Ayers being famous for admitting he doesn’t regret setting the bomb. Instead of being labeled a terrorist, he was made a professor and launched a lot of the social justice movement in education.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/02/a-...
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign...
So... to say counterproductive isn’t taking into account history and possibility. Ayers and Obama didn’t suffer from association to each other or this domestic terrorism.
Now, obviously, Trump Supporters (notice I didn’t say GOP) will find this to all have been counterproductive, agreed there in this specific case. My point about Ayers is that this is all a matter of who writes the history.
It's a far stretch to even imply the highly limited interactions between Ayers and Obama were in some way responsible for his rise to the presidency or that Ayers in any way influenced Obama to regard violence as the correct path for social change.
In fact, considering the ridiculous guilt-by-association he was subject to, it's more accurate to say Obama became president despite that limited connection, not because of it.
In short, the overblown Ayers-Obama link doesn't contradict my statement regarding peaceful protest.
I wasn’t trying to refute your point. Only offering a recent historical perspective where an actual terrorist organization was considered as... not that. Where the perspective is set by who is in charge.
>It's a far stretch to even imply the highly limited interactions between Ayers and Obama were in some way responsible for his rise to the presidency
I also didn’t imply that at all.
Perhaps you are just too used to arguing with people on the internet?