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.
Example: 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.
Example solution: Disagree
Example explanation: 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.

Problem: Comment: Wrong again. This chant is great, and it should be celebrated by everybody who cares about democracy and who loves Canada. It's the voice of the people, letting the elites know that things are changing.

The political elites think they are special snowflakes who can do what they want. They have forgotten that they have duties, obligations and responsibilities to the people, not to the special interests and lobbyists.

If you want someone to blame for this chant blame Notley for breaking her promises to the voters. Blame Notley for catering to special interests instead of the people. You can condemn it all you want, like you condemned Trump, but you can't stop what's coming. The only way to stop it is to start governing for the benefit of the people instead of the special interests.
Solution: Disagree