>That was the plain, unembellished description. The biased one was "riot."

Ah yes, they were all there to literally "destroy the nation." My bad.

>I don't have to justify a plain, factual description. It's literally just what happened. I would never say they are "on par" with terrorists--they are literally, objectively, actual terrorists. It's only wild because the truth is wild, and that is most certainly not my fault.

You're right. You wouldn't have to justify an objective, factual description. I'd advise looking up the definition of terrorism: the guy they have planting homemade bombs by the convention buildings is a terrorist; the people who yelled really loud and then wandered around breaking things were not. If you think those two examples are the same, and that the latter belongs in the category that organizations and people like ISIS, LRA, The Order, Kaczynski, and McVeigh fall into, then I think you have fundamental misunderstandings about what terrorism is.

I don't know about you, but I think the security response to action taken by those groups would have been very different than what happened on the 6th. The government response was surprisingly gentle for being faced with hundreds of terrorists storming the Capitol, all of whom had the intent of annihilating the entire country. Miraculously, we survived in spite of it.

>You are not entitled to your own facts. You may not disagree with the facts. There are no alternative facts. These facts do not care about your feelings. Etc.

I agree wholeheartedly!