Louis Roney: 'The Donald' and debate two

• Donald Trump is a new kind of political animal: He’s “no holds barred.” Those of us who frequent New York and have been “Trump-wise” for years are not surprised to see him now in his new garb as “politician.” He doesn’t mind taking a stand and putting his name on what he says and what he will do, and he’s used to accomplishing things. He’s my kind of guy.

My foresight was right on! Whadda ya know. In April of 2011 I wrote the following: “Will ‘The Donald’ play The Trump Card? I lived in New York when Donald Trump built his Trump Tower on 5th Avenue. I noted ‘The Don’s’ bold name in his New York development operations for years. He has been a guy of such undeniable inventive force that he has never gotten lost —even in the brouhaha of The Big Apple. It has occurred to me that Donald Trump might be a hell-of-a president, maybe just the kind of rough-and-tough winner the U.S. could well use at this time in the brutal world arena — if we can forget The Donald’s past personal peccadillos that is! In public debate, there are few, if any, who can stand up to Trump’s self-assurance and unyielding verbal assault. He is master of all the victorious techniques that cut the legs out from under opponents attempting to argue with him. Trump is not one to duck questions — he gives a straight answer — one you may or may not like. He surely would be colorful! God knows, it’s time for a winner in the White House! Could Trump be the guy?”

Pretty prescient wasn’t I? And I’m not a big Trump fan but, compared to a Hillary, the choice is easy isn’t it?

• You want to know why I’m a right-winger? In the Bible: Ecclesiastes 10:2 says, “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.” Any more questions?

• Now to the Sep. 16 debate number two: First of all, the questions were puerile: “Mr. Carson you said ------- about Mr. Paul” Oh come on!

Is this a debate about one’s ability to be the President of the United States or a rating grab for CNN dressed up as a personality squabble in a “Reality” show? There were supposed to be three people asking questions on the program, but it was really one guy doing 95 percent of the asking, plus two occasional observers chiming in. The 6 p.m. version was four debaters, and actually we got to better understand their views on several pertinent problems facing us.

Lindsay Graham was passionate re: foreign relations. Bobby Jindal is extremely bright, honest, and capable with good thought, but without catching the public’s fancy.

Then the “big boys” faced the crowd at the Reagan Library. Eleven debaters held forth with those inane questions of who said what about whom.

Actually it was a bit of a Trump bash — but Trump didn’t come off too badly, and this wasn’t his kind of audience. The “winners” were the same as in the first debate: Fiorina and Rubio. And debaters who enhanced their positions were Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich. Trump and Carson held their own but didn’t present anything that was new or revelatory. Mike Huckabee spoke well but again talked mostly of abortion, marriage between males and males, etc. Scott Walker and Rand Paul were not on top of their game.

The evening’s principal passion and excitement emanated from Fiorina and Rubio. They brought a plethora of knowledge, and obvious great thought about every subject that came their way, from military preparedness, budgets, foreign policy, drug trafficking, “sanctuary cities”, etc. all delivered with precision, conciseness, and clarity.

Christie, Kasich, and Bush also added to the evening’s wisdom.

I thought to myself that even after all the silly banter of CNN, the debaters all made you proud that America could present such a great bunch of thinkers, debaters and willing candidates.