comment: >
  
  
  It being brought to vote in the first place, for one.
  
  No, that doesn't mean it is just culture war fodder.
  
  That the argument that rules were actually broken, secondly.
  
  This doesn't support your point. How does that make it culture war fodder?
  
  That the amendment maker believes that historical rules and culture changes have no relationship, third.
  
  Still doesn't mean it is culture war fodder.
  
  You’re leaning into the specific arguments you watched from the floor. Bringing it to the floor in the first place was the culture war shot that you’re missing, assuming it somehow was a necessity. 
  
  No, it isn't a "culture war shot" just to bring it to the floor, and this makes no sense to have linked the video if this is your argument.
  Literally nothing you have argued, even if taken at face value, remotely supports the notion that this was just a culture war move, especially given that there are arguments espoused that are explicitly not about this.
  You have to deliberately ignore what was actually said on the floor.
context: It seems very weird that the Missouri House is mandating formal wear for representatives who appear to be seated at the same type of cheap folding table my church uses for potlucks. >
  
  Not to defend the MO GOP’s focus on this issue, but both chambers of our legislature are undergoing extensive renovations. That’s likely why they’re using folding tables in the photo above. >
  
  Interesting,  thanks >
  
  No bigger fish to fry I assume? I'll say that if the men have to wear a blazer, then okay, the women have to as well. That being said, who the fuck cares. As long you are fully clothed what is the big deal? In my profession we've gone from suits to business casual to Jeans and casual tops. No one died. >
  
  Culture war cannon fodder, they have no idea how bad it makes them look. It’s like hiring a CEO, only to watch them only change the wall colors in the office >
  
  No, it is a rules change due to the start of a new session because there was felt to be ambiguity in the previous iteration of the dress code that needed resolving.
  It became culture war fodder because out of context the headline sounds bad. >
  
  You didn’t see the videos, did you? >
  
  If you mean the videos from the floor then yes, I did, you clearly didn't. >
  
  Okay? What mentioned here do you think even remotely supports your point. >
  
  It being brought to vote in the first place, for one. That the argument that rules were actually broken, secondly. That the amendment maker believes that historical rules and culture changes have no relationship, third. You’re leaning into the specific arguments you watched from the floor. Bringing it to the floor in the first place was the culture war shot that you’re missing, assuming it somehow was a necessity.