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

[EX Q]: It is a common misconception among those who have not looked at Sanders' plan that he wants to burden taxpayers the cost of college tuition. "The cost of this $75 billion a year plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. " I am assuming you are not a Wall Street speculator.
As far as taxpayers funding healthcare, who funds healthcare now? If business offers it as a benefit, it is less money for salaries. When people are bankrupt by a healthcare emergency, hospitals take a loss on money not paid. This raises the cost for other patients to compensate.
What Sanders would do is eliminate the insurance companies that are noting more than a for profit betting scheme. They bet they will take in more than they pay out. The difference is their profit. 
His plans are all laid out on the 'net. https://berniesanders.com/issues/
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: Regarding your Fred Stewart story, you need to ask yourself how certain you are before you print a story that absolutely destroys the candidacy of someone who has served his community well.   Do you really know Fred's relationship with his ex-wife -- no you don't.   Do you know if she is telling the truth when you quote her -- no you don't.   Does this one incident of disagreement and physical confrontation with his daughter disqualify Fred?   Is there more to the story -- a young woman stuck between a feuding Mother and Father and choosing her Mother -- in a not so surprising situation?  Is the Grant High School student's story reflective of the whole context and therefore should be used.   As someone who has edited hundreds of WW stories, I would say that this is tabloid journalism at its worst.   
If I were Terry Bean, Jordan Schnitzer, Jefferson Smith, Eileen Brady, or Fred Stewart, I would be thinking about the private lives and motivations of Mark Zusman and Nigel Jaquiss.
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: The perfect example of the complete dysfunction of the Board of Game process and ignorance of the Alaska Constitution.  "Balance?  We don't need balance.  We want it all and to heck with the interests of the large majority of Alaskans and visitors who do not hunt."  They are so scared of losing any control over their killing of moose and caribou.  I guess other Alaskans and visitors don't spend any money in Alaska in pursuit of viewing wildlife as opposed to killing it?  I encourage Governor Walker to appoint a non-consumptive user to the Board after the legislature adjourns (if they ever do....).
[EX A]:
No