Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.

Q: You forgot McDonald, and the newer reasoning in Caetano.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

A: No
****
Q: I'm a father of daughters and sorry for your loss. But we make choices good and bad and we must live with them. Jail is jail. Not the systems issue.

A: No
****
Q: Here's the rebuttal: Krugman is a player for the democrats political establishment to believe otherwise is foolishness. When the RG as with many liberal newspapers don't want to appear as the lone ranger they run a Krugman kind of column. His column isn't about Trump, it's all about getting Hillary elected. Like most democrats you don't see it anymore then the next tool. The Clintons are among the top 1%, the insider political establishment   and they intend to stay there no matter what or who they use. Independents like myself see it plainly for it is, a few Master Gardeners the 1% [the Clintons] have a shed full of foolish tools willing to be used. It all boils down to Forrest Gump's story.... "stupid is as stupid does". The really question is: So what does Hillary's moral and mental character have to offer the nation I know the answer do you?

A:
Yes
****