In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: threat and non-threat. Threat is a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, especially if the person does not do something in particular.

Comment: The lying thieves in HART get what they want ALL THE TIME regardless... WHY do they need a MARKETING BUDGET?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Death to HART!!!!
Threat

Comment: Yes, the IM law requires the Department to establish moose population objectives and the BOG approves.  In most cases, unrealistically high population objectives have been set that are unsustainable.  This is what one can expect from a BOG that is entirely hunters and hunting guides and a Department that is addicted to hunting license revenues.  The result is predictable: endless killing of bears and wolves while moose objectives are seldom reached.  And this is at a cost of over $ 1 million per year, and at a greater cost to keeping Alaska's wild ecosystems healthy.  We are allowing ourselves to be bamboozled by an inherently corrupt system that favors about 14% of the Alaskans that hunt, and its not even working for them.  Its time to "repeal, and replace" the IM law with a wildlife conservation policy that is scientifically based, preserves ecosystem health, and respects democratic principles.
Non-threat

Comment: This is breathtakingly dishonest behavior by Trudeau and his government, given their earlier promises to the country about improving ethics and making government more transparent and accountable.  We're back to the bad old days of Liberals treating the electorate as unimportant peasants to be kept in the dark.  The incredible arrogance displayed by privately entertaining foreign billionaires in exchange for political donations is exactly the opposite actions Canadians expected.  It cannot continue.  If it does, it will become a big reason Canadians choose not to reelect the Trudeau Liberals

Non-threat