The meaning of tra·jec·to·ry - as in "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America"

trajectory
tra·jec·to·ry (plural tra·jec·to·ries)
noun

Definition:

1. path of flying object: the path that a projectile makes through space under the action of given forces such as thrust, wind, and gravity


2. curve intersecting at constant angle: a curve or surface that intersects all of a family of curves or surfaces at a constant angle


3. path of process or event: the way in which a process or event develops over a period of time
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/trajectory.html
--------------------------

A familiar example of a trajectory is the path of a projectile such as a thrown ball or rock. In a greatly simplified model the object moves only under the influence of a uniform homogenous gravitational force field. This can be a good approximation for a rock that is thrown for short distances for example, at the surface of the moon. In this simple approximation the trajectory takes the shape of a parabola. Generally, when determining trajectories it may be necessary to account for nonuniform gravitational forces, air resistance (drag and aerodynamics). This is the focus of the discipline of ballistics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory

That's the tra·jec·to·ry on which Reagan sent the country.

What the hell was he thinking. Does he not know what hell that man has put this country through and how we are still paying for his fascist agenda?

and it is a shame that we as Democrats aren't going to give him any benefit of the doubt.

We will be very happy with Mr. & Mrs. Bill running the country amok. Free traders, welfare Reform Queens, Cables gone nuts due to the 1996 telecommunications act, and the Iraq dead will thank us.

All cause Obama had an opinion on how Reagan won elections.

Is it a Nevada thing, where he can gain spin in that direction? Or is he already confident that he has the
democratic vote? Or did he just make a little slip?

I didn't believe it, until I saw the videotape. Of course, you're right Frenchie. But still,
I'm scratching my head.

Republicans are still in denial about it, but Reagan was bad to the bone.

was that Reagan made a lot of changes and they were bad changes, he just made a hell of a lot of them. If Obama wants to follow Reagan's lead in making a lot of changes that were GOOD, then I'm all for it and I think that's the point Obama was making.

Very clear and sensible. I've enjoyed reading your posts since the Clark days, "clear and sensible" are always hallmarks of your posts.

:headbang:

But more the idea of invoking the most worshipped Republican at all ~ and also his odd reading of the incredibly important era that preceeded Reagan.

I have doubts about all our candidates, and this comment didn't help me relax the doubts I already had about Obama's take on the boomer generation. Makes me wonder if maybe he relates more to genXers because he has more of an appreciation for the politics of Reagan than for the movements of the 60s.

Essentially it's a financial point of view that was the result of extrordinary inflation in the late seventies.
The long and short of it is this: America could no longer financially support the empire that it built in
the fat years of the fifties and sixties. Government programs--mostly military--required taxes to fund, but they were no longer
offering any return. Reagan's response was to create our deficit, which Republicans denied to be a serious problem
until the Clinton years.

For a brief recap.

as well as freedoms, such as abortion.

The Carter years ushered in a national policy on human rights around the globe and also saw the first solar panels installed on the White House roof. Reagan reversed these initiatives and returned to same old way of doing things.

Obama understands and uses Republican code words and phrases to attract Republican voters. Lieberman did same to attract Republicans to his independent Senate campaign

As in, if you are a Reagan fan, you take it as true and a compliment. If you are not a Reagan fan, you take it as true and a put-down.

If Obama wanted to be forthright and a true Democrat, he should have added "dramatically for the worse" or just left the Republican false demi-god completely out of the discussion (the wiser move).

I can only wonder how this will go. It won't rally democrats to his side.
Even if everything he said was true--which it was.

Ronald Reagan, who was guilty of genecide in Nicaragua. In addition Reagan is not exactly a Democratic icon. To say that he did more than President Clinton is outrageous. Pres Clinton is the most popular American in the world, except maybe Gore or Carter. What did Reagan ever do after his presidency except use his name to make money for himself? Reagan was pres when Iran-Contra-gate was illegally instituted to bypass the Congress and create an illegal network of guns against the legitimate government of a foreign entity. Sound familiar? On Keith tonight a talking head (Alter?) said that this was possibly to win votes in California, which allegedly likes Reagan. If so, it is a pathetic method to win votes. I like all our candidates, but even so, I dislike these officious campaign strategies; it gives me a moment of consternation as to whether our country can actually survive and even if it should, given our predilection to be deceitful and unjust to our fellow man.

All that info you just posted makes me wonder WTF was Obama thinking? Never prop up a criminal like Reagan... even if you are trying to peal voters from the other side.

Guy James played Obama's statement... I couldn't believe it, but there it was.