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: Nothing at all against the natives, just a Taxpayer who hates to see the money that is taken from me used to help so many who refuse to help themselves all due to race. If it is good to hand out massive amounts of welfare to a select group based on skin color or race that is racism. We are all equal right? Every US citizen should get the same treatment.
[A]: Non-toxic


[Q]: Comment: I think it interesting they include this picture of the Grand Canyon in the above advertorial for the National Park Service budget process and hate targeting Trump.
Because, if you really look at that picture, you'll realize you could take it without the need to spend a single penny to the National Park Service, or anyone else except the camera manufacturer.
It's the Park Service that puts up the barriers for people to get to a place like that.
It's the Park Service that requires you to stand in line to pay money.
It's the Park Service that denies access if you don't pay (them).
When I was young I went pretty much any where I wanted at any time. 
Now I'm old & am told I have to buy a pass to pay people who deny what I used to do.
Brave New World, eh? No. Same old story, though you can substitute a different word.
[A]: Non-toxic


[Q]: Comment: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the deal.  The State Department was one of nine agencies comprising CFIUS, which vets potential national security impacts of transactions where a foreign government gains control of a U.S. company. The other agencies were the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, and two White House agencies (Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and Office of Science and Technology Policy).
Clinton herself was not involved in the State Department’s review and did not direct the department to take any position on the sale of Uranium One. As PolitiFact found, the majority of donations made to the Clinton Fdn were made before and during Clinton’s 2008 presidential run. So Trump’s claim that Hillary Clinton “gave [uranium to] Russia for a big payment” is not accurate
Quit believing crap like "Clinton Cash" and do some research yourself....
[A]:
Non-toxic