"both parties"

Drink!

Of course, none of you refute anything in the linked article.
#5 | Posted by BellRinger

How might one go about refuting an opinion?

Of course, there are some facts which are extremely doubtful, like "President Trump successfully dismantled the Iranian nuclear sites with a daring military raid." Trump's own Department of War did not claim this, nor was the attack on multiple sites. So this is just a lie, to set up the next half of that sentence, another lie -- "and that should have received uniform praise."

Why should an unprovoked and unauthorized-by-Congress military strike against a sovereign nation receive uniform praise? I can't imagine Rand Paul praising it. Or anyone who believes in the rule of law. Or anyone who believes negotiation is superior to violence.

"Instead, the Democrats played politics even with what should have been a united front against a nuclear Iran."

Oh come on. Trump is the one who did that, when he unilaterally abandoned the six nations deal, and not for any strategic reason, but because a black man who is a smarter and more effective leader did it, and he couldn't stand living in a black man's shadow.

"As with the Republicans who refused to eliminate the filibuster here, they all need to realize that the key to governance is cooperation and collaboration, not combat."

The "Better Dead than Democrat" Republicans have neither the inclination nor the ability to cooperate and collaborate with anyone but child molesters.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral ... people."

The Founders were huge believers in Loyalty Oaths.
This site is full of Republican men who have sworn that Oath before G-d and don't believe a word of it.
Republican men are not moral people. They view morals as a weakness, an obstacle to overcome on their way to success.