In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: sexual-explicit and non-sexual-explicit. A comment is considered sexual-explicit if it explicitly portrays sexual matters.

Comment: PR was declared "bankrupt" due to $74B in Ponzi-scheme issued bonds and $50B+ in unfunded pension liabilities. With an annual GDP of $103B, and declining, PR was insolvent. PR tried to raise $9B to repair and replace it's failed electrical grid. Since PR was insolvent, they couldn't float bonds. 
The article stated, "Nearly two weeks after the storm, 93% of electricity customers remain without power, including some hospitals." This is the exact percentage lost after Maria. Yet any person who's worked with a municipal or state power grid understands there's always some redundancy stored and available. After a disaster, electrical power is restored to hospitals, shelters, critical buildings, etc. with those stored components. The fact PR Power & Electric has restored nothing? Not even a flicker of interim power? That's either gross incompetence by PR P&E or inaccurate reporting.
Non-sexual-explicit

Comment: We are gonna send all the Muslims you can handle.

That should shut you up you globalist dick
Sexual-explicit

Comment: White skin bad. Everything else good. But skin colour and ethnic background should have nothing to do with anything anyway. I don't care if the best candidate is a blind Asian hermaphrodite or purple with pink polka dots. Whoever is best suited to get the job done.  When you begin hiring and awarding admission based on criteria other than merit and achievement, you begin the race to the bottom.

Non-sexual-explicit