instruction:
In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: disagree or agree. Classify the comment as disagree if it is likely to raise a certain level of public disagreement, whether healthy or unhealthy. The disagreement can be due to toxic content (for example, disrespect, identity attack, insult, and threat), controversial content, misunderstandings, or conflicting opinions. Classify the comment as agree otherwise.
question:
Comment: This is the same guy who cast the lone no vote on the bill honoring African American servicemen who formed the bulk of the labor force that built the Alcan.  He also cast the lone no vote against the first Alaska Native speaker-of-the-house.  Now he's making statements clearly directed against Alaska Native women.

Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?
answer:
Agree


question:
Comment: Notely has said: "I haven't changed his mind. He is still very committed to standing up for his constituents. And that is fine. But I am still going to come out here and make my case." 
_____________________________

The fact that the Alberta Premier acknowledges that BCers have to be "stood up for" because the Alberta Premier is lobbying for an American-owned Company on behalf of giving raw assets to China, is the most disturbing part of this ordeal. 

This is NOT for Canada or for Canadians and even trying to bully BC to be destroyed for a Chinese market and for American companies to profit on that is treason and IRRESPONSIBLE + RECKLESS.

Raise your royalty rates in Alberta on the projects YOU ALREADY HAVE and create jobs cleaning up all the oil sludge spills THAT YOU CURRENTLY have. Tax the foreign-owned head offices in Calgary and send the temporary foreign workers home, do not extort BC and do not endanger OUR LIVES for TOXIC SLUDGE.
answer:
Disagree


question:
Comment: "When you start running out of ideas to change the present, you start messing with the past, history, past figures and Canadian traditions."
Unbelievable!!!
Did you even read the article? The author has ideas to change the present. The whole premise of this piece is about dealing with "present" issues.
You, and others, as he suggests, are just not listening, or do not want to listen.
He lists a few legitimate "present" concerns: 
"slow implementation of recommendations made by the inquiry investigating the death of seven First Nations youth in Thunder Bay; and we’ve seen the grieving family of Barbara Kentner, the First Nations victim in a racially motivated killing, forced to flee their homes because of threats made against their children at school."
Your complete inability, or desire, to understand what he is saying suggests you come to the discussion with a mind already made up.
That is the problem.
answer:

Disagree