Categorize the comment on the basis of sexual explicitness. If the comment is sexually explicit output Yes, otherwise output No.

[Q]: "What Zuckerberg has done is to substitute the largely uninformed opinions of one-third of the population as to what constitutes news for the judgments of thousands of trained journalists, most of whom have made collecting and reporting the news their careers."

These would be the 'judgments' of the 'trained journalists' who predicted Trump's winning the Republican nomination for President, right?    How about predicting that Bernie Sanders would be anything more than a minor footnote in the contest  against She  Who  Will soon be Anointed Queen of the Democrats?  The 'trained journalists' score on that one?

Seems to me that the 'largely uninformed opinions' (I think of them as votes) left those 'trained journalists' with egg on their faces.
[A]: Yes


[Q]: I was shocked to see this change in the official results! I can't believe that there was ever 88 Clinton supporters outside when the counting was taking place. I'm looking at the photos I took throughout the process and I don't see that many people. They told us the count was 352 to 69. This seems really shady...
[A]: Yes


[Q]: Thanks for the dose of psycho babel bullshit, 1Alaskan. I'm stuffed now. 

The world is not going in a downward spiral. We are a society that is perpetually moving forward and for the better. Only those with a twisted view of God preach hate and intolerance.
[A]:
No