A Political #Thread (Debate? series of #Tweets @Twitter?) Reminds Me--Your Presidential-Vote DOESN'T MATTER if it's not part of the Majority! @politico @PoliticalWire @Wikipedia @MerriamWebster #Threaded #Tweeter #Threading #Threads

'That word' (below-hyperlinked to 'what's left of the Twitter-thread I'll write-about below it) is built on an even-deeper source ... something crucial that firms the foundation upon which our lexicon stands ...

---

The word “Thread” is built on ... hmm; Etymonline doesn't specifically mention the word's use in 'cyber-slang,' but does reference ancient words that mean "to |Rub, Turn (from the Cloth-|Material being |Twisted-|Yarn)" (also the |Spiral |Ridge wrapped around a Screw), 

& Etymonline also references the action of |Inserting Thread in the |Eye of a Needle (or putting Film in a Camera, or the 'Thread the Needle' Break|dance-Move). 

Looking for the discussion-use's origin, I find the CPU-use---"the smallest sequence of programmed instructions that can be managed independently by a scheduler." 

Looking a little deeper, I found a POLITICO article that defines 'thread' a little differently---rather than 'a virtual discussion (with many participants),' they paint it as 'a soapbox-series of opinionated rambles (the way Donald Trump infamously uses them).' Software Engineers simplify it to 'the use of one of "thread's" meanings'---"something |Continuous or |Drawn-out (a Line of Reasoning, a Train of Thought)." 

The word "Tweet" is just an Imitative of the |Chirping of a Small |Bird (like the one Twitter took as its mascot ... a "Tweeter" is also a |Loudspeaker for High Frequencies).

---

---

---

A summary of 'the debate':

Tweeter A lists the current third-party candidates, and I reply, 'It's sad, but we'd better not encourage this. They should've signed up as Democrats (or Republicans) and beat one of the Two Party Candidates. Now a third party will only weaken the less-standard of the Two party-candidates.' (I was thinking of an example like Hillary in the 2016 election) 

Then Tweeter B comes in with his Declaration that he won't "sacrifice his principles for the change at an advantage." Tweeter B convinced me that a third-party SHOULD be President; but not that 'such a vote would have any positive effect against a Party Majority,' so my bad argument went on. 

The argument was bad; mostly because I didn't have "an argument" ... No Point; I just don't see how 'voting for the person who ought to be President' is worth anything real when that's not 'the person who is going to be President. 

The thread goes on-&-on---Tweeter B explaining the 'Sunday-school' tale of "votes that magically become Electors who can vote no other way,' myself explaining that your vote-for-President is DESTROYED if it's not one in agreement with The Majority (one of the reasons comedian George Carlin didn't ever vote for President)

This starts to feed into "the reason adults become atheists" (especially since I called "how people believe the Electoral College works" a 'Sunday-school' tale, although I might refer to it better as 'a public-school tale')---we're taught that our votes get for President get counted; and they do, but not in the election we think we're voting-in ...

What happens: the political-parties select Electors who are "expected" to vote a certain way. Our votes decide which of these Electors get chosen (though their names usually aren't "on the ballots").

Know anything else interesting about that? Comment!