You cut off half the sentence to call its reasoning dangerous, and you are misunderstanding it. The reason is not "The filibuster should be eliminated because

You cut off half the sentence to call its reasoning dangerous, and you are misunderstanding it. The reason is not "The filibuster should be eliminated because Republicans use it, and I don't like Republicans." The reason is "The filibuster should be eliminated because it's possible for one political party to abuse it, and moreover, that has happened." That reason may be based on facts or not, or convincing or not, but it is an argument that is not based on personal dislike of one party, except insofar as one party is doing something that would be bad if any party did it, and you are prepared to dislike any party that does it. If I said "Gerrymandering is bad because Republicans have used it to their advantage," I would be agreeing with your argument about gerrymandering, because both of us would be prepared to say the same thing about any other party were that party to use gerrymandering to their advantage.