Categorize the comment on the basis of threat. If the comment is threatening output Yes, otherwise output No.

Example Input: he has to be doing something right, the left and the right entrenched powers are scared *&^%less, and are in all out beast mode trying to take him down...and losing. He11, I'm about to vote for Trump just because he does piss off these political clowns. Get ready for the most brutal campaign in my lifetime, as team Billary is as vulgar and corrupt as they come, and Trump has plenty of issues of his own. That either of these fools are the top dogs in this contest speaks volumes to just how dysfunctional America has degenerated into.
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: Sooner later we'll have to stand up to the troublemakers.
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: From their own website:  The 1976 state law establishing the Permanent Fund (AS 37.13), states that the Fund was created:
to provide a means of conserving a portion of the state's revenue from mineral resources to benefit all generations of Alaskans
to maintain safety of principal while maximizing total return
to be a savings device managed to allow maximum use of disposable income for purposes designated by law.

I think that's pretty clear insofar as it's purpose.    To conserve for the benefit of all generations of Alaskans.    Using the principal to produce earning to fund government (like Norway did for example) is certainly one way the fund, using a POMV payment model, would provide benefit to all generations of Alaskan's, not just the individuals who happen to live in Alaska for a year, then get a dividend that second year.
Example Output:
Yes