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

Socialists have neither brains, heart, nor courage.  Socialists,  otherwise known as redistributionists,  depend on government raiders to take what belongs to one person through the power and intimidation of government to be redistributed to others according to what government deems is "fair".  Socialists are thieves disguised as do gooders creating dependent and incompetent masses.
Yes

If the point of your argument is that imminent extinction of irreplaceable native wild species, and/or the risk of zoonotic pandemics, isn't sufficient grounds to do whatever is possible to eliminate the cause, or if you believe eradicating your own species is preferable to eliminating cats, I must conclude that your arguments simply aren't worth taking seriously.  But admittedly that was fairly obvious from your first post.
No

Boo hoo, Hillary is so "uninspiring" and lord knows (infantile) Americans must be "inspired." The problem is the overactive and ideological imagination of the populace. Hillary Clinton will continue the policies of Barack Obama and if Americans find this state of affairs unsatisfactory they only have lack of political involvement and naivete to blame. Finally, the Republican party's backwardness is coming home to roost and what do we see? A bunch of ideological idiots on the so-called American "left" fantasizing that a country where fanatics shoot doctors and women seeking abortions is going to turn into a Sweden-style social democracy in the course of a single presidential election. Now is the finally the moment for the Democratic party to take over the political center (a strategic move for the future) and lo and behold the Sanders people have arrived to screw that up. Never underestimate the ability of Americans to shoot themselves in the foot.

Yes