In a move that bespoke of his true character Randal hi-jacked an opportunity for Trump to hire both candidates. Why? He didn't want to share the limelight. What a c*ck.
You are completely correct. It was mean, selfish, back-stabbing and ugly. I'm disgusted.
So, let me get this straight... he stabbed her in the back because she lost and he won? I see what you mean. Why that low down, dirty, Rhodes scholar, 5 degree having, winning record as team leader, running a successful company, being respected and liked by everyone else SHOW OFF!! How dare he thinks he deserved to have the title of Apprentice to himself. Afterall, Rebecca did have to overcome a broken ankle--which healed nicely. And all he had to deal with was the death of his grandmother---(by the way, she's still dead)
AMEN....Arrogant,greedy, and a jerk HE IS NOT..SMART he is...Your comments right on the money...
www.firerandal.com
I think this is already being covered in another thread. While I disagree with your ascertion concerning Randall, if you want to bash him, feel free but I'd suggest you do it in the pre-existing thread.
1000000% AGREED!
What an a$$, low, selfish, self-centered guy with such a little heart! His decision made him look so bad and Trump probably already regret his decision on hiring an a$$.
I bet he lost 50% of his fans. DT didn't ask him to give up his job just hire someone-a person he bragged about. JERK.
Rebecca failed her task! Maybe randal did not want to recommend someone who failed. Maybe instead of trashing her he claimed his victory. Maybe someone who can not see that he is a true gentleman is the jerk-off.
Whatever...Would it have been different if Rebecca who didn't raise any money for her charity, have not had as many victories,was not a good leader...Why change the rules now, why was the rules changed last year when there was clearly two wonderful candidates...oh yeah, a white man won last year, and God forbid if he had to share his limelight....Get over the fact that Rebecca lost...Did you ask your employer to hire second best to you when you were hired? I don't think so...So why are you not arrogant, greedy, or jerk?
Rebecca didn't raise any money for her charity? That's funny, Yahoo donated $100,000 to both charities. It seems to me that they couldn't have been too unhappy with Rebecca, or the job she did for them. Maybe the fact that she respected their wishes NOT to solicit money during the event made a positive impression on them.Did my employer hire the second best to me when I was hired? That has nothing to do with anything. The only way that could be a fair comparison at all is if I spent 13 weeks with my competition and then I was asked by my employer what I thought of my competition, and I had previously gotten along with said competition well, and had even complimented them to my employer on differnt occaisions. How many times do you imagine that has happened with ANYONE?
I'm not saying Randal was a jerk. I don't say that at all. But your arguments lack merit, for the reasons stated above.
Please --- Yahoo only donated that money to look like the good guys at the end, *after* George trashed them on TV for dictating to the candidates NOT to raise money at the event, and then Trump shames them on TV in the boardroom by saying they better donate money. And lo and behold.....months later, on live TV, Yahoo finally makes a donation to cover their very unsuccessful charity event!! Rebecca didn't raise the money --- Yahoo covered her @ss after the fact.Perhaps Randall was being a gentleman by NOT trashing Rebecca all show --- maybe he really doesn't think she would be a good hire, or is just not quite ready yet. but should he have gone the Alla route and trashed her left and right so it would "make sense" at the very end in case he was asked to award her a job too???
This is nuts. Randall won. Rebecca lost. Just like every other season, and Trump sucks for the ending of this show and the controversy he created.
It's all about ratings and Trump's the winner here at Randall's expense.
Actually, I don't think Trump's ratings will increase after this. Who the hell wants to watch a show where the final victor is put on the spot and has to determine whether or not the runner up gets to share his victory platform?
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Yahoo was shamed into making the donation that they did, you are making a completely baseless assumption that the charity event was unsuccessful. The truth of the matter is that we will probably never know how much money was raised from that event. Furthermore, for all the people that are saying that Rebecca failed at her task, they only fair way to really find that out would have been to get the people from the pediatrics AIDS foundation to give their opinion on how she performed. None of us are qualified to say that she failed; how do you know she didn't end up raising twice as much as Randall?"PERHAPS Randall was being a gentleman by not trashing Rebecca all show" - I don't believe this. If its true, then Randall is just a lying backstabber, and I don't believe that to be the case. Though clearly others do. But you completely leave out the fact that there is a lot of room between the "Alla" route and your idea of being a gentleman. And in fact, he *did* say he felt she wasn't as qualified as he was. I have no qualms with him saying that. But when he told Trump he didn't think he (Trump) should hire Rebecca, he did not say it was because he felt she wasn't ready. And to assume that he felt she wasn't ready and that is why he wasn't in favor of hiring her is no more substantiated than assuming he was just being greedy. I don't assume either one; I'm not qualified to say what he was thinking. None of us are.
Randal did the right. He won fair and square. He was the best candidate and he proved himself over the entire 13 week period. Why is that blacks are always expected to share their limelight and victories. If Randal had been white, this wouldn't have even come up. Trump created this controversary for no reason. Either way, the show would have been a winner. He's never selected a woman or a minority, so he had little to lose. Furthermore, if he wanted to hire Rebecca, he would have. He does whatever he wants to do without regard for what others around him think. To blame Randal for Rebecca not being hired is ridiculous. If she had been the better candidate, she would have been hired by Trump in the first place. She'll be fine. She's young and smart, and only 23. She needs more experience. I'm sure this isn't the last we'll hear of Rebecca.
>He's never selected a woman
>or a minority, so he
>had little to lose.
>Last season's winner was Kendra Todd.
I stand corrected. My point still stands. The show was still successful.
The show would have been successful no matter what - people already tuned in to see the outcome, not because they agreed with it or any part of it.
LAST EDITED ON 12-16-05 AT 09:47 AM (EST)Yes, let's ask Elizabeth Glaser Foundation what they thought. Well, gee, they showed what the lady from Autism Speaks thought of Randal -- all good in the end. She had her concerns about him, but ended up seeing how great he and his team did with the last minute changes, and brought the subject of Autism out.
The people from Elizabeth Glaser were never seen commenting about Rebecca. I do believe that Rebecca failed a major part of this task. The task was to raise money during this event for the charity. Rebecca lost that focus, and she and her team did everything for Yahoo, and only placed one sign for Elizabeth Glaser, and had just a few moments for their spokesman. While the attendees may have had a great time, it didn't seem to me that the message of Elizabeth Glaser came through.
I think Randal was put in a bad position by Trump last night. I don't think that many people would have shared the title that they worked so hard for. If Trump really wanted to hire two, he should have just told them that before the final task, and still done the charity events for good will.
At what point were the words "DURING THIS EVENT" ever said when the tasks were assigned? I will grant that Rebecca made a mistake in not arguing that point; at least, not that we were shown, though she might have done so and that footage was just editted out.Rebecca's team only placed one sign for the Glaser Foundation because that's all they were given. And since we were only shown a brief few minutes of the event, we can't fairly conclude whether or not the message came through, nor really, how much time was given to their spokesman, or if he even wanted more time.
I agree that Randal was put in a tough spot; I just disagree with his decision. I think that both of them were eminently qualified for the positions. And as far as not wanting to share the spotlight, when you consider that his decision cost Rebecca a job, I would say that being unwilling to share a spotlight, no matter how much he deserved to have it himself, is incredibly greedy considering the cost to Rebecca.
Did Randal deserve to have the spotlight? Yes. But to deprive someone of a job, someone that, ostensively, you are friends with, is incredibly selfish. And the worst part is that the final tasks are ones of charity, and if Randal denied Rebecca because he didn't want to share the spotlight, he obviously didn't get the point of what charity is all about. No, he shouldn't have *had* to share it. Just as no one should have to donate to charities. And if Randal had a different reason for not wanting to hire Rebecca, he should have just said so.