In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: toxic and non-toxic. Toxicity is defiend as anything that is rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable that would make someone want to leave a converation.

Q: Comment: There are some laudable aspects to President Trump's run, such as showing that candidates can talk directly to the electorate without spending a fortune on advertising and media consultants. But please recall that he did not win the popular vote. Had the majority of the voting American populace been heard, he would not be president. Had he lost narrowly in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pensylvania, instead of having won narrowly, he would be on reality tv today bragging about how he gave president Clinton's media and money machine such a hard time.  Important to keep perspective, while acknowledging that President Trump certainly sensed an undercurrent of silent dissatisfaction in something close to (but less than) the majority of Americans. Peace.

A: Non-toxic
****
Q: Comment: No Politica, per favore.
Omicidio, non politica.

Migliore,

RTD

A: Non-toxic
****
Q: Comment: So it's OK for Native Activists to force Ontario Schools to preface every morning announcement essentially stating that all of Canada is owned by Indigenous people and that everyone else is a squatter? Effectively cultural appropriation is something they get outraged about but propaganda and indoctrination of children is ok?
So why do they force kids to go to 'religious' ceremonies like Smudging, is that not cultural appropriation? 
The hypocrisy shows that this has and always been about money and manufacturing outrage to keep the usual activist groups' palms greased.

A:
Non-toxic
****