You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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.

Comment: Why do right wingers have so little respect for the rule of law when the law does not advance their personal interests? Is it a lack of empathy? Or a more general lack of basic human decency? I don't doubt that pBurns9 would be the first one to run to the courts if his rights were violated.
Solution: Disagree
Why? This comment expresses strong disagreement with right-wing politics, is disrespectful (accusing right-wingers "lack of basic human decency"), and comes with personal attack (to the user pBurns9). Thus, this comment is likely to raise a certain level of public disagreement from others.

New input: Comment: This is really hard. You bargaining with a bully that wants the right to slap on tariffs at any time which would know from experience in softwood lumber would be applied for political reasons rather than reasons of fairness. At the same time, the bully teases you with potential access to a market vital to the present configuration of our economy. It isn't about friendship or partnership - it is avowedly "me first and only me". I don't envy our negotiators and I can only say it heightens my enthusiasm for seeking greater partnership with Europe. There are so many great Americans and great American companies that I really mourn for the loss of friendship the Trump administration implicitly (in our case) represents. With the Mexicans it is explicit.
Solution:
Agree