Trump Drives Cart on Green

[MRR]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

And yes, owners have different rights to the things they own. You're more than welcome to smash your TV with a 9-iron, but if someone else does that to your TV, you can have them arrested.

True.

But a more applicable scenario;  There is a no smoking policy on the patio, but the owner lights up cigars all day.  Whatever reason for the initial rule is frustrated, and it can lead to others either breaking said rules themselves or being upset that they are not allowed to do the same.

It is the difference between lawful and equitable. 

[iacas]

Just now, MRR said:

But a more applicable scenario;

I disagree. That's a health code violation (or whatever). Not the same at all.

[MRR]

Just now, iacas said:

I disagree. That's a health code violation (or whatever). Not the same at all.

Plenty of municipalities allow for outdoor smoking, just to have the local business not allow it in their particular patio.

[iacas]

Just now, MRR said:

Plenty of municipalities allow for outdoor smoking, just to have the local business not allow it in their particular patio.

It still isn't the same. The smoke can literally affect the health of others.

It's not the same.

"Your right to swing your fists about ends at my nose." Or however that saying goes…

[Jeremie Boop]

 

4 minutes ago, MRR said:

True.

But a more applicable scenario;  There is a no smoking policy on the patio, but the owner lights up cigars all day.  Whatever reason for the initial rule is frustrated, and it can lead to others either breaking said rules themselves or being upset that they are not allowed to do the same.

It is the difference between lawful and equitable. 

It's more like when you go to someone's house and they ask everyone to take off their shoes at the door, but they wear their shoes.

Same basic reasoning, they don't want people to ruin their floors by tracking in stuff on their shoes. However, if they ruin their own floors then so be it.

[MRR]

1 minute ago, MRR said:

Plenty of municipalities allow for outdoor smoking, just to have the local business not allow it in their particular patio.

EDIT; But if your concern is more of the "second hand smoke is an issue, while driving across a green never gave anyone cancer"; I agree.  My point is the difference between "privacy of your own home" vs. "owner flaunting the rules in front of other people".

Eh, smoking was a bad example on my part. 

How about a dressy restaurant where the owner sits at a window-side table and wears just shots and a mustard stained tank top?

[TN94z]

8 minutes ago, MRR said:

EDIT; But if your concern is more of the "second hand smoke is an issue, while driving across a green never gave anyone cancer"; I agree.  My point is the difference between "privacy of your own home" vs. "owner flaunting the rules in front of other people".

Eh, smoking was a bad example on my part. 

How about a dressy restaurant where the owner sits at a window-side table and wears just shots and a mustard stained tank top?

These things happen pretty often. I can remember MANY times when the owner of a business does things that he requires the employees not do. It's pretty common place.

[14ledo81]

1 hour ago, zipazoid said:

Enough to drive across a green in a cart? Nope.

It's either allowed or not allowed - not conditional based on who you are - the grass doesn't know you're the owner & is damaged equally whether its the owner or a player.

Now obviously, I get it. If you own the course you can do what you wish - if you damage the green then the repair is out of your pocket...which would make me question the business sense of the owner. But it also sends the message to everyone else - 'I'm a big shot, you're not.' Personally, I would never play that course again.

I guess I don't see it as a matter of importance.  Simply a right of ownership.

[caniac6]

31 minutes ago, iacas said:

Many people here seem to be seeing what they want to see and feeling how they want to feel.

If nobody saw him drive over the green, and there was no damage, then if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to see it… does it make a sound?

In other words, if it were the superintendent at the same golf course and no damage was caused (have there been reports of ANY DAMAGE at all?), would this be an issue in the slightest?

No. Not even a little bit.

And yes, owners have different rights to the things they own. You're more than welcome to smash your TV with a 9-iron, but if someone else does that to your TV, you can have them arrested.

I agree. I bet it's not the first time he has done this, but it's the first time it's on video. This should not have been done, but I don't see anyone posting videos of someone driving a sprayer with a full tank on a green. He didn't hurt anyone.With all the things going on in today's world, the outrage over someone driving a golf cart on a green is laughable.

Edited June 23, 2017 by caniac6

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, TN94z said:

These things happen pretty often. I can remember MANY times when the owner of a business does things that he requires the employees not do. It's pretty common place.

Yup.

People are seeing what they want to see.

Video could surface of Trump picking out a melon at the grocery store and people would bring their biases into it and see what they want to see.

1 minute ago, caniac6 said:

I agree. I bet it's not the first time he has done this, but it's the first time it's on video. This should not have been done, but I don't see anyone posting videos of someone driving a sprayer with a full tank on a green. He didn't hurt anyone. with all the things going on in today's world, the outrage over someone driving a golf cart on a green is laughable.

Bingo.

The OUTRAGE!!!

[TN94z]

5 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

I don't see anyone posting videos of someone driving a sprayer with a full tank on a green.

Not to mention that on a lot of courses, these sprayers are leaking oil, diesel, etc....all over the green as they are spraying.

Edited June 23, 2017 by TN94z

[ScouseJohnny]

I love the "rights of ownership are final" argument. It's the argument that says you could buy, say, Van Gough's Sunflowers in a Sotherby's auction, and then set it on fire in your backyard, streamed live on Youtube. And you'd have the perfect right to do that, and others would also have the perfect right to use words like, "douchebag," "asshole," "philistine," "lout," and "dickhead," in response to your abysmal behavior.

And so we have a fat old man driving a golf cart across a green on a course that bears his name. His right to do that, and my right to call him a dickhead for doing so.

[freshmanUTA]

I mean to be honest, I can't believe people are making a big deal about this. It happened, all we can do is get over it. 

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

I love the "rights of ownership are final" argument. It's the argument that says you could buy, say, Van Gough's Sunflowers in a Sotherby's auction, and then set it on fire in your backyard, streamed live on Youtube. And you'd have the perfect right to do that, and others would also have the perfect right to use words like, "douchebag," "asshole," "philistine," "lout," and "dickhead," in response to your abysmal behavior.

And so we have a fat old man driving a golf cart across a green on a course that bears his name. His right to do that, and my right to call him a dickhead for doing so.

Really, you equate those two actions?

What damage was caused here?

[ScouseJohnny]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

Really, you equate those two actions?

What damage was caused here?

Actually, I don't. The point is that the "rights of ownership" argument excuses all and any conduct, provided that the conduct is directed solely at one's own property.

And I bet if you looked out of the window at your course right now and saw someone driving over the 18th green, your first reaction wouldn't be, "Hey, no visible damage, so that's cool."

We, as golfers, know that to drive a golf cart across a green is not the right way to behave. We can say that Mr. Trump can behave how he likes on his own property, but that doesn't make his conduct proper. It simply says there are no repercussions for his poor behavior.

Edited June 23, 2017 by ScouseJohnny

[phillyk]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

Really, you equate those two actions?

What damage was caused here?

It's not the damage that he personally caused, it's the damage that could be caused when everyone else starts doing the same thing.  A green is not a big space and very sensitive.  If everyone is bringing their carts onto that surface, it will die and turn to dirt.  I've seen and I'm nearly 100% sure you've seen the areas of rough/fairway that turn to dirt because everyone is driving over the same area.

He's the owner of the course, great, but he's not setting a high standard for himself or the course with a disregard to etiquette, and the potential to damage the course if done too often.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

Actually, I don't. The point is that the "rights of ownership" argument excuses all and any conduct, provided that the conduct is directed solely at one's own property.

I specifically have spoken against that illogical extreme. I said the smoking example is a bad one because it directly affects others. Who was affected here?

3 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

And I bet if you looked out of the window at your course right now and saw someone driving over the 18th green, your first reaction wouldn't be, "Hey, no visible damage, so that's cool."

If it was the owner, the superintendent, the head pro… and a few others, I wouldn't think twice about it.

3 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

We, as golfers, know that to drive a golf cart across a green is not the right way to behave.

… "as golfers" is a key portion there.

Like the example above about taking your shoes off when in someone else's house.

3 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

It simply says there are no repercussions for his poor behavior.

This entire topic is a "repercussion."

And an over-reaction, IMO.

1 minute ago, phillyk said:

It's not the damage that he personally caused, it's the damage that could be caused when everyone else starts doing the same thing.

Others aren't allowed to do the same thing. Some people are - the superintendent, the greens staff… the head pro, perhaps.

1 minute ago, phillyk said:

If everyone is bringing their carts onto that surface, it will die and turn to dirt.

Oh man, let's just make shit up now.

If everyone could put sirens on their hoods and drive through red lights, it would be mayhem! Guess what, everyone seems to understand that's only for police, firemen, etc.

[Elmer]

18 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

I love the "rights of ownership are final" argument. It's the argument that says you could buy, say, Van Gough's Sunflowers in a Sotherby's auction, and then set it on fire in your backyard, streamed live on Youtube. And you'd have the perfect right to do that, and others would also have the perfect right to use words like, "douchebag," "asshole," "philistine," "lout," and "dickhead," in response to your abysmal behavior.

And so we have a fat old man driving a golf cart across a green on a course that bears his name. His right to do that, and my right to call him a dickhead for doing so.

you left out "schmuck"!

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

Really, you equate those two actions?

What damage was caused here?

does the  "no harm, no foul" rule, really get used with us golfers?
Don't we have a forum dedicated to rules and rules violations. Dont we spend countless non-refundable hours arguing about a playing partner who did not take a proper drop or did not mark their ball properly?
Don't we discuss ad nauseam ethics violations on our courses?

We never once saw George Steinbrenner streak across center field during a Yankee game even thought he was the owner and it is his right to do so?
For someone who plays soo much golf, and takes his golf game and score seriously (google it), he simply should know better and there is simply no excuse.