Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.

"I wont support anyone wayerhouser sells to from this point on.."
You'll starve to death.  Buh bye.
Yes

As an NAV I can speak only for myself.   If a candidate made this comment:  

"If Republicans focus on what government should be doing, which governments should be doing it, and how to do it effectively and efficiently, voters will listen and the Republican brand will become more appealing."

I would consider them seriously.    

It's a theme that I've tried to promote for about a decade now.   Any stable nation state has a strong government structure - no government is not an option.   But the US is a very large and diverse nation, and federal programs that don't acknowledge local input and control, will struggle.   Asking what level of government should address public concerns is a fair question and will lead to higher levels of commitment.      Funding is another topic, especially for local or state economies that have low resources.
No

You would think the author of this post, or an editor at Willamette Week, would have been able to do a simple Google search and realized: 

1. There is already an article titled "Your Uber Driver Hates You," written in Sept. 2014: https://idrivesf.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/your-uber-driver-hates-you/

2. A Buzzfeed listicle titled "Ten Reasons Why Your Uber Driver Hates You" followed shortly after: http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellkontraire/ten-reasons-why-your-uber-driver-hates-you-xk61

3. To update the myriad reasons why your Uber driver hates you with one extra reason is just a lazy way to make your point. 

4. Also, lists are dumb.

Yes