Literacy point: correlations are not "made". The near miss syntax is taking over. Cynical claim: my money says you can't describe the correlation I have been pointing out. You don't know what it is. Rhetorical observation: I have been posting examples and illustrative quotes and references to specific exhibitions of that correlation all along, for years now. As always, the word "if" in a rightwinger's post precedes bullshit. Afaik the best explanation for the stereotypical wingnut's insistence on other people's supposed hatred, bitterness, etc, is habitual projection from a limited and inculcated set. At any rate, that is the explanation that best fits the fact that they invariably miss - they assign me flaws I do not exhibit, and fail to assign me my actual flaw of attitude, despite its visibility and ubiquity and my open admission of it. Your practice of substituting misleading and confused paraphrases for other people's posting is not only unnecessary but objectionable. It's inherently dishonest, in the first place. Argument from such a basis is fallacy, in the second. If the purpose was to mislead and obscure. But argument from misrepresentation, as in every time you paraphrase, is a fallacy - the "strawman" fallacy, usually and here. Meanwhile, the actual post was - according to you - entirely adequate as well, and much less work for everybody. There is no need for you to put yourself and everyone else through the chore of untangling where you went wrong this time, in your bizarre insistence on paraphrasing what you yourself have repeatedly claimed is clear and "explicit" posting. In one direction ->: There are hundreds of different debates about American politics - none of them are "the debate". There is no such thing as "the debate" about American politics. And I am not "describing" any debate at all, let alone whatever you think "the debate about - politics" is. I am pointing to information relevant to the OP question. Meanwhile, in the other direction <- : The related arguments I do post from the pattern of behavior I have been noting and pointing at are not usually - and not here - about, confined to, or even focused on, American politics in general. In this thread my posts are "about" answering the OP question, which is not primarily a political one. You managed to go haywire from both directions of argument simultaneously, in other words. If anyone wants to answer the OP question (why do people post ad hominem arguments in these forums), they probably should take into consideration who is posting them and who is not. That seems fairly basic, obvious. But it requires being able to recognize and sort out an ad hominem argument, which is proving to be difficult for some folks.