In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: obscene and non-obscene. A comment is obscene if it is considered offensive to the public sense of decency, for example because it too obviously relates to sex or contains language regarded as taboo in polite usage.

Q: Comment: No one knows how to gauge te outcome based on the ranked ballot.  But isn't the challenge greater than that?   
Each EDA counts as 100 points and the first candidate to get 16901 points, or more, is the winner.  This means that EDA's with a small number of members carry a lot of weight.  If one candidate has 28% support concentrated in many EDA's with few members, that candidate ha a much better chance than another candidate with 35% support concentrated in a few ridings in the GTA.
This is the same approach the Liberals used to choose Justin Trudeau.  Apparently, he had broad support getting over 80% of the points on the first round.  This time around, it seems like a real crap shoot.

A: Obscene
****
Q: Comment: Only to sneak back in and try it again. One bad hombre.

A: Non-obscene
****
Q: Comment: Morneau.........Trump..........Tomato/Tomato......All the same for the mega-rich. I am sure that Morneau would agree with Trump's new tax cut and how it helps the middle class (but really is engineered to give the mega-rich all the major breaks). Won't stop CEOs (like himself and his in-laws the McCain's) from cashing in their 'stock options' and creatively obscuring their tax responsibilities on these options.

Reminds me of the novel 'Animal Farm' where it was stated 'four hooves good but two hooves better'.

Was not Morneau in the 'Panama Papers'? Is not Trudeau's family accounting firm KPMG not in the Panama Papers?

Without transparency their can't be accountability. And this is not what politicians want. Such hypocrites.

A:
Non-obscene
****