From the wikipedia:

Often nowadays this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

You're seem to be fitting the definition quite well ;)
Saying that your argument is not ad hominem and backing it up with another ad hominem unfortunately doesn't change that it is.

But okay, let's talk about logic then if that's what you want!

I've asked folks to vote Trump to save people's lives that are currently being murdered thanks to (among others) that "great" guy Biden.
You called Trump a Fuhrer and Nazi (without backing it up with anything at all at that point).
I pointed out that it is ironic calling Trump a Nazi, while you are (presumably) supporting Biden who is quite literally supporting Nazi government.
You've made a conclusion (and even framed it as a quote) that I've said "Therefore trump cannot be a nazi despite his plan to implement ‘Project 2025’", despite neither me saying "trump cannot be a nazi" nor you even bringing "Project 2025" into the discussion beforehand.

Well, from that I can only make a conclusion that you have "logical abilities of squirrel shit" :)

And getting back to your argument - supporting a Nazi government seems to be a way better indicator of being a Nazi than some "Project 2025" 🤷‍♂️