> You watched a few confused people mill around the rotunda and take selfies.

This characterization is dishonest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iludfj6Pe7w

Please don't bother with equivocations.

Longer video, has more of the event.

https://youtu.be/UdnNIQQOANk

Link that doesn't require YouTube age assertion:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2022/jun/10/unseen...

I agree that the characterization as "people milling around the rotunda taking selfies" is grossly misleading.

At least some of the people were plainly not intending or doing "run of the mill protest".

Listening to Trump on that day, his speech is worse than I'd thought. (I'm not connected to the USA so I don't follow closely.)

I clicked your video and it was run of the mill protest, crowd control, and milling around the rotunda taking selfies.

> passing legislation that people want that addresses their material concerns

Is it though? The same problem that gave us the Capitol's storming also skews those people's concerns, so the legislation they'd demand would be anything but reasonable.

The mid-west and south were on-board when democratic party still stood behind the New Deal and before NAFTA.

> a few confused people mill around the rotunda and take selfies.

That's like calling 9/11 "a few planes being temporarily diverted from their flight paths".

The facts[0] paint a different picture:

"13 percent of those nearly 700 arrested as of early December are members of militia groups like the Oath Keepers or extremist groups like the Proud Boys."

> could have been avoided by winning by clear and resounding margins

If you don't care about the clear and resounding margin of the popular vote, or care about the voter suppression efforts in red states, or the fact that Biden won 74 more electoral votes than Trump, then I don't know what to tell you.

> by having a track record of passing legislation that people want

You're basically saying "Unless the winners pass exactly the legislation that the losers want, then the losers will resort to violence". You're advocating for terrorism. Anyway, you might be surprised to know that the Republicans had control of at least half of the legislature since 2015, so the 1/6 rioters really should have directed most of their anger towards the GOP.

[0] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/01/january-6-capito...

>That's like calling 9/11 "a few planes being temporarily diverted from their flight paths".

Yeah it wasn't 9/11. It was more like a 2005 myspace flash-mob that was part of a poorly thought out product promotion.

> ... popular vote ...

We don't elect by the simple popular vote. Amend the constitution to change the rules. By the current rules, it was a squeaker. The "battle ground states" are battle grounds not because of widespread voter suppression, but because the brand of the other team is so bad there.

> You're advocating for terrorism.

Yeah. Medicare for all is terrorism I guess.