“What some top consumer and environmental groups said about the very Executive Order Trump was signing and that Taylor guy was standing over his shoulder smiling for”

trump taylor gourmet
Photo via @realDonaldTrump

Thanks to all emailed updates about the Taylor Gourmet/President Trump meeting yesterday.

“Dear PoPville,

Trump tweeted a photo of the Taylor guy standing over his shoulder and smiling as he signed this horrendous executive order today that’s trying to undo major health, safety and environmental regulations:

The Taylor guy is claiming in a tweet that he was just going to share his views with Trump. In reality, he was being used as a prop to smile while Trump did the work of big polluters and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Here’s what some top consumer and environmental groups said today about the very Executive Order Trump was signing and that Taylor guy was standing over his shoulder smiling for:

Sierra Club: “What this means is that for every restriction on immigration or tax break for big oil companies that is put into place, Donald Trump will also be able to throw out two clean air and clean water safeguards. The safeguards that Trump wants to throw out are those that ensure we can fulfill and implement laws deeply valued by Americans, like the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, meaning this shameless pandering is willfully ignorant of Congressional mandates. This is a dangerous, deadly plan to undermine the laws that protect our environment, our workplaces, and our families and Trump should expect fierce resistance.”

Center for Science in the Public Interest (leading organization on federal food safety policy): “Certainly in the food safety world, responsible business leaders supported the Food Safety Modernization Act, which required the writing of new regulations that keep produce, packaged foods, and imports safe.,,Rather, this executive order springs from a cartoonish and unsophisticated view of the regulations that keep our air clean, our water potable, our food safe, our planes from crashing, and so on, and ignores the public health benefits of those rules. It may make for a fine photo opportunity but this edict signed today is not itself serious. The consequences, though, may well be.”

Public Citizen: “It will result in immediate and lasting damage to our government’s ability to save lives, protect our environment, police Wall Street, keep consumers safe and fight discrimination. It will fundamentally change our government’s role from one of protecting the public to protecting corporate profits, and will lead to a dangerous new era of deregulation and corporate “self-regulation.””

Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety: “threatens to roll back lifesaving auto safety regulations that prevent fatalities and injuries in car crashes, and that prevent crashes from happening. It also threatens to undermine public confidence in the safety of new vehicles”

Consumers Union: “We believe it is the role of government to set reasonable rules for the marketplace that protect consumers from dangers like predatory lending, dirty air and water, foodborne diseases, and unsafe medications. This order is telling federal agencies to trade off one rule that improves health or safety for two other rules, and that does not make sense.”

 

136 Comment

  • Not gonna believe a word this guy says and definitely won’t be giving him business. Looking at all of their dumb smug faces as trump signs away the only things stopping corporations from going back to exploiting people the ways they did during the industrial revolution

  • HaileUnlikely

    Just out of curiosity, who are the other individuals in the picture? I don’t recognize any of them. Are they also small business owners? Should we boycott their businesses as well? (Serious question)

    • “Should we…” – no, we should continue posing dubious questions to avoid having to actually think for oneself. That worked out rather well yesterday.

      • HaileUnlikely

        If we are going to jump to conclusions and punish people because we saw a photo of them that implied something about their beliefs, we should at least do it impartially. Who are the other people in the photo, toughguy?

        • Haile, your (and others) attempts at sounding “reasonable” are missing the point. No one is jumping to conclusions about his beliefs; it doesn’t matter what he believes. Participating in the photo op to is enough. I am judging him (and his business) for his actions.

        • HaileUnlikely

          I am being completely serious here: Why is there seemingly no interest in the others at the meeting and their businesses? What is special about Taylor, besides that somebody else already did the hard work of recognizing this one guy and publicly calling attention to him, but not the others who were demonstrably every bit as present in the photo? If you want to judge him and his businesses for this, fine. The justification for only applying that standard to him and his business, but not the other people in the photo and their businesses, escapes me though.

          • On that point, I am curious to know who the others are as well. My hunch is that others are small business owners from other cities and that is why they are not recognized.

          • Please keep the dubious questions rolling – you’re either genuinely having trouble understanding what should be obvious to most, or you’re feigning ignorance because you think you may somehow stand to profit from Trump/his policies.

          • If my googling is correct some of the others are:
            .
            Joy Weatherup-Anthis of JWA Construction Management
            Roger Campos of the Minority Busienss Roundtable
            Larry McKenney, chief of operations for Capital Radiology
            Irma Aguirre, owner of the Mexican Bistro Cafe

        • I’m googling.
          .
          One is Weatherup Anthis, the owner of JWA Construction Management in DeWitt, NY.
          So that’s a little hard to boycott.
          .
          I’m keeping my eyes peeled for more. It’s good to be aware of who they are boycott or not.

          • I just googled a Daily Mail article that lists several of the other attendees. Already closed the browser else I’d post the link.

    • +1. I agree. I will no longer be eating at Taylor nor giving my business to anyone else willing to be a Trump photo op prop.

      • Same here – the lack of moral conscience displayed in even being associated with Trump is enough to keep me and my wallet away.

    • justinbc

      It’s pretty clear how few of the people commenting here have ever faced the challenges of operating their own business. The hand-wringing is at an all-time high. I can’t wait til something actually important happens today or tomorrow to distract them.

      • I tend to agree with this. Practically speaking, I think it was a bad business decision for Patten to take the photo op; I also don’t think it’s boycott worthy, or that his business should be destroyed because of it. Everyone can choose for themselves.

        • But if everyone can chose for themselves, then that also means everyone can chose for themselves whether they chose to support Patten and his business or not, right?

          • Or course. I’m not suggesting that anyone has a responsibility to eat there, just that, in my opinion, this isn’t a boycott worthy offense.

      • You mean like the nomination of a right wing ideologue to SCOTUS who will vote to uphold all the terrible Trump executive orders and regulations propelling our country backwards?

        • justinbc

          That would certainly be more worthy of my own outrage/concern, yes.

          • some people are blessed with the ability to be outraged at multiple things at once.

          • justinbc

            I don’t doubt that. And I fully expect them to forget this one next week when they’re hungover and need a breakfast sandwich after trying to numb the pain of something much more significant.

      • You’re right, Justin. As a small business owner, I can’t imagine how this Taylor feller could possibly survive without appearing in Trump’s photo op. All those intractable regulations sure got in his way of running a small business, yup.

        • justinbc

          You and others seem to be phrasing this meeting in the sense of what Taylor has to gain by meeting with him (probably not very much). As a business owner myself I tend to look more at what I would stand to lose if I declined (look at Comet if you need an example).

          • And people donate millions to political campaigns because there’s just ‘not very much’ in it to have access to the U.S. President.

          • justinbc

            When you find the evidence of Taylor donating millions to gain influence please let us know.

          • Justin, you are the most annoyingly obtuse person I have ever encountered. I am not sure how you make it through a single day of life. Your success in life is a testament that anyone can succeed with enough luck. The point is people get access in different ways (some by giving money, some by giving their smug grins). Either way they are giving something to Trump and as a small business owner you should know that you don’t give things in exchange for nothing. Your point about drawing conclusions about what was said is missing the point that has been explained numerous times (you are obviously missing it on purpose because you have no response, I am going to draw that conclusion).

          • HaileUnlikely

            I don’t think Justin is missing the point in question, I think he is rejecting it. Speaking for myself, I am not missing it, I am rejecting it.

          • your comments continue to reflect that you are clearly missing the point in question.

          • justinbc

            Fortunately my line of work doesn’t rely on anonymous internet strangers liking my personality. I completely get your point, and I think it’s a rather stupid one. I was trying to be more delicate in pointing out how stupid it was, but really why bother?

          • Prince Of Petworth

            Alright children – settle down or I’ll pull the car over.

          • HaileUnlikely

            Most of your comments prior to this one struck me as very reasonable. As you can see, I did not agree with a lot of them, but I think that is ok. I find your last comment directly above this one more troubling. It implies that you do not comprehend that it is possible that another person could understand your opinion but decide to have a different opinion instead, as you think I must simply be “missing” it.

          • Sorry, the personal attack was too far. I believe you can have a different opinion but you both keep responding to one point by saying that people are making a completely different point. That is the problem. People are saying “this is wrong because of X” and instead of saying “X is not relevant” or “X is stupid” or what have you (which could lead to an interesting conversation), you are responding with “I refuse to assume Y.” The point most people are trying to make is that it doesn’t matter “whether it constitutes willful endorsement of the president or his agenda” so when you continue to respond with statements that you cannot assume it does constitute such an indorsement, that makes it seem like you are missing the point.

          • justinbc

            If there were a singular point that everyone was making it would be much easier to reply to, but that’s just not the case. It seems the overwhelming amount of people are conflating an appearance by a business owner in a photo-op with the POTUS as tacit agreement with an EO that was later issued that day, or even further as general support for the POTUS himself (inauguration photos later uncovered not withstanding). For me, objectively, that’s a bridge too far without the actual content of the meeting being disclosed. According to Patten, “Taylor Gourmet rejects any and all hate and/or discrimination against any human being. Yesterday, I attempted to affect change in a positive way by voicing my concerns for small businesses at The White House. To those who view this as wrong, I accept and respect you opinion. I believe change can be achieved through dialog and activism. I strongly reject any and all forms of hate and/or discrimination.” I’m willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt in that regard, but I can understand that many have a much lower threshold for tolerance. Personally I think they’re being silly (on the scale of things to be upset by with respect to the administration), but I’m not signing their paychecks so to each their own.

          • justinbc

            It’s kind of funny to see how this parallels with Tulsi Gabbard’s meeting with Assad…from The Atlantic:
            “On January 18, Gabbard caused a stir when she revealed her fact-finding trip to Syria this month included a meeting with Assad. She said she hadn’t planned on meeting with the longtime Syrian leader, but that when given the opportunity she felt “it was important to take it,” adding: “I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there’s a chance it can bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering.””
            Not all of her colleagues in Congress approved. Representative Adam Kinzinger, a Republican from Illinois and fellow Iraq veteran, called Gabbard’s meeting with Assad “disgusting” and said the move “legitimized his dictatorship and in turn, legitimized his genocide against the Syrian people.”

          • I’m a small business owner on H st and every time my business is even mentioned on this blog, Justin chimes in with something unflattering to say. This guy poses with trump in support of potentially harmful policies and gets defended.

        • Allowing any pol to use you as a photo op demonstrates pretty poor judgment.

      • First, you don’t need to own a small business to care about regs on public health, environment, labor, etc. Let’s not buy into the ‘regulations-as-boogeyman’ ploy that prioritizes profit over all else. Small business owners chose their lot in life. They are not owed a profit just by virtue of existing. For all the ‘pull yourself up by your bootstraps’ rhetoric that comes from right wingers, they sure do moan a lot about how the evil regs are making it impossible for them to succeed. Just work hard and you can do anything!

        • justinbc

          As I said in my comment that was deleted, it’s entirely possible for his claims that he was there to advocate for ideas he feels are relevant to small businesses, and for Trump and his team to come to completely different decisions, and a photo-op to take place after. Unless you were in the meeting maybe tone down the assumptions.

          • Any other qualifications you’d like to impose for voicing a viewpoint here? Let’s see, must be business owner, must have been in the meeting in question. That’s a pretty narrow crowd. It’s especially entertaining when you lay out your own unsubstantiated speculation on what happened while admonishing others to ‘tone down’ the assumptions.

          • justinbc

            I don’t know what was said, neither do you. The difference is I’m not using my lack of knowledge to make purchasing decisions. I don’t go to Taylor because I dislike their food, not because I draw unsubstantiated conclusions from a photo.

          • Sorry not buying it. If you are there in the OO with Trump and allow yourself to be photographed with him (especially with that big smile) then I’m willing to bet you are aware that your presence will be used by Trump and his minions to support his agenda in some way. Standing there for the cameras while Trump signs one of his messed up EOs is a de facto endorsement of Trump no matter how you slice it.

        • +1000000 to this. Nobody forces you to own a business, and it’s obvious that many small and big business owners want Trump to prioritize their needs over the needs of their employees. I’m betting this guy met with Trump to hedge his bets; to see if he could get in good with the guy who can help Congress vote down any pro-worker laws DC passes for itself – like paid family leave, increased minimum wage, etc. On the one hand, he’s looking out for his self-interests; on the other, I think he likely miscalculated the dangers of doing it this way in DC. At the end of the day, to me, this is how Trump won and continues to derive support from surprising places; by noting that it’s OK to value your life / needs / desires above those of others. Women matter less, employees matter less, Muslims matter less, etc. I can’t demonize the guy for being selfish in a wildly selfish society, but I can choose not to support it.

      • I don’t think this is evidence of that at all. Of course running a successful small business is difficult and there are probably regulations that make it more difficult than it has to be. But the onerous regs should be identified and eliminated if they are unnecessary. The “2 for 1″ policy is just boneheaded and selling it to the public under the guise that it is intended to ‘bring back the American Dream!” and is for small business is offensive. The EO applies to every federal agency. There is no doubt that the pockets of big business will reap the benefits of this at the expense of the health and safety of the American people.

        There is no other way to interpret this photo op other than an endorsement of the EO. This was not a forum to voice opinions about running a small business — it was a public endorsement of the EO. Either Taylor was invited to witness the signing of the EO or they were misled. If they disagreed with the EO or were not aware of its contents, they should have stayed home.

      • Some of us have had our own businesses and know how poorly thought through this really is.

  • Here’s the thing that gets me on these “panels”. The Taylor guy had every right to go – having a voice at the table is great. However, I have a hard time believing these people do anything but nod their heads and smile through most of these meetings. These people should be cognizant of being used as props for things. Like did he agree with what Trump signed during a photo op?
    .
    Also, no need to boycott Taylor for this meeting. His hair on the other hand? Boycott-worthy.

    • Agree. I wouldn’t knock him for going, but standing next to Trump for a photo op is idiotic. It’s the same issue with Uber. Don’t shy away from the fact that you’re on his advisory panel, but show a little backbone too. If Trump kicks you off for having an opinion that differs from his own, that’s a publicity boon for your company.

    • Regardless of whether he only nodded his head and smiled, if he’s willing to sit and smile with Trump for a photo-op then I’m taking my money elsewhere. Simple as that.

      • It was just my personal view, you’re entitled to do whatever you like. I’m hit and miss on this kind of stuff – there’s probably a lot of things you wouldn’t support if you knew the backstory of everyone. This is a little different cause it’s taking it public (whereas a business owner elsewhere could support Trump, vote for Trump, etc. and you may never know).
        .
        I don’t really go to Taylor anyways.

    • the EO was already written. This was a photo op and nothing else. There was no open discussion about the content of the EO.

      • But did he know what the EO was when he went? Probably not, since Trump doesn’t even tell his cabinet officials what’s in the EOs before he signs them. This particular EO is just idiotic. Have to kill two regulations to implement one? Brilliant. Very deep thinking there. It’s Trump, Bannon, and Miller sitting around the oval office drafting shit with no input from anyone who knows better.

        • Two in, one out has been a dumbass GOP (the Norquist wing) talking point for ages. This is one I can’t actually blame on Bannon. This is how you get government small enough (and weak enough) to drown in a bathtub.

          Now, did anyone invited to the White House that day get a head’s up on the entire agenda, including the text of the EO? Of course not. Because as you said, no one’s been releasing the EOs for standard review, so they sure as hell aren’t releasing them to invitees for a small business round table.

          This administration is a week in. Many people are still adjusting to the new dystopian reality. Patten going into that meeting clinging to a sense of politics as usual is probably more likely than him standing there knowingly to support a Norquist-like agenda because the Trump team doesn’t tell anyone anything. Was attending a bad idea? Probably by the time the meeting actually happened. But when was the invitation sent and accepted? And what are the potential consequences for a business based on brick and mortar and actual employees of rejecting invitations when you’ve been publicly linked with Obama? The Comet reference above might actually have a point.

          Buy the sandwiches, don’t buy the sandwiches (I’ve only ever had one good sandwich from them anyway), but we probably all need to recognize that shit is complicated and moving extremely fast. Decisions are being upended on an hourly basis and normal risk analysis appears to not be working.

        • he was either told what it was and thought it was a good thing or he didn’t know and/or was misled. If he didn’t know and or was misled he needs to say that otherwise his appearance can only be interpreted as endorsement of the EO. If you are going to stand there smiling as he signs the document, you better know what is in it.

    • Yes, talking about another man’s hair is going to accomplish something. Time to grow up.

  • jim_ed

    Their sandwiches have always been and continue to be complete trash, so I’m honored to be out in front of everyone else in boycotting it. #thoughtleader.

    • +1

    • See, I think the chicken cutlet sandwiches back when they first started out down on H street were really good. (Back when they shipped the good bread in from Philly.) I went through a long hiatus because when I lived in Columbia Heights, I’d have to walk past G Sandwich to get to Taylor, and why would I do that? Now, I think the quality has deteriorated, but I still occasionally go to the one in Bethesda, because the food in Bethesda generally stinks, and it’s an acceptable option in that context. Plus, I have always like aged provolone.

      • justinbc

        The first two or three years they were in operation I was a huge fan, regularly invited to come taste their new products for free before they came out. Their decline happened fast and was a pretty steep drop correlating closely with their rapid expansion. I honestly avoid them completely now with the exception of the airport, where they just barely nudge out the other poor competition in their terminal.

        • That tracks my experience. I also was never a big fan of the subs – they were fine, but there are better ones around (the Italian Store, specifically). Roast pork with broccoli rabe used to be tasty, too.
          .
          And many of the food options in Bethesda are only narrowly better than airport cuisine.

    • maxwell smart

      +1, would rather go to Panera.

    • Agreed. I’ve honestly only patroned once and I wasn’t terribly impressed, so it won’t be hard to avoid this shop

  • I wish more of America would see the thick irony of Trump supporting small businesses.

    • I personally know a small business owner in NY who was almost nearly bankrupted by Trump when he was stiffed when it came to settling the bill. Trump refused to pay more than 50 cents on the dollar on the agreed upon contract. It took him a few years to fully recover from the financial loss (over $1m).
      .
      Trump doesn’t give two f#cks about small businesses. Duh.

  • He’s in the wrong city to claim being a naïf. If the matches have any staying power people will start organizing against his stores.

    • Definitely. This wouldn’t be a problem if Taylor were a national chain restaurant. But don’t play dumb when your business is in a city that overwhelmingly despises Trump’s agenda and not expect a negative backlash.

  • I kept trying to like Taylor, but the last visit when the cashier sneezed into her hands and then continued to work without washing them and tried to give me my change, I realized that their health training couldn’t be very good. Maybe if Trump gets rid of all these restrictions on businesses he talks about they won’t have to have any health training at all. That’ll work.

  • He sure does have on a big smile for just being there to voice his concerns. We eat at Taylor often and have used them for catering work events a few times. I will be looking for other options. This douche was more than happy to act as if this administrations actions are normal.

  • Eh, Taylor can take their terrible aged provolone and their stupid political theater and they can shove it. I’ll take my money elsewhere.

  • #BanalityOfEvil

    I’ve seen this all over LatAm. People who you think were “decent folk,” you knew from childhood, went to church with, and broke bread with, will ditch all of their beliefs and principles just for the privilege of being close to power. These “leaders” are just “useful idiots” that prop up these strongmen.

    As JohnH said above, they are just props for a photo-op. Very dangerous props that lend legitimacy.

    • This is so true, unfortunately. I used to work for a non-profit veterans service organization that billed itself as non-partisan. Then they attended the Inauguration as “special guests” when I know for a fact they didn’t attend either of Obama’s. It’s clear from their leaders’ position on social media that they’re ego-driven and power-hungry. After what Trump said about McCain and freezing hiring at the VA, they should be ashamed of associating with him.

    • +1 — and they help normalize the horrible.

  • B.S. Never eating Taylor hoagies again

  • It is disingenuous to frame the executive order as supporting small business – there is absolutely nothing about small business in the executive order, and there haven’t been any examples of regulations that hamper small businesses given as justification for the order. The small business angle is a smokescreen, and the Taylor guy is clearly a tool. No Taylor sandwiches for me!

  • I’ve been boycotting Taylor’s since they dropped their broccoli sandwich.

  • Dude should take his hair and inferior ingredients back to Philly.

  • If you want to go meet the president, fine. Rare opportunity. But don’t be a useful idiot by giving him a big smile for a photo op.

    • So you should look miserable in a photo then?

      • No, just look like you’re there. “Big smile” and “miserable” are not the only two options.

        • Thanks for clarifying.

          • You’re welcome. I am a huge proponent of neutral face and I’m surprised at how many people don’t even know it’s a thing. I often have to explain that no expression does not equal “unhappy”.

          • Can’t read my,
            Can’t read my,
            No he can’t read my poker face
            .
            Yes, that’ll now be in your head all day. You’re welcome.

      • I would say you should decline to appear in the photo if you don’t agree with the policy being signed. And if you do agree with it despite how destructive it would be to consumers, then I’ll give up my Broad Street even if it hurts at lunchtime.

      • maxwell smart

        It works for Melania. She always looks miserable.

  • Trump went to the Pentagon to sign the immigration Executive Oder and had the SecDef in attendance. But Mattis had never seen the darn thing (turns out neither had the head of DHS). So people are on notice…..anyone who goes to the current WH ought to be wary if it was just supposed to be to “meet” with the president.

  • 1. I write regulations for a living, and the EO doesn’t make any sense. Congress writes the law broadly (and often the law as written by Congress isn’t exactly clear). Regulations flesh out the law so that citizens understand how to comply. “Regulations” aren’t always the same as “restrictions” – and in fact many regulations may be pro business. The Planet Money episode called “Undoing Obama” has a decent discussion of what regulations (also known as rules) are and are not.
    .
    2. My husband owns two small businesses in the District, and we, and his partner, and his partner’s wife, support the boycott of Taylor. Again, the EO has nothing to do AT ALL with protecting small businesses, and the Taylor guy made a choice to be photographed supporting Trump. We don’t like Trump, and we don’t want to support businesses that support him.

    • +1000 to point 1. I work with a lot of companies who appreciate the clarity and definition provided by regulations. If he wanted to reform certain regs, that’s fine — do a review. But this policy makes no sense. It also has nothing to do with small businesses and will not make lives easier for entrepreneurs. I have no issue with a business person meeting with the president (including Uber’s CEO or this Taylor dude). I do have an issue with a business person standing behind the president, smiling, and lending credibility to a specific, idiotic action. If he didn’t know what was in the EO, or if he didn’t agree with it, he should have said “sorry, I am just here for the meeting and cannot participate in this photo op.”

    • I am so with you on this point, and no one is mentioning the idiocy of this order. I am an SES that oversees an office that processes the rules of our agency – and once myself drafted certain rules. To believe that one rule can be adopted, while two others are eliminated is ridiculous. Rarely are there overlapping rules that relate to each other – so is an agency supposed to randomly choose two other rules? Does the EPA implement a clean water rule, yet eliminate two clean air rules? Do agencies just eliminate one provision of a prior rule, to look like there is a “rule” being eliminated? Further, typically Congress has imposed the rulemaking on agencies – they don’t define terms, but direct an agency to develop the rules. An agency can’t ignore that – and do they then eliminate two other rules Congress directed? This executive order is so amateurish it is sad. It seems to be simply a show – or something imposed by an administration that has no clue how the administrative rulemaking process works.

      • it really is just so, so idiotic and clearly for show.
        .
        I also don’t understand why no one else is pointing out that “regulation” in the colloquial sense (restricting business activity to protect workers/environment/consumers/whatever) is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from “regulation” in the legal sense – rulemaking to interpret and clarify the law as written by Congress. And, as you rightly point out, is often prescribed in the law itself.

    • Thanks for clarifying what regulations are and what they do (“Congress writes the law broadly (and often the law as written by Congress isn’t exactly clear). Regulations flesh out the law so that citizens understand how to comply. ‘Regulations’ aren’t always the same as ‘restrictions’ – and in fact many regulations may be pro business.”).
      .
      Many people aren’t quite clear on that. I know I definitely wasn’t until I started working for the federal government (and even then, not right away).

      • unfortunately, it seems like Trump himself and/or his administration is also not clear about regulations vs. restrictions.

      • yes yes yes. Why aren’t people out in the world repeating this a million times? It’s like folks are accepting the idea that this is a pro-environment/labor/safety vs anti-those-things discussion. But this EO is so, so far from even broaching that debate.

      • maxwell smart

        And herein lies the problem – the people in charge and the people who voted these people in charge I am convinced have a 4th grade reading level and lack the patience to understand the nuance of our government. Reading various comment threads I also am beginning to wonder if American History and Government are no longer taught in schools, because it’s VERY clear there is a large section of the voter base has no knowledge of how any of this works.

    • I write regulations for a living too, and this EO isn’t much more informative than the campaign promise it was based on. It doesn’t define a “cost” (net or gross?), really explain what a “regulation” is, or provide any guidance on how to implement it. It can be the biggest change to regulatory policy ever, or a meaningless piece of fluff. We’ll have to wait for guidance from an OIRA director (not appointed yet) before we can say anything meaningful about it. I’d also note that the characterizations of the EO by the organizations quoted here are quite partisan and not necessarily accurate.

  • Every dollar you spend is a vote. I’ll be voting for businesses that support worker protections, minimum wage laws, access to healthcare, environmental protection, and equal protection under the law. Obviously, that’s not Taylor. It’s really pretty straight forward.

  • I understand that people are quite passionate about what is going on in the government right now. But I also think that it is dangerous and self-defeating to portray anyone who appears in a photo with the current President or takes a phone call from him to be a “collaborator.”
    I also think that most small businesses are far more impacted by state and local regulations than by federal regulations. So if you are worried about small businesses in your area acting improperly, make sure you show up and vote in local elections for people who will make sure that the public is protected.

    • +1 to most small businesses are far more impacted by state and local regulations than by federal regulations.
      .
      I have heard many MANY horror stories of my husband and his business partners dealing with ABRA, the DC OTR, and other local agencies, in operating their businesses. I have never once heard him complain about a federal regulation relating to small businesses.

  • If you found out your company/Sr. executive staff is a Trump supporter would you quit your job?

  • Casey must be glad that the toxic levels of salt in his wildly unhealthy sandwiches won’t be questioned. No wonder the rest room never has soap in it: the salt in the kitchen kills all microbes.

  • Just had a Taylor sammich. Still good.
    I’m boycotting Jimmy Johns because the guy gave me the stink eye. Donzo!

    • Jimmy is a big game hunter and killed the last animal (can’t recall which – a rhino or an elephant I think) of its kind in a preserve in Africa several years ago … so yes, boycott them too.

  • Prince Of Petworth

    Also an interesting find from City Paper’s Laura Hayes:

    “Also, Casey Patten and his wife look like they had a pretty good view @realDonaldTrump’s inauguration.”

    https://twitter.com/LauraHayesDC/status/826474075245641728

  • Two words – Arbitrary and Capricious!

  • Looks like we need to now boycott Jose Andres and all of his restaurants too: https://twitter.com/chefjoseandres/status/826439789641625603

    • ^^ Beyond ridiculous. Enjoy your homemade turkey sandwiches.

    • Odd to hear Jose Andres say this after all that he’s been through with Trump. Maybe he’s playing nice?

    • No, looks like YOU need to boycott these restaurants. What Andres said is absolutely right. Meeting the POTUS – any POTUS – is an honor. And it doesn’t mean you support him or her or his or her agenda. It’s respect for the office.

      • Prince Of Petworth

        My hunch is “More Boycotts!!” was being sarcastic.

      • “It’s respect for the office.”

        ever see the movie barry lyndon?

        http://www.subzin.com/quotes/M70256bf0/Barry+Lyndon/Madam%2C+you+have+insulted+my+father.

      • I dunno – after he was elected, I thought maybe the best course was “Salute the rank, not the man,” meaning respect the office of the president and give Trump a chance. But, only 10 days in, I don’t think he deserves that respect. He denigrates the office of the presidency with his bizarre crowd-size disputes, fighting with the media, “alternative” facts, and most of all, with this despicable Muslim Ban. Love of country does not mean blind respect for the president.

      • “It’s respect for the office.”
        .
        For me, this is not a thing anymore. Like him or not, Donald Trump has cheapened the office. The president now bears no illusion of decorum, decency, or propriety, and the office now commands no more respect than any other civil servant as far as I’m concerned.

    • he’s suing Trump, so Jose is still cool with me

  • Goodbye, Taylor Gourmet. You lost me as a customer.

  • Thanks for reporting this. We were going to grab a quick bite at their Penn Quarter/Chinatown location tonight. Not anymore. They’ve lost my business permanently.

  • I personally am not a Trump supporter, but this has been on my mind lately… Can someone please explain how choosing not to accept someone for a belief they have politically is any different than choosing not to accept someone based on religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc.?

    • I don’t think any one is saying he can’t hold that belief, but if he does, we are allowed to have our beliefs about what that means. There’s also a big difference in being intolerant of a characteristic someone chooses (like deciding that protecting the environment is not worthwhile) and that of one with no choice (race, sexual orientation, etc.)

    • Religious beliefs are about governing ones own life while political beliefs are about governing the lives of others. Choosing not to accept a business is different than choosing not to accept a person.

    • I think the rationale is that there are certain characteristics that are fundamental to someone’s personhood, which they cannot or should not be expected to change, and for which they should not be criticized or denigrated, such as gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc. A political stance, even if it is sincerely held, is not central to a person’s being and is not equivalent to these characteristics. It is a different judgment to say that you don’t like someone based on one of the above characteristics, and won’t go to their restaurant, for instance, then is to say you don’t like someone because of a political stance, and won’t go to their restaurant. The former denigrates a basic element of someone’s personhood. The latter disagrees with a political stance or policy position.

    • Double standard for sure. Can’t win these days with some ppl.

  • regardless of this gaffe and their shitty sandwiches, they’ll still win “Best of DC” in the CityPaper.

  • I wont be going there anymore.

  • Natalia Luis of M. Luis Construction (3rd from Left)

  • Never again. Sorry. I will not support this administration and anyone who is cool with it. Boy, BYE!

  • We ate at Taylor at least once a week. NO MORE!

  • Protesting a sandwich shop because the owner was in a picture with Trump is LOL worthy. Seems like some people these days will try to find absolutely anything to protest. Grow up.

    • Poor baby. I’m glad your got your giggles and “LOL” in, now go enjoy your fascist sandwich along with Paul Ryan and others without a backbone.

Comments are closed.