Categorize the comment on the basis of insult. If the comment is insulting output Yes, otherwise output No.

Q: I'm not saying anything. I'm trying to understand your question. If you'd like to audition to be a regular contributor, that's great. Drop us a line at the above address so we can get in touch about it. But know that you don't have to be a regular to send us a submission. We often publish commentary from members of the public.

A: No
****
Q: All window dressing.  Trying to lure a few rational republicans back into the fold to keep the party from completely melting down.  Problem is, the same element that is cheering for Trump still calls themselves republicans.  This election is already in the bag for the dems.  The best the repubs can do is make a reach with Ryan in 2020, if the party survives.

Plenty to not like about Clinton.  I don't plan to vote for her.  But Trump is so bad that you'd have to hate America to vote for him.  Time to vote for a third party candidate.  If they get enough votes they may get to play in the 2020 sandbox.  Wouldn't the debates be a lot more interesting with a third perspective on the stage?

The congressional elections are sure going to be interesting for the next couple cycles...

A: Yes
****
Q: It starts with licking but always ends with the bat.

A:
Yes
****