Categorize the comment on the basis of threat. If the comment is threatening output Yes, otherwise output No.

Example Input: By grabthar's hammer, you shall be avenged!
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: Something subtle in the coverage here that has concerned our campaign, is that the RG's efforts to appear "fair," with candidate's excerpted statements that serve the RG's need for a storyline, haven't been forthcoming with much detail on the candidate's differences.  My campaign is dependent on public awareness of my desire to light the SUB fibre network to get Springfield's residents inexpensive/superfast internet, and my intent to aggressively intervene in the funding crisis in the schools. Yet, with the cancellation of all 7 proposed candidate forums, even the RG article 4-18 decrying "lack of debate" has little of substance that'd distinguish me or any opposition here, nor hold accountable an incumbent's record.  People deserve to not just 'hear' there are issues, they deserve to vote on the actual  issues themselves.  This sort of "psuedo-fairness" compromises a journalistic standard and uncritically assumes that all positions are equal without any elements accountable to facts.
Example Output: No

Example Input: It is essentially a myth that animals will reject their young because of people touching them, etc. So what's the real agenda here?
Example Output:
No