So what did the public learn from the first presidential debate of 2016?

Well, they learned that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, a veteran of eight years in the Senate and four years as the nation’s Secretary of State, is well versed in matters of domestic and foreign policy. They also learned that her Republican opponent, Donald Trump, is troublingly uninformed.

Trump managed in one debate to raise questions about whether a Trump administration would be loyal to two key Asian allies — South Korea and Japan. Returning to his campaign theme that America may not come to the defense of allies who aren’t fully paid up, he lumped South Korea into nations that “do not pay us.” In fact, it pays $800 million annually.

“We can’t defend Japan, a behemoth, selling us cars by the millions,” Trump said at another point in the foreign policy part of the debate.

This left Clinton with the task of not only correcting her opponent, but also mending diplomatic fences.

“I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them,” Clinton said.

The viewing audience learned that Trump is delusional and vain enough to actually think his off-the-mark criticism of NATO moved it to announce a new intelligence program.

“I said they have to focus on terror, also, and they’re going to do that … and that was largely because of what I was saying and my criticism of NATO,” Trump said.

No it wasn’t. Our allies in the North Atlantic partnership have been joining the United States in fighting terrorism for decades.

Clinton again corrected him.

“NATO as a military alliance has something called Article 5, and basically it says this: An attack on one is an attack on all,” Clinton said. “And you know the only time it’s ever been invoked? After 9/11, when the 28 nations of NATO said that they would go to Afghanistan with us to fight terrorism, something that they still are doing by our side.”

In dealing with the conflicts of the Middle East, Trump doubled down on his call for a pre-World War I-style colonialism approach, seizing oil fields.

That garnered no response. Perhaps it was just too absurd to bother refuting.

On economic policy, listeners learned that Trump aligns himself with those fringe conspiracy theorists who see the Federal Reserve — long supported by both Republican and Democratic presidents — as in the tank for the opposition.

“The Fed is doing political by keeping the interest rates at this level … The Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton,” blustered Trump.

And Trump remains an adherent of trickle-down economics, repeatedly and consistently shown effective only in making the rich richer.

“The wealthy are going (to) create tremendous jobs. They’re going to expand their companies. They’re going to do a tremendous job,” Trump said.

At least he could give it a new name. Clinton suggested one.

“I call it Trumped-up trickle-down,” Clinton said, pointing to the unprecedented tax cuts her opponent has proposed, with no plan to pay for them. “That’s exactly what it would be. That is not how we grow the economy.”

Clinton referenced her plan to increase taxes on corporations and the highest earners. That is where all the wealth has been accumulating. And using the revenue to invest in infrastructure, incentivize the renewable energy industries and make college more affordable.

Asked to address race relations in our nation, Trump’s answer was law and order and federal support for “stop-and-frisk,” a policy that allows police to search people on a hunch. It is unconstitutional, according to the courts. If utilized, it would be sure to increase tension between police and minority communities.

Clinton had the reasonable approach.

“We have to restore trust between communities and the police. We have to work to make sure that our police are using the best training, the best techniques, that they’re well prepared to use force only when necessary. Everyone should be respected by the law and everyone should respect the law,” she said.

What the nation learned is that Clinton, while admittedly not an agent of change and perhaps pragmatic to a fault, would be a steady hand at the wheel of the nation. She is prepared for the job of president.

Voters should have also learned that it would be a dangerous gambit to make Trump president. This has been interesting, but it’s time to return Trump to real estate and reality TV.