Many of the bullshit explanations politicians give are perceived as perfectly acceptable to the wider public.
Some of them are, but a lot of the them aren’t. Opposing gay marriage because you think it’s violates a your religion is a straightfoward thing. There no lying or deception involved if the politician fulfills his promise and votes against gay marriage after the election. If you don’t like those politicans you can elect other ones. The debate did it’s job of accurately informing the voters about the politicians.
On the other hand a lot of things politicians evade questions and don’t accurately inform the voters about their positions.
Right, tougher debate moderators could make it clearer what each candidate really believes by reducing deception and vagueness, but probably wouldn’t have any effect on making straightforward dumb-but-popular views any less popular.
Some of them are, but a lot of the them aren’t. Opposing gay marriage because you think it’s violates a your religion is a straightfoward thing. There no lying or deception involved if the politician fulfills his promise and votes against gay marriage after the election. If you don’t like those politicans you can elect other ones. The debate did it’s job of accurately informing the voters about the politicians.
On the other hand a lot of things politicians evade questions and don’t accurately inform the voters about their positions.
Right, tougher debate moderators could make it clearer what each candidate really believes by reducing deception and vagueness, but probably wouldn’t have any effect on making straightforward dumb-but-popular views any less popular.