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

Q: Fuck you, WW for posting Hillary Clinton as a president. I get it, this is a pointless internet quiz, but it really highlights how pathetic your publication is in comparison to Portland Mercury who endorsed Bernie Sanders today. 
Place Hillary on the quiz was probably done with the intention to be funny; but it's not. I have much less desire to read your publication now than I ever have.

A: Yes
****
Q: I'm not following. If he said there will not be a reduction to the general fund, and the county has in fact increased spending $5 million from the GF...how is that a reduction?

A: No
****
Q: So in your view the members of the White Victims Club aren't foolish, childish and intolerant? The people who want to deport the Muslims and build a wall around Mexico? I guess if you think those mooks and broads are the paragons of reason, I can understand you taking offense at dirty leftist plebs disrupting the high-minded discourse that was surely about to take place.

I have to disagree though with the idea that Trumpism is somehow any different from old school conservative-style scapegoating, but for the veneer of brass and marble and bad hair. I see the same mentality as usual: Blame the worlds problems on society's weakest members and then rush to claim the mantle of victimhood when confronted in any way for having terrible ideas and hair. Only this time, instead of having a rich white guy as their leader, it's a rich white guy with a New York accent! Way to mix it up guys!

A:
Yes
****