Because unfortunately, both sides are bad and one side is leaning hard on the other side being so off-the-rails they're openly ranting about how badly they want to lock up and kill minorities.

If you don't see how the absolute deranged criminality of the right is helping change expectations about what corruption is, you're naive.

Literally, your post proves it, you're more concerned with how it will affect people who see criminality and corruption on both sides, instead of admitting "Yeah, both sides do corrupt shit, but it's firmly clear one side is off the rails and readily wants to hurt people." It's really easy to not have to offer anything of substance to your constituents if all you have to say is "The other guys literally want to kill you" and you're being honest when you say it.

Your comment is literally an example of letting it slide. "That is unfortunate." No, its grifting and accepting bribery to carve out an exception for your fucking buddy, something you'd probably be screaming fucking bloody murder about if it was a Republican doing it. Guess what, we can cry bloody murder about both and not act like it's time to just let corruption happen because it isn't as bad as the other sides corruption.

What a joke.

Well, both sides are bad. It's just that one side is way, way worse.

Absolute red meat for both-sides-are-bad politics.

Not exactly a secret that local economic interests dictate policies to career climbers in the political scene. This isn't even a "both sides" thing. Its a "how does a democracy actually work in practice" thing. The Whigs operate like this. The UK Tories and Labour operate like this. The German Greens and the Spanish People's Party operate like this. Its the baseline of liberal democracy the world over.

That is unfortunate. Absolute red meat for both-sides-are-bad politics.

Only if you really want it to be.

The real reason was because the law was specifically tailored for fast food, so to protect bakeries and other places it had the clause about the bread.

The law defines what a fast-food restaurant is, and says it is not an establishment that “operates a bakery that produces for sale on the establishment’s premises bread."

The donor was just confused if that meant him, ultimately he decided it probably did but that he’d pay them anyways.

But yeah this is totally the same thing as trump being friendly with Russia.

Reallllly? Jimmy John's is super fast and their bread tastes delicious. Jersey Mike's tastes amazing and fresh. Subway doesn't taste fresh. It tastes like prepackaged deli meat, old veggies, and their bread is mediocre. So as far as sandwiches go, its s pretty lackluster affair.

I'd probably say: jersey Mike's, Jimmy John's, then waaaaaay down I'd put subway.

If those are the choices, it doesn’t matter who “wins”, we all lose.

You know there are independently owned delis right?

I thought they stopped this build your own thing? I recall there was a backlash over it.

I was almost always the one swiping kittens from the little girls in my neighborhood, beheading them with an axe, then frying them up for dinner. Never had to develop a taste for flesh of this sort

The whole system is set up to prevent leaders who are good for the people from winning (primaries specifically, the only candidates who do well are those that corporate interests approve of). So you know we end up with a mix of bickering over inconsequential nonsense and people trying to convince us that giving up our liberties is actually good for us, to keep us away from what actually matters.