In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: disagree or agree. Classify the comment as disagree if it is likely to raise a certain level of public disagreement, whether healthy or unhealthy. The disagreement can be due to toxic content (for example, disrespect, identity attack, insult, and threat), controversial content, misunderstandings, or conflicting opinions. Classify the comment as agree otherwise.

Input: Consider Input: Comment: This is the point the CPC keep pushing and it is nonsense. Justin Trudeau brought the Liberal Party back from 3rd place to power and recruited a lot of bright,accomplished people albeit some with very little political experience especially of the go for the throat school of Rove in which many of the CPC members are steeped.

Trudeau has degrees from 2 great universities, Mcgill and UBC and is widely read and traveled.

The leader of the opposition has a BA and few months training as an insurance salesman. Many CPC MP's went directly into back room politics from high school or university.

Thee is nothing wrong with any of his of course but to then blather on about Trudeau not being up to the mark is comic considering the source.

There has probably never been as weak and undistinguished a cabinet as Harpers and Scheers "shadow cabinet" is about the same.

Output: Disagree

Input: Consider Input: Comment: The lugenpresse would have us believe it is Trump who is adversarial with the lying officials.

But in fact these officials have made unsupported accusations, delayed meeting with Congress and then showed up unprepared to give answers, changed meeting dates with the President-Elected and blamed him, and leaked secrets to media even before they were provided to him. All this in the context of fallaciously questioning the merits of his election victory.

Many heads should roll come Jan 21.

Output: Disagree

Input: Consider Input: Comment: "When you start running out of ideas to change the present, you start messing with the past, history, past figures and Canadian traditions."
Unbelievable!!!
Did you even read the article? The author has ideas to change the present. The whole premise of this piece is about dealing with "present" issues.
You, and others, as he suggests, are just not listening, or do not want to listen.
He lists a few legitimate "present" concerns:
"slow implementation of recommendations made by the inquiry investigating the death of seven First Nations youth in Thunder Bay; and we've seen the grieving family of Barbara Kentner, the First Nations victim in a racially motivated killing, forced to flee their homes because of threats made against their children at school."
Your complete inability, or desire, to understand what he is saying suggests you come to the discussion with a mind already made up.
That is the problem.
Output: Disagree