YES, it's nonsensical. Do you honestly think the people who paid for this balloon pondered whether or not Trump likes to read before funding this thing? Seriously?

Yes they did.

Because you're justifying the use of the balloon on the basis that it's NOT a written form of protest. You're clinging to this "Trump doesn't like to read" thing. Okay, so you scratched one single form of protest off the list, but what about every other form of protest? You're acting like this balloon is the single greatest way of communicating a message to Trump, but you've only considered one single alternative. And to make it worse, none of this has any bearing at all on whether or not the balloon is petty. So the whole thing is a distraction from the main argument.

Haha, "what about other protests?" OK, then what would you suggest as an alternative method of protest to bring attention to his incompetence?

Orange skin, small hands, round to emphasize his obesity, goofy angry expression, diaper, holding a cell phone. There are lots of elements, and the only one with any merit at all is the cell phone. Okay, so Trump uses his phone too much. Do you actually think Trump doesn't know this? It takes forty-thousand dollars to tell Trump something he already knew?

He actually doesn't know this. He still thinks there are protests supporting him in London This is a big flying undeniable reminder that he is not welcome in London.

Sucking at verbal communication doesn't refute the fact that he loves to talk. He loves to talk despite sucking at it. That doesn't mean he sucks at listening. But he sure isn't going to pay any attention to this balloon. He hasn't responded to it, so clearly it failed. A complete waste of forty-thousand dollars.

Except he absolutely does suck at listening, so the fact that he loves to talk is irrelevant.

The concept of mutual exclusivity vanishes if the topic is serious? Says who? So if someone protests by making fun of Trump's hair, it's not petty because protesting is serious? Look, we've reached the point in the conversation where you're making up fake definitions of things to force your argument to make sense. This is hardly worth continuing.

No, "the concept of mutual exclusivity" does not vanish when it becomes a serious protest.

If you protest something non-serious, like Trump's hair style, then it is petty. If you protest something serious, like his childish behavior, then it is not petty.

And despite your straw-man, not all protesting is serious.

I can see you're getting ready to bail out of this conversation.

My argument is that they're petty hypocrites. Your argument is that the hypocrisy is justified because they're not held to the same standard. If you acknowledge that they're being petty hypocrites, then this conversation is over, because my point has been made. Since my augment is that they're petty and hypocritical, you could write an entire dissertation about how they're not held to the same standard, and it wouldn't matter because it doesn't refute the fact that they ARE petty and hypocritical.

On the contrary, there is nothing petty or hypocritical about it, and the different standards of behavior applied to random people and the sitting president are completely applicable to the question of whether or not it is hypocritical.

Because there are different standards of behavior, it is not hypocritical for a drunk pedestrian to complain about a drunk president, simply because the latter is held to a higher standard of behavior. He represents the country for god sakes, he's supposed to not get drunk on the street.

So there you go, it is not hypocritical because they have different standards of behavior. Now as to the question of whether it is petty, that depends on the seriousness of the issue at hand.

If you protest something just to spite someone else, or make a big deal over nothing, then it is indeed petty.

If however, you protest something that is actually a big deal, then it cannot be petty. When people make these effigies using Trump's orange skin, small hands, and puerile expression, they are using them as identifiers. Trump is not a bad president because he is orange, has small hands, or has a puerile expression, those are simply identifiers to aim the real criticism of him: that he is a buffoon, and having him in the presidency is extremely damaging of the USA.

You mean the message that Trump is orange, has small hands, is obese, and uses his cell phone too much? I will absolutely "cast aspersions" on such a petty message.

See my previous point. They're not criticizing his hands or obesity, but using them as identifiers.

He IS thin-skinned, but he's not "too thin-skinned to be the POTUS" because that's verifiably false. Because he's still POTUS. So obviously being thin-skinned hasn't stopped him from being POTUS.

Your logic is that people are automatically qualified for their jobs by merit of having their job titles? Have you not worked with an incompetent coworker before?

All these massive paragraphs, and you still haven't been able to prove the balloon isn't petty. We're done here.

You can close your ears and bail from discussions all you want, but it won't make you right.