I had forgotten about DADT. I'll give you that one. But claiming "victory" for a party for something that they had no involvement in making happen, SSM, is deceitful at best and is one of the many reasons why I hate the party system.
But, like I said, we're talking about what the Democrats could campaign on. Like others, I get the feeling you think I'm trying to make an argument to get people to vote for a Democrat. I'm not. I'm talking about how the Democrats should have campaigned, but didn't.
I would however argue that while they do get DADT they also took away peoples rights.
While I'm going to disagree with the next part of what you say, even if it were true, it wouldn't change the fact they still had advanced civil rights (in one way). Thus they should have campaigned on how they have advanced civil rights.
1: By allowing the NSA to continue on with what they've been doing to the American People, violating their privacy rights.
Allowing something which has been happening for the past 10-15 years doesn't constitute taking away rights.
2: By Obamacare's mandate which took away peoples right to choose to not buy a product from a private company.
It didn't though. If you choose not to have health insurance, you can still not have health insurance. Nobody is forcing you to buy anything from a private company.
Those two combined outweigh any good that repealing of DADT did imo.
Regardless of any dispute we may have over the legitimacy of your complaints, it wouldn't change the fact we are talking about campaigning, not if one party is better than another.
I hope that makes sense.
I have not lied to you once. I've used official statistics.
People that stop looking did not retire they could not find work.
Umm, MANY people have retired who still had jobs. For example, my father and his wife. My mother come July 2015.
Roughly half of the people who have dropped out of the labor force (which has been declining for a long time, mind you) in the last few years have done so due to retirement. It's not a lie, it's just a truth.
Retirement is not included in labor participation that was breaking records and just came down
I know retirement is not included in labor participation. That's the point. People who retire are not included in the labor force participation because they are not working nor are they looking for work. Thus, when a significant portion of the population chooses not to work because of retirement, the labor force participation rate drops.
This is basic math.
You ignore my links that use BLS statistics. From the hot air link
No, I haven't ignored it at all. I've acknowledged it and explained it. Pinqy has explained it multiple times to you as well.
The fact is more people are working now than before. It's just a fact, a fact straight from the BLS. Yes, labor force participation is down, but the number of discouraged workers (those who do not have a job and have given up looking) has dropped in half. Again, this is straight from the BLS. Roughly half of the people who have dropped out of the labor force have been retirees (with stay at home spouses, people going back to college, etc. also impacting the rating). No one is disputing with you there have been some people who are not counted as unemployed because they've given up looking for work because they don't believe they can find a job. But what I AM saying is the number of those people has dropped in half, again as stated by the BLS.
Now I realize I'm probably spending way too much time explaining something you have no interest in hearing because it conflicts with what you want to believe, but just because you wish to stick your head in the sand, it doesn't change the fact it is all a complete truth.