>(This is a repost from a
>thread that was locked. I
>guess I should have
>posted in an ongoing thread
>instead of starting a new
>one.)
>
>Randall is as good as they
>come, in some things. But
>he failed at his very
>first task as an employee
>of the Trump organization.
>
>Fact is, he let the side
>down big-time.
>
>Randall could have turned this first
>task, giving an opinion on
>the hiring of an employee,
>into a multi-million dollar positive
>media blitz for Donald and
>his organization..... If he had
>only placed his new employer's
>best interest first, and not
>what he thought was his
>own.
>
>Randall was already hired, he should
>have conducted himself in the
>manner fitting the reality of
>his "win"; this reality being
>that he, and not Rebecca
>was the hired Apprentice.
>
>I don't believe that Donald ever
>said anything about having two
>apprentices, thus Randall had the
>opportunity to position first himself
>in a positive light with
>regards to the desire of
>his new boss,...

Only if you think DT likes mealy-mouthed Yes Men. LOL

the giver
>of a job to a
>loser,....

That, if DT wanted, he could given himself.

while at the same
>time repositioning Rebecca as a
>secondary hire (read, I'm first
>you're second, be clear about
>that Rebecca) below his new
>position,...

How? DT didn't give him that authority. That's you saying this, not The Boss.

and as a bonus,
>snag a PR moment for
>his new employer by endearing
>himself and the Trump organization
>to the public (instead of
>alienating sections of his viewing
>public).

Read the blurb at the top of this thread: You can't please everyone!
>

positioning Rebecca as
>a competitor and threat to
>his claimed position,

EXCUSE ME! Randal won; Rebecca LOST!

rejecting his
>boss's desire (and wisdom),

What would have been wise was for DT to hire her himself.

bringing
>negativity into the picture

Blame the source. If he wanted Aprentii, DT should have hired Aprentii.

>
>Wrong marketing move; bad business that
>cost the Donald face and
>dollars.
>

Where are you getting this? Cost what dollars?!

>What would have been interesting is
>if Donald had summed up
>what Randall had done, and
>then fired him on the
>spot.
>

Oh, you would have LOVED that, wouldn't you?

>Now that would have made good
>reality television.
>

I knew it!

>But Donald is better than that,
>and thus he did what
>a good business man does,
>he seemingly gave in to
>Randall's view; but we know,
>Donald is not one to
>wash his laundry in public.

Do you know DT at all?! Why are your ratings going down, Mr. Trump? "Because of Martha Stewart!"

>
>Unfortunately Randall will now forever be
>known as the one who
>crashed on take-off.
>

Only to those who spend an awful lot of time wishful-thinking.

>Time will tell if he will
>ever be able to rebrand
>himself in the eyes of
>the public.

I hope he doesn't "rebrand". I hope he stays the man of integrity and strength that he showed himself to be last night.