In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: threat and non-threat. Threat is a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, especially if the person does not do something in particular.

Q: Comment: United used to be a decent airline. In October 2010, they merged with Continental which had always, in my experience, been a horrible airline. We were flying back from New England when Continental-uniformed staff stepped into United Airlines jobs and immediately the customer service took a nose-dive. I filed a complaint for the way they treated my mother-in-law for just being a little slow to respond to them. That was the same weekend the TSA started the nude photoscanning and pat down searches, so it was a miserable trip home and we're still waiting to hear back on that complaint.

I wasn't surprised to see this in the news. Arrogance will always show in a company eventually. That their own crew had priority over a passenger makes me wonder if United's CEOs and middle managers need to take a course on capitalism.

Back of this may be a government regulation about flight crew transport. Many business problems trace back to government rules forcing impossible choices.

A: Non-threat
****
Q: Comment: little did hillary know that 20yrs later a weiner would again cause her so many problems.

A: Non-threat
****
Q: Comment: Seems to me that your nation's urge for change responded to pandering as if it was leadership. Not always an easy distinction, but the length of the campaign should suredly have evaporated any confusion. Listening to the people and hearing their needs and helping them resolve them is leadership; listening for your personal agenda and manipulating, evoking, exacerbating them to one's selfish benefit is pandering. That's what you got.
Discerning the difference, as to the white Evangelical and Catholic seems fairly easy: are you willing to ignore demonstrated unsuitability over an extremely wide spectrum of despicability for the sake of one issue, held with clear duplicity by the panderer, that is self-defined, by the adherents, in a narrow, rote manner that is in fact held with sanctimonious extreme emotion.
It is one thing to work with a decent person to find a way; another to cede one's principle in trust to a panderer. It's akin to asking the serial killer to hold your gun for you.

A:
Non-threat
****