if I criticize it, am I, like, a bad Christian? Absolutely not." "What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world with more freedom than the Israeli government." "To be pro Israel means you believe in the nation of Israel Mhmm. Not necessarily the government of Israel." "When you when Joe Biden was president, you and I were what we loved America, but we detested our government." "You never you never once said, hey, I'm I'm out on America. On America's right." "And what they don't want is they don't wanna be called bad Christians Mhmm." "If they challenge a foreign government, which is what happens so often. Right. Like you're a bad Christian if you have a question about a foreign government."

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Israel is a democracy and an ally. One speaker believes Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government, controlling members of the House and Senate. They claim Israel has the U.S. involved in wars of little or no interest, bankrupting the nation and resulting in American children returning in body bags. The speaker asserts that Israel controls much of U.S. foreign and domestic policy, influencing the media and commerce, and that they "own the congress." They allege Wolfowitz, as under secretary of defense, manipulated President Bush to go back into Iraq and pushed to move into Iran. When asked if they are an anti-Semite, the speaker denies it, stating that this is what they will say. They claim the U.S. has a one-sided foreign policy in the Mideast, alienating Arabs who then export violence to America. They state Israel gets approximately $15 billion a year from American taxpayers, which is $30,000 for every man, woman, and child.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Pat Buchanan says, in response to a question about whether Congress will resist demands for further aid, that “the congress of the United States is Israeli occupied territory.” He explains this means the most powerful lobby in Washington, specifically the pro-Israel lobby, has gotten its way in Congress year after year, and that the automatic votes for $3 to $4 billion in aid to Israel are not necessarily in the national interest of the United States. He argues that his comment ridiculing the subservience of Congress is valid, and he states he believes the government should not subsidize “Israeli socialism,” nor should it subsidize a West Bank policy that denies Palestinian rights, which he says he supports from Lithuania to Croatia. He also asserts that Pat Buchanan is entitled to stand up and speak out against political lobbies, whether it’s the Greek lobby or the pro-Israel lobby, without being labeled vile. Buchanan recalls the backlash: when his remark about the Amen Corner was made, APAC listed five conservative columnists who accepted the “pro Israeli lobby.” He recounts traveling the country to speak, and a young woman from the junior league telling him she received horrible calls from New York about him. He notes that individuals who are pro-Israel go around the country speaking in synagogues and telling people to call CNN to have him taken off the air, and he describes these tactics as un-American and as occurring in the name of the First Amendment, while he says they violate the spirit of the First Amendment. He emphasizes that he has been in Washington for about twenty-five to thirty years, that he is controversial, sometimes insensitive, and tough, but he considers these tactics “beyond the pale.” The exchange includes Buckley’s remark about a column from eighteen months earlier, and Buchanan reiterates his stance on the legitimacy of speaking out against political lobbies and the consequences he faced for his comments.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
One speaker believes people should be allowed to have differing views on immigration and debate the merits of the Israeli lobby's power. However, Pat Buchanan discredits this conversation because he gives the sense that he has another agenda related to personal dislike, conspiracies, and the belief that Jews are a sinister force trying to affect American politics. Another speaker questions if a certain individual exclusively targets people in the same group and makes Holocaust jokes. This speaker suggests this individual is like David Duke, who would endorse their shows. They believe David Duke is part of a campaign to discredit people on the right, and that Nick Fuentes is doing the same. They clarify that this doesn't mean everything he says is false, that he isn't talented, or that he's a bad person, but that he is clearly part of a campaign to discredit non-crazy right voices.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: "Israel operates the most powerful lobby in congress" (APAC), and "through control of congress, Israel demands and gets nearly $5,000,000,000 annually." It claims "No elected official dares criticize Israel" for fear "the Jewish lobby will accuse him of antisemitism, the kiss of death for any politician," and that "the president also knows what Israel wants, Israel gets." It states "The mass media founded and controlled primarily by Jews manipulates the spigot of information out of which Heartland America drinks" and that "if you criticize Israel, you are antisemitic." "Keep your head down, or you are fair game for being knocked off by the Zionist shooting gallery." Speaker 1: "our president and elected officials are slaves to political correctness when it comes to Jews and Israel." They "cannot seriously criticize Israel," cannot end aid to Israel, and "cannot even protest Zionist control of congress."

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker claims: "Israel has an overwhelming lobby over the United States government, and we have unconditionally supported them." He cites "BB Netanyahu came to our congress in the nineties, told us a list of countries that we need to take out. Some were Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, etcetera." He adds "Through those wars, we have lost trillions of dollars" and "We have lost American servicemen." He asserts "They don't teach about the USS Liberty, where Israel literally came, blew up an American ship because they want us to get in their war with, Egypt and they don't teach that in school." He asks "Why is there this societal taboo around criticisms of Israel? For example, APAC doesn't have to register as a foreign lobby, but like the Australia lobby does. And the it just That should be changed. I That should be corrected." Finally, "Look. I I am not gonna say Israel should have any special privileges. None."

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: "I'm very pro Israel" and "defensive of their right to defend themselves," but "I have absolutely no skin whatsoever in defending any lobbyist group, including AIPAC" and asks, "what they do to get the loyalty of politicians." She refuses outreach to visit Israel, wanting to "cover this conflict from here" and insisting she is not "on Hamas" side. Speaker 1: "'APAC is not registered under FARA' and explains lobbying tactics: taking freshmen on 'a very special trip to Israel,' inviting 'influencers,' and that Israel receives '3.8 billion dollars in funding for Israel.' He notes 'Israel is the only democracy in The Middle East' and says Israel can 'use that money to buy from Israeli defense contractors' instead of American ones. He cites Judge McFadden on flag-burning and says, 'We don't have time to fund what you're doing.' Ad: 'text m k to the number 989898.'

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asserts that they have never taken money from the Israel lobby and asks if Speaker 1 has. Speaker 1 clarifies that APAC raises a lot of money for him, but emphasizes that the fundraisers are individuals, not the PAC itself, meaning it’s a misnomer to say the PAC raises money. He describes APAC as an American lobby and explains that APAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He admits APAC is not a “foreign lobby” and says its purpose is not effectively defined as a single objective. He states his own entry into Congress thirteen years ago with the goal of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate and says he has worked every day to that end. He notes that APAC is sometimes more effective than he wishes and then characterizes APAC as “a fever swamp of terrified of APAC.” Speaker 0 challenges the idea that APAC lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government, insisting that APAC lobbies for a foreign government. Speaker 1 responds that APAC is not lobbying for a foreign government; it is lobbying for a strong US–Israel relationship and for America and Israel to be closely allied. Speaker 0 maintains that APAC is lobbying for the interests of another country and reiterates that it is not true that APAC has nothing to do with the government. Speaker 0 asks about how much contact APAC leaders have with the government of Israel, and Speaker 1 acknowledges some contact, suggesting that the government of Israel is often frustrated with APAC, and asks whether they talk. He compares the situation to lobbying for more US–Mexico trade, noting that one would talk to both sides. Speaker 0 accepts that there are many countries that lobby Washington, including Israel, and expresses familiarity with how lobbying works, including knowing Americans who lobby on behalf of foreign governments and even being related to some. The central question for Speaker 0 is not whether foreign governments lobby the United States, but why it isn’t admitted as a common practice. He states that it’s true that many countries lobby Washington, including Israel, and asks why they aren’t registered as foreign lobbies. Speaker 1 responds that they are not registered as such.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 3 said he has been told that criticizing AIPAC makes him anti-Semitic. Speaker 1 called that “ridiculous.” Speaker 3 said it feels good to have concern for one’s country and asked whether AIPAC represents a “cutting in line of prioritization” away from the American people—meaning that although Americans vote and are citizens, a separate group gets higher priority. Speaker 0 responded that the point of a PAC is to represent a group, but said there is a “huge problem” with allowing a group that does not represent American interests to influence people who are supposed to represent Americans. Speaker 0 said he has previously stated that he thinks only “like 20 representatives between Senate and the House” fully do the work of the American people without the interests of some group pulling their sway. Speaker 1 said that “over since 1948” the amount amounts to “$319 billion adjusted to inflation” and argued that there are multiple things the money could have been spent on at home instead of military strikes for Israel. Speaker 1 said the money could have been better allocated toward supporting an economy that would help the current generation afford homes. Speaker 3 asked what else would improve views if Israel’s government presented a “five-year plan to decouple from us aid,” including moving toward self-reliance, and noted that Israel is a rich country that has balanced its budget and money in a sovereign wealth fund. He asked whether people would think more highly of Israel if it stopped relying on U.S. aid and if the issue were talked about less. Speaker 2 agreed that people should be less focused on labeling, saying that the word “racism” is used when there is disagreement and that “we just have to call them a name.” Speaker 2 said he does not think people are anti-Semitic, arguing that people “just can’t agree with them” and can’t “prove them wrong,” so they “throw a word out” like “anti-Semitic” because they think the U.S. should stop sending money there. Speaker 3 said, “thank you” and noted that some people he tells “must get more aggressive.”

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
In an interview, Pat Buchanan explains his comment about Congress being "Israeli occupied territory." He clarifies that he meant the pro-Israel lobby is very influential in Washington and Congress often supports policies that may not be in the best interest of the United States. Buchanan believes that criticizing any political lobby should be allowed without being attacked. He shares that after making his comment, there were efforts to silence him, including calls to drop his column and remove him from the air. Buchanan finds these tactics un-American and believes they violate the spirit of the First Amendment. He acknowledges his controversial nature but considers such actions unacceptable.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Hello, I'm Ted Pike, and this is my wife, Alain. Israel operates a powerful lobby in Congress, known as AIPAC, which secures nearly $5 billion annually. Elected officials avoid criticizing Israel due to fears of being labeled antisemitic, which can end their political careers. The President is also aware that to oppose Israel is political suicide. The media, largely controlled by Jewish interests, promotes the narrative that any criticism of Israel equates to antisemitism. Consequently, our leaders are constrained by political correctness, unable to address Israel's role in Middle Eastern conflict or suggest ending aid to the country.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Congress is heavily influenced by the pro-Israel lobby, leading to unquestioned support for aid to Israel. Pat Buchanan criticizes this, arguing against subsidizing Israeli policies and advocating for Palestinian rights. He faced backlash for his comments, with efforts to silence him by lobbying groups. Buchanan condemns these tactics as un-American and a violation of free speech. Despite his controversial nature, he believes such actions go too far.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes Israel controls US foreign and domestic policy through lobbying. They argue this influence has led to one-sided policies, creating enemies and terrorism. The speaker criticizes the power of the Israeli lobby over Congress, warning it will harm both countries in the long run. They deny being anti-Semitic and express concern for America's future. Despite facing backlash, they stand by their statement. The speaker emphasizes the need for objectivity in policymaking to address pressing issues facing the nation.

Video Saved From X

reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Pat Buchanan raises important issues, such as American military sovereignty, but does so in a way that discredits them. When attacked, Buchanan claims a cabal controls American politics and dislikes him for speaking truth to power, casting himself as a victim. While questioning America's relationship with Israel and criticizing its lobby are valid, Buchanan is labeled antisemitic due to his relentless focus on topics related to Judaism. He attacks Goldman Sachs but not Morgan Stanley, and while he hasn't explicitly stated dislike for Jews, he has defended accused Nazi war criminals, attacked Israel, criticized American Jews for supporting Israel, and implied they push America into wars. There is a pattern of Buchanan needling the Jews, which suggests thematic antisemitism. Buchanan discredits conversations about immigration and the Israeli lobby by giving the sense that he has another agenda, believes in conspiracies, and thinks Jews are a sinister force trying to affect American politics.

This Past Weekend

Bassem Youssef | This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von #521
Guests: Bassem Youssef
reSee.it Podcast Summary
Theo Von introduced Bassem Youssef, Egyptian-born comedian, writer, and former heart surgeon, now a political commentator in America. He rose to fame during Egypt’s 2011 revolution by making fun of state media, posting YouTube videos that drew millions of views and helped launch a nightly show watched by tens of millions. He left Egypt in 2014 after threats, lawsuits, and satellite jamming, finding a rocky entry into American comedy where language and rhythm posed new challenges. He describes years of hardship, doing short sets, and building his craft until a Piers Morgan appearance in 2015 or 2016 helped him reach a wider audience and led to more opportunities. The discussion pivots to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Bassem recounts his family connections—his wife is half Palestinian—and speaks about what he sees as a long arc of subjugation and displacement. He traces the roots of the modern crisis to the late 19th and early 20th centuries: European persecution of Jews, Zionist aims, British support via the Belfour Declaration in 1917, the promise of a homeland in Palestine, and the influx of Jewish immigrants who formed militias. He argues that Palestinians were living there in significant numbers before the declaration, describes 1948 as the moment of displacement for hundreds of thousands, and emphasizes that by 1967 Israel’s control extended over the West Bank and Gaza, creating an ongoing occupation. He condemns violence on both sides but argues that occupation shapes the daily life of Palestinians, with checkpoints, land seizures, and hostages, and he notes that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza intensified after October 7 and during repeated Israeli campaigns. On the political side, he accuses Western media of disproportionate coverage and cites what he says are misleading claims about Hamas versus Israel. He asserts that a foreign lobby, particularly APAC, influences U.S. politics, arguing that hundreds of millions of dollars fund campaigns to secure U.S. policy favorable to Israel, including large security aid numbers. He condemns this influence as undermining American democracy and serving foreign interests, while insisting that criticizing Zionism or Israel is not the same as anti-Semitism. He stresses that many Jews oppose certain Israeli policies and that dialogue should be allowed without fear of cancellation. Regarding solutions, Bassem advocates ending the occupation and treating all residents with equal rights, acknowledging the difficulty of any final settlement. He cites Oslo as a failed peace process and calls for a renewed commitment to human rights and open discussion. He ends with contact information and a note about ongoing tour dates and future appearances.
View Full Interactive Feed