She didn’t really say they were “cheap,” just that they would feel “ripped off” if they had to overpay. That part didn’t really sound offensive to me- more like she was saying that they weren’t suckers.
Does anyone think we’ll see a lot of PM’s being voted exempt? Are these candidates confident enough in their own talents, to spotlight the PM in Trump’s mind?
If we’re going to have a rules change every season, how about having the winning team vote someone into the boardroom? We’ve seen tasks where a team won in spite of the PM.
It was a stupid change. Why would anyone ever vote for the exemption?
It’s possible. That’s exactly what Cornelius Vanderbilt did, turning his savings from selling newspapers into a ferry business at the age of 15. Alla’s website says that she saved money from working multiple shifts for a telemarketing firm, and used that to buy her first real estate investment. But according to the Smoking Gun, she later made money as a stripper, dancer, and escort:
Winning team vote one of their own in, or someone from the losing team? If the latter, they wouldn’t have enough info to do so – and if the former, it really does seem against the most basic premise of the game.
George or Carolyn, or someone from the winning team could pick someone from their team to go to the boardroom.
You’re right – it goes against the basic premise, and it’s not something that would happen in the real world, where all members of winning teams are rewarded, even if some of them didn’t contribute.
I can imagine some reasons why contestants would choose to grant another contestant immunity. This could be a means of strategically building up goodwill, for example–something that any good manager must do. Additionally, they may want to be perceived as fair and balanced, rather than conniving weasels–and with George and Carolyn looking over their shoulders, they would have a vested interest in striving for fairness.