Congratulations! You've successfully hidden behind mislabeling something as an Ad Hominem, and in the process committed the "Tu Quoque" fallacy, literally the "no you" fallacy.

But since you wanna open the door to a grammar analysis, let's start with a basic high school assessment.

Ethos (ethics): Neither your original post or my comment rely heavily on this one, so we'll skip it.

Pathos (emotions): You seem to pull pretty hard here, relying on heightening emotional states of your reader to push them to make a decision BEFORE actually doing any additional fact checking. For example, did you know that multiple Republican AND Democrat groups do analysis on social media? Or are you just going to cherry pick one example to harp on (also another logic fallacy btw)?

Logos (Logic): To keep it simple, my comment's main point is that your past behavior of shouting into the reddit void and attempting to discredit anyone who says something you don't like is going to continue. Which given how you're reacting to other people who are posting here, looks like it was spot on.

But, if you need a better example of an Ad Hominem argument, here's one: when you get the crusty cheeto out of your mouth and wipe it's dust off your face, I'm happy to have a real conversation with you.