Sotwe logo Sotwe logo
theirvingherald's profile banner image
theirvingherald's profile image

The Irving Herald

Verified account

@theirvingherald

The voice of Irving’s public affairs. Contact: [email protected] (corrections/comments/news tips welcome)
Irving, TX
Joined November 2025
57 Following
18 Followers
140 Posts
theirvingherald's profile image
The Irving Herald Verified account @theirvingherald
This is the third in a series of posts offering reflections on our elections as a result of participating in a recount of the recent City Council District 3 May 2 Municipal Election. In the first post (https://t.co/Ypf2gxBK2x), we discovered a serious flaw in the recount procedure — the lack of access to a piece of absolutely critical documentation, the Ballot and Seal Certificates. Without access to these, neither the seals on the ballot boxes nor the total number of ballots can be verified, making fraud untraceable in a “recount” (making it a mere retabulation). In a follow-up post )https://t.co/yIKKDYchzK), we found that concerns about election security are far from academic speculation. This was revealed by a statewide audit of the 2020 elections. That uncovered entire locations whose ballots were not counted, as well as the wild phenomenon of “Phantom Voters” in Irving: voters who “voted” without ever showing up (!) Unfortunately, while the “audit” by the state, which did not deserve that name, discovered this crazy factoid, it failed to get to the bottom of it. It left it documented but unexplained. At least it was discovered, though, because the e-pollbooks printed out tapes of voters, and as a result the election workers thereby caught the “phantom voters.” Of course, for this past election cycle, Dallas County switched e-pollbook venders who provided pollbooks which do not print out voter tapes at all, so now something like “phantom voters” cannot be caught. Not comforting! In this post, we look at another aspect of Dallas County elections that could be greatly improved with a simple change, as we shall see and that, yet again is a critical piece of documentation that was not a part of the recount: the paper voter rosters. The paper voter rosters are the sign-in sheet that the election clerks make of voters who come to check in to vote. Except, as we shall see, the voters do not actually sign in. Voter rosters are in triplicate. The election judge puts one in the ballot box, one in the document bag that is turned in to Elections Department staff, and one, pink copy that goes home with the election judge, the paid volunteer who is in charge of a voting location. That pink copy must be held by the judge for 22 months. For the critical BAPS location (where the late night vote drop happened in this race), we were able to example the pink copies. Why did we have to track down the election judge for this though? The voter rosters were in the ballot boxes, after all. We saw them there. However, during the recount when we asked if we could look at one, the recount manager said, “No, that’s not part of the recount” and did not let us look at it. But the paper voter rosters absolutely should be part of recounts. As we opened up the ballot boxes for each location, we were given a computer printout of the number of ballots for the District 3 race. That printout was treated as gospel truth. The counters would go through the box until they found that number of ballots … and then they would stop. But what if the computer print out was wrong, and there were more ballots in the box? The recount would never show it. As a result, we were just retabulating votes. It was not a real recount. The computer printout can treated as gospel truth only when access is denied to the records that would flag discrepancies. In this case there were discrepancies. To wit: the number of voters in section 3a on the Ballot and Seal Certificate should have shown 162 voters, not 160. What happened? Our detailed examination of the paper voter rosters for BAPS showed two voters with very similar names showed up a little after 1:00pm on election day according the paper voter roster, but only one of them was recorded as voting. The same thing happened again at a quarter to 4:00pm. In both of these cases, perhaps we were dealing with two people who were related, and one of the ballots was not recorded (which would be a problem), or perhaps it was just one person with a name that got entered twice — an error. Errors by election workers happen, which is why state law requires a retabulation only when there is discrepancy of 4. There would surely be other discrepancies on other paper voter rosters as well. Without access to them, though, everything seems copesetic. Without a doubt, the elections department knows they are opening a can of worms if they let voter rosters be looked at in recounts. Their incentive is to get the recount over with as soon as possible with as few questions raised as possible. It’s the incentive of bureaucracies everywhere. The recount process therefore revealed that the Dallas County Elections Department wants our elections to seem secure, without taking the obvious steps to actually make them secure. We spend tens of millions of dollars on elections in Dallas County a year … yet we do not take simple steps to actually secure our elections. Here’s a simple change that could be made: rather than the election clerks writing down the name of the voter on the roster, (a) have the voter sign the roster, (b) put a line at the bottom for the clerk to sign and date, taking responsibility for it, and (c) make them available in recounts for inspection. That would show fraud simply and easily. A candidate could see in a recount whenever voter signatures are in the same handwriting. As a matter of fact, that’s how Coke Stevenson’s team discovered that the ballots that put Lyndon Johnson over the top in the 1948 US Senatorial election in Texas were fraudulent. His team found the voter list where the final 200 names were names in alphabetical order, written in the same handwriting and same ink. They then went and asked those people if they had voted, and they said “no.” We might even call them “Phantom Voters.” Tens of millions of dollars to run our county elections and we cannot do the simplest thing that proved fraud last century. Again, all the money and procedures seem designed to produce the illusion of secure elections, rather than taking the obvious steps necessary to actually secure them against fraud. Election workers must complete tons of steps and complicated forms to pull off an election; it’s no surprise election workers get confused. But can we not ask the voter to simply sign the paper voter roster? That would cost $0, take up zero additional time, and yet be a big boon to actual election security. Such a change would also provide safeguards when it comes to signature verification. Currently signature verification is a joke. It is not even covered in the training of election workers. One would expect election worker training to include something along these lines: “After the voter signs, check the signature. If the signature does not match the ID, notify the judge, and here’s what you do…” But there was nothing of the sort. All signatures are to be considered valid, apparently. Also, signatures on a screen are different from paper. People sign paper in their natural, habitual way, and there are forensic protocols to verify it. On a screen? We sign differently. A “signature” is just a ridiculous scribble. If voters signed the paper voter roster, and that was available in the recount, signatures that looked the same should be able to be compared to their signatures on file. In this case there would be at least the threat of a more robust signature verification. This would be a deterrent for fraud. The infuriating thing is this change would cost $0 and zero time. There is literally no reason not to do it, unless you do not want elections to be secure. We spend millions to make elections complicated and seem secure, when we could actually make them more secure with simple changes. We need to demand those changes, powerful politicians who like the current system be damned. Read this post here and subscribe: https://t.co/MSqJdBAnpN Contact: [email protected] (corrections/comments/news tips welcome) © 2026 Irving Herald LLC. All rights reserved.
theirvingherald's tweet photo. This is the third in a series of posts offering reflections on our elections as a result of participating in a recount of the recent City Council District 3 May 2 Municipal Election. In the first post (https://t.co/Ypf2gxBK2x), we discovered a serious flaw in the recount procedure — the lack of access to a piece of absolutely critical documentation, the Ballot and Seal Certificates. Without access to these, neither the seals on the ballot boxes nor the total number of ballots can be verified, making fraud untraceable in a “recount” (making it a mere retabulation). In a follow-up post )https://t.co/yIKKDYchzK), we found that concerns about election security are far from academic speculation. This was revealed by a statewide audit of the 2020 elections. That uncovered entire locations whose ballots were not counted, as well as the wild phenomenon of “Phantom Voters” in Irving: voters who “voted” without ever showing up (!) Unfortunately, while the “audit” by the state, which did not deserve that name, discovered this crazy factoid, it failed to get to the bottom of it. It left it documented but unexplained. At least it was discovered, though, because the e-pollbooks printed out tapes of voters, and as a result the election workers thereby caught the “phantom voters.” Of course, for this past election cycle, Dallas County switched e-pollbook venders who provided pollbooks which do not print out voter tapes at all, so now something like “phantom voters” cannot be caught. Not comforting! In this post, we look at another aspect of Dallas County elections that could be greatly improved with a simple change, as we shall see and that, yet again is a critical piece of documentation that was not a part of the recount: the paper voter rosters. The paper voter rosters are the sign-in sheet that the election clerks make of voters who come to check in to vote. Except, as we shall see, the voters do not actually sign in. Voter rosters are in triplicate. The election judge puts one in the ballot box, one in the document bag that is turned in to Elections Department staff, and one, pink copy that goes home with the election judge, the paid volunteer who is in charge of a voting location. That pink copy must be held by the judge for 22 months. For the critical BAPS location (where the late night vote drop happened in this race), we were able to example the pink copies. Why did we have to track down the election judge for this though? The voter rosters were in the ballot boxes, after all. We saw them there. However, during the recount when we asked if we could look at one, the recount manager said, “No, that’s not part of the recount” and did not let us look at it. But the paper voter rosters absolutely should be part of recounts. As we opened up the ballot boxes for each location, we were given a computer printout of the number of ballots for the District 3 race. That printout was treated as gospel truth. The counters would go through the box until they found that number of ballots … and then they would stop. But what if the computer print out was wrong, and there were more ballots in the box? The recount would never show it. As a result, we were just retabulating votes. It was not a real recount. The computer printout can treated as gospel truth only when access is denied to the records that would flag discrepancies. In this case there were discrepancies. To wit: the number of voters in section 3a on the Ballot and Seal Certificate should have shown 162 voters, not 160. What happened? Our detailed examination of the paper voter rosters for BAPS showed two voters with very similar names showed up a little after 1:00pm on election day according the paper voter roster, but only one of them was recorded as voting. The same thing happened again at a quarter to 4:00pm. In both of these cases, perhaps we were dealing with two people who were related, and one of the ballots was not recorded (which would be a problem), or perhaps it was just one person with a name that got entered twice — an error. Errors by election workers happen, which is why state law requires a retabulation only when there is discrepancy of 4. There would surely be other discrepancies on other paper voter rosters as well. Without access to them, though, everything seems copesetic. Without a doubt, the elections department knows they are opening a can of worms if they let voter rosters be looked at in recounts. Their incentive is to get the recount over with as soon as possible with as few questions raised as possible. It’s the incentive of bureaucracies everywhere. The recount process therefore revealed that the Dallas County Elections Department wants our elections to seem secure, without taking the obvious steps to actually make them secure. We spend tens of millions of dollars on elections in Dallas County a year … yet we do not take simple steps to actually secure our elections. Here’s a simple change that could be made: rather than the election clerks writing down the name of the voter on the roster, (a) have the voter sign the roster, (b) put a line at the bottom for the clerk to sign and date, taking responsibility for it, and (c) make them available in recounts for inspection. That would show fraud simply and easily. A candidate could see in a recount whenever voter signatures are in the same handwriting. As a matter of fact, that’s how Coke Stevenson’s team discovered that the ballots that put Lyndon Johnson over the top in the 1948 US Senatorial election in Texas were fraudulent. His team found the voter list where the final 200 names were names in alphabetical order, written in the same handwriting and same ink. They then went and asked those people if they had voted, and they said “no.” We might even call them “Phantom Voters.” Tens of millions of dollars to run our county elections and we cannot do the simplest thing that proved fraud last century. Again, all the money and procedures seem designed to produce the illusion of secure elections, rather than taking the obvious steps necessary to actually secure them against fraud. Election workers must complete tons of steps and complicated forms to pull off an election; it’s no surprise election workers get confused. But can we not ask the voter to simply sign the paper voter roster? That would cost $0, take up zero additional time, and yet be a big boon to actual election security. Such a change would also provide safeguards when it comes to signature verification. Currently signature verification is a joke. It is not even covered in the training of election workers. One would expect election worker training to include something along these lines: “After the voter signs, check the signature. If the signature does not match the ID, notify the judge, and here’s what you do…” But there was nothing of the sort. All signatures are to be considered valid, apparently. Also, signatures on a screen are different from paper. People sign paper in their natural, habitual way, and there are forensic protocols to verify it. On a screen? We sign differently. A “signature” is just a ridiculous scribble. If voters signed the paper voter roster, and that was available in the recount, signatures that looked the same should be able to be compared to their signatures on file. In this case there would be at least the threat of a more robust signature verification. This would be a deterrent for fraud. The infuriating thing is this change would cost $0 and zero time. There is literally no reason not to do it, unless you do not want elections to be secure. We spend millions to make elections complicated and seem secure, when we could actually make them more secure with simple changes. We need to demand those changes, powerful politicians who like the current system be damned. Read this post here and subscribe: https://t.co/MSqJdBAnpN Contact: TheIrvingHerald@gmail.com (corrections/comments/news tips welcome) © 2026 Irving Herald LLC. All rights reserved.
0
3
2
2
250
theirvingherald's profile image
The Irving Herald Verified account @theirvingherald
https://t.co/SyONunB8Bd
theirvingherald's tweet photo. https://t.co/SyONunB8Bd https://t.co/B8k49GSU4C
0
0
0
0
2
theirvingherald's profile image
The Irving Herald Verified account @theirvingherald
Tami Brown Rodriquez talks about election security, the state of the Dallas County Republican Party, and her campaign to be elected chair for the next two years. More information on Tami is here: https://t.co/VUoq5cFgcV. Members of the Dallas County GOP's County Executive Committee will be voting for a new chair on Thursday, June 25, 2026. Contact: [email protected] (corrections/comments/news tips welcome) © 2026 Irving Herald LLC. All rights reserved.
0
0
0
0
35
theirvingherald's profile image
The Irving Herald Verified account @theirvingherald
https://t.co/yryuVX2ODR
theirvingherald's tweet photo. https://t.co/yryuVX2ODR https://t.co/P3pTkmRVf2
0
0
0
0
5
theirvingherald  retweeted
FactsAboutTexas's profile image
Facts About Texas Verified account @FactsAboutTexas
Texas Forever man 🤠
86
5K
579
147
93K
theirvingherald  retweeted
Iamtammytavares's profile image
Tammy Tavares Verified account @Iamtammytavares
I am currently in Texas and cannot get over how clean and organized this area is. I am in Frisco and it’s just lovely. I live in California and have for the past 30 years crime is everywhere homeless everywhere needles and trash everywhere mentally ill and drug zombies everywhere. I haven’t seen anything like that here in Texas at least not in Frisco.
635
2K
68
100
226K
theirvingherald  retweeted
shawngorham's profile image
Shawn Gorham Verified account @shawngorham
If I was young, hungry and getting started in life, I would head to Dallas. Dont fight headwinds (CA) seek the Tailwinds (TX) - get rich then buy a house in Santa Barbara and spend the summers there.
shawngorham's tweet photo. If I was young, hungry and getting started in life, I would head to Dallas. Dont fight headwinds (CA) seek the Tailwinds (TX) - get rich then buy a house in Santa Barbara and spend the summers there. https://t.co/VofGp035GW
32
129
8
24
26K
theirvingherald's profile image
The Irving Herald Verified account @theirvingherald
According to Texas Election Code §11.001, a voter needs to live in the district that he or she is voting in. In the May 2 City Council District 3 municipal race, there was only 5 votes that separated the candidate who made the runoff, Kejal Patel, from the candidate who did not, Tammam Alwan. As it turned out, there were 5 voters with questionable residency in District 3. They all voted on election day, according to the Election Day Roster from Dallas County Elections. An election complaint with the Texas Secretary of State’s office has been filed. The purpose of filing an election complaint is not to change the outcome of an election. Rather, complaints bring things to the attention of the Secretary of State’s office, which reviews it and decides whether to refer it to the Texas Attorney General’s Election Integrity Unit or to the local DA. To knowingly commit election fraud is serious. If you get caught, it can result in jail time. A former 2020 mayoral candidate in Carrollton was sentenced to 4 years in prison in 2024 for election fraud. (While out on bond with his case being appealed, he ran for mayor of Carrollton again last month. Despite (hilariously) being endorsed by LoneStarLeft, he lost 93-6%.) In Irving, five voters in the District 3 race appear to live outside the district. Two of them — who share a surname with the candidate who made the runoff — were registered to vote at 4100 W John Carpenter Freeway: the OYO Hotel/Studio 6 near DFW airport. The other three were registered to vote at 4601 N State Highway 161, the address for BAPS Hindu Temple. There are no known residences at the temple and it is zoned as a commercial property. One of them, the one named in the complaint, owns a home outside of Dallas County entirely, in Lewisville, and claims a homestead exemption for it. The Secretary of State’s office received the complaint, but cannot do anything to change the election results; it can only refer potential criminal violations to the AG or DA’s office. Regarding any affect on the election itself, a remedy would involve bringing a case before the major trial court in the county — a Dallas County district court judge — within 45 days of the official results. The district judge would determine the facts and make a ruling; election contests are tried without a jury. A hearing could happen on the case pretty quickly, within weeks. The problem is cost. It would cost $20,000 to $60,000 for lawyers to draft the petition, prepare the exhibits, take depositions, subpoena records, etc., in order to seriously contest the results. Contact: [email protected] (corrections/comments/news tips welcome) © 2026 Irving Herald LLC. All rights reserved.
theirvingherald's tweet photo. According to Texas Election Code §11.001, a voter needs to live in the district that he or she is voting in. In the May 2 City Council District 3 municipal race, there was only 5 votes that separated the candidate who made the runoff, Kejal Patel, from the candidate who did not, Tammam Alwan. As it turned out, there were 5 voters with questionable residency in District 3. They all voted on election day, according to the Election Day Roster from Dallas County Elections. An election complaint with the Texas Secretary of State’s office has been filed. The purpose of filing an election complaint is not to change the outcome of an election. Rather, complaints bring things to the attention of the Secretary of State’s office, which reviews it and decides whether to refer it to the Texas Attorney General’s Election Integrity Unit or to the local DA. To knowingly commit election fraud is serious. If you get caught, it can result in jail time. A former 2020 mayoral candidate in Carrollton was sentenced to 4 years in prison in 2024 for election fraud. (While out on bond with his case being appealed, he ran for mayor of Carrollton again last month. Despite (hilariously) being endorsed by LoneStarLeft, he lost 93-6%.) In Irving, five voters in the District 3 race appear to live outside the district. Two of them — who share a surname with the candidate who made the runoff — were registered to vote at 4100 W John Carpenter Freeway: the OYO Hotel/Studio 6 near DFW airport. The other three were registered to vote at 4601 N State Highway 161, the address for BAPS Hindu Temple. There are no known residences at the temple and it is zoned as a commercial property. One of them, the one named in the complaint, owns a home outside of Dallas County entirely, in Lewisville, and claims a homestead exemption for it. The Secretary of State’s office received the complaint, but cannot do anything to change the election results; it can only refer potential criminal violations to the AG or DA’s office. Regarding any affect on the election itself, a remedy would involve bringing a case before the major trial court in the county — a Dallas County district court judge — within 45 days of the official results. The district judge would determine the facts and make a ruling; election contests are tried without a jury. A hearing could happen on the case pretty quickly, within weeks. The problem is cost. It would cost $20,000 to $60,000 for lawyers to draft the petition, prepare the exhibits, take depositions, subpoena records, etc., in order to seriously contest the results. Contact: TheIrvingHerald@gmail.com (corrections/comments/news tips welcome) © 2026 Irving Herald LLC. All rights reserved.
0
0
0
0
133
theirvingherald's profile image
The Irving Herald Verified account @theirvingherald
https://t.co/TmDKAAX5VG
theirvingherald's tweet photo. https://t.co/TmDKAAX5VG https://t.co/mQqPUl0e41
0
0
0
0
5
theirvingherald's profile image
The Irving Herald Verified account @theirvingherald
“If planning, zoning and perhaps public dollars become antes in a billion-plus-dollar hand of poker, Dumont and Sands could be holding the ace of spades (Valley View) and the ultimate wild card (Irving). No matter where the arena and entertainment district are built, a gambling component will not factor into construction or design, Welts emphasized in a statement to The News last week.” https://t.co/5Fb0vLz1FY
0
0
0
0
17
theirvingherald's profile image
The Irving Herald Verified account @theirvingherald
Tales from a Recount: Are our Elections Secure? Bryan interviews Philip and Irving City Council District 3 candidate Tammam Alwan about their experiences doing an election recount. Contact: [email protected] (corrections/comments/news tips welcome) © 2026 Irving Herald LLC. All rights reserved.
0
0
0
0
14
theirvingherald's profile image
The Irving Herald Verified account @theirvingherald
https://t.co/0KPtLBcA1j
theirvingherald's tweet photo. https://t.co/0KPtLBcA1j https://t.co/KxSmzTS5qT
0
0
0
0
3
theirvingherald  retweeted
Djkeene1's profile image
Daniel Keene Verified account @Djkeene1
There’s a white flight situation happening in Prosper/Frisco/Celina of generational proportions. I don’t know anyone who isn’t trying to get out. The appeal and culture has been completely gutted. It’s a cultural rug-pull.
144
2K
252
279
305K
theirvingherald's profile image
The Irving Herald Verified account @theirvingherald
Mayor-elect Zapanta talking about a charter review, moving to two-year terms for Council Members and every other year municipal elections.
0
0
0
0
0
theirvingherald  retweeted
Bowtiedplayer's profile image
RiverOaksGuy Verified account @Bowtiedplayer
I feel like Dallas is the city with the most untapped potential. Dallas could completely take over if they wanted to. IF they wanted to. I lived in Uptown in the 2010s and loved it. Really what would take Dallas to the next level is if they just embraced their own identity more. What I mean by that is right now, Lower Greenville hates on Highland Park, which hates on Deep Ellum, which hates on Plano Can't we all just get along? You don't really see that in, for example, NYC. You don't see Astoria beefing with Meatpacking District. People have different preferences, sure, but that's what a city is for. Dallas has tons of hot girls, great businesses (more arriving all the time), airport with global reach; it's not going to be another NYC or London, but it could be another Chicago, without all the crime. I think the missing gap is the identity. Austin knows what it is. If Dallas figures out what it is, it could take off.
Bowtiedplayer's tweet photo. I feel like Dallas is the city with the most untapped potential. Dallas could completely take over if they wanted to. IF they wanted to. I lived in Uptown in the 2010s and loved it. Really what would take Dallas to the next level is if they just embraced their own identity more. What I mean by that is right now, Lower Greenville hates on Highland Park, which hates on Deep Ellum, which hates on Plano Can't we all just get along? You don't really see that in, for example, NYC. You don't see Astoria beefing with Meatpacking District. People have different preferences, sure, but that's what a city is for. Dallas has tons of hot girls, great businesses (more arriving all the time), airport with global reach; it's not going to be another NYC or London, but it could be another Chicago, without all the crime. I think the missing gap is the identity. Austin knows what it is. If Dallas figures out what it is, it could take off.
108
350
15
73
305K
theirvingherald  retweeted
DallasAptGP's profile image
Barrett Linburg Verified account @DallasAptGP
This is the type of news that hits every week in Dallas We are almost numb to it but the jobs and investment keeps coming
DallasAptGP's tweet photo. This is the type of news that hits every week in Dallas We are almost numb to it but the jobs and investment keeps coming https://t.co/OvsfXxZ97i
15
142
13
21
15K
theirvingherald  retweeted
DallasAptGP's profile image
Barrett Linburg Verified account @DallasAptGP
100 corporate HQs landed in DFW from 2018 to 2024. More than any metro in America. Goldman is building its biggest US office outside Manhattan in Dallas. JPMorgan has 31,000 employees in Texas. Schwab moved here from SF. Apollo wants a second HQ. Texas is on the shortlist.
1
58
5
6
24K
theirvingherald  retweeted
ArkkDaily's profile image
Ark Invest Tracker Verified account @ArkkDaily
CATHIE WOOD SAYS WAYMO ALREADY LOST THE ROBOTAXI RACE TO TESLA - Tesla is the only vertically integrated robotaxi platform, which is why its cost wins - Robotaxi costs will collapse from $3 per mile to 25 cents as Tesla scales - ARK estimates Waymo's cost structure in 2030 will be 50% higher
143
3K
328
218
351K
theirvingherald's profile image
The Irving Herald Verified account @theirvingherald
https://t.co/qi5v80ejpf
0
0
0
0
2
theirvingherald  retweeted
taygoldenstein's profile image
Taylor Goldenstein @taygoldenstein
My first piece for @TexasTribune: Texas Republicans have a data center problem They’re caught between a zealous president and governor bent on Texas becoming the next global data center hub, and outraged constituents in red and rural districts, where most ctrs are being proposed
14
689
143
50
35K

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Miyoy22's profile image
iyoy
Seen from Malaysia
kentu1818's profile image
Bool Bau
Seen from Indonesia
_cocklover's profile image
𝕆𝕟𝕝𝕪 𝔾𝕒𝕪 𝕊𝕖𝕩 (+𝟙𝟠) 🏳️‍🌈😈
Seen from Turkey
AgustinCsepeda's profile image
Jalisquillo Ares ❤️‍🔥
Seen from Panama
BerilEgeEvlii's profile image
PAYLAŞIMCII
Seen from Turkey
LockedBoyLarson's profile image
Larson
Seen from Portugal
Sgrbbs's profile image
Suger babes Verified account
Seen from Indonesia
sak_n8491's profile image
Mustafa
Seen from Turkey
bRiAnxox_x's profile image
ur worst nightmare🏈😈🍇
Seen from United States
mjhwd21925's profile image
محمد مجهود
Seen from Algeria

Trends for you

1
#RHOA
Under 10K tweets
2
Lindsey Graham
Under 10K tweets
3
CNBC
Under 10K tweets
4
#90DayFiance
Under 10K tweets
5
#BaddiesUSA
Under 10K tweets
6
Garth
Under 10K tweets
7
Azzi
Under 10K tweets
8
The Crossovers
Under 10K tweets
9
#NASCAR
Under 10K tweets
10
Aniya and Carl
Under 10K tweets

Most Popular Users

elonmusk's profile image
1
Elon Musk Verified account
@elonmusk
240.8M followers
barackobama's profile image
2
Barack Obama Verified account
@barackobama
119.2M followers
realdonaldtrump's profile image
3
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
cristiano's profile image
4
Cristiano Ronaldo Verified account
@cristiano
111.3M followers
narendramodi's profile image
5
Narendra Modi Verified account
@narendramodi
107M followers
rihanna's profile image
6
Rihanna Verified account
@rihanna
97.8M followers
nasa's profile image
7
NASA Verified account
@nasa
92.2M followers
justinbieber's profile image
8
Justin Bieber Verified account
@justinbieber
91.1M followers
katyperry's profile image
9
KATY PERRY Verified account
@katyperry
88M followers
taylorswift13's profile image
10
Taylor Swift Verified account
@taylorswift13
81.9M followers
ladygaga's profile image
11
Lady Gaga Verified account
@ladygaga
73.4M followers
imvkohli's profile image
12
Virat Kohli Verified account
@imvkohli
70.5M followers
kimkardashian's profile image
13
Kim Kardashian Verified account
@kimkardashian
70M followers
youtube's profile image
14
YouTube Verified account
@youtube
68.7M followers
billgates's profile image
15
Bill Gates Verified account
@billgates
64.1M followers
neymarjr's profile image
16
Neymar Jr Verified account
@neymarjr
63.3M followers
theellenshow's profile image
17
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
cnn's profile image
18
CNN Verified account
@cnn
61.9M followers
selenagomez's profile image
19
Selena Gomez Verified account
@selenagomez
61.1M followers
x's profile image
20
X Verified account
@x
60.8M followers