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.

Comment: Let them die ..
Maybe we should build concentration camps with gas chambers...
hurry that death on a bit?.
Toxic

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....
Non-toxic

Comment: I appreciate your thoughtful response. I must contest your terms, however, as they mean everything. The fundamental issue that has you and others here perplexed, is that though disagree as he does with his church on women in leadership and marriage equality Jules Bailey doesn't seem to think his fellow members are either misogynistic or homophobic. That is, he must not believe the members and leadership of Imago Dei hate or mistreat women and they don't fear or mistreat homosexuals. What if this is actually true? The progressive community is now far too exclusive and refuses to hear the opinions and perspectives of people it disagrees with. Its group think. And...fear. 

Let the man believe what he wants, and worship where he will. What a majority on here are saying is that he's a viable candidate except he hangs out with undesirables...people who believe (peacefully, without controversy) counter to the majority. This runs counter to self-purported progressive Portland values.

Non-toxic