Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.

[EX Q]: Realize that the unfunded liability is mostly not about the retirement system at all. It is about massive errors by actuaries and bad behavior by politicians. Cleaning it up is a multi-billion dollar mess that local agencies are responsible for technically. The amount of money can potentially swamp their budgets. The state SHOULD be covering all of it, but they "pass" money back to local governments and school districts and then "take" it again. This artificially inflates the numbers Mr. Boyle likes to use, suggesting the school boards actually see and use that money. They don't.
This is weaseling back on their own problem, dumping it to locals, and they have to do stuff like that late in the session without input, because the more people get a chance to understand it, the less they like legislators.
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: Correction to this letter: Do we really want to listen to a street-corner preacher, who talks like a hick, with a twangy voice? (Lyin' Ted)
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: I agree that all of these are frightening aspects of Trump. However, some of them apply equally to Clinton. I've been sitting through a primary where Clinton and her surrogates have been belittling even those liberals who don't support her (calling them sexist, stupid, etc.) She also has a history of doing whatever it takes to get her way regardless of the cost to others (ACA, eagerness to use military force, etc.) And both Trump and Clinton are corporatists.

Trump scares me, yes, but Clinton does as well.
[EX A]:
Yes