Does this change your opinion of voting Dan?  Do you think this guy is legit or just the best option?  Definitely better than other parties in my opinion but will it get enough headway?  Great job on the interview man!

Great job on the questions. Pressing the truth regarding fractional reserve banking especially. Bernier doesn't seem to understand that issue. He needs to if he wants to appeal to your audience and more.

After watching this interview, Maxime Bernier sounds like a genuine fellow who hasn't plumed the depths of the major problems we're facing as a society, particularly on the financial and structural fronts, as in deep state, corporatocracy, and so on. If he steps a little further out on to the diving board, he might hit the mark. He seems willing to. On that front though, he's running the risk of losing the base of voters who simply aren't aware of any of this stuff, while losing the votes from those who are. He has huge potential, but he needs to do some deep research to fulfill that potential, imho. He brings some genuine honesty to the table. He just seems a bit naive. Too busy engaged in the work to know the truth, as it were.

Great questions from Dan though. Libertyacademy's comment below doesn't add up, as far as I can tell. Dan asked about the deep state. Bernier said he "didn't believe in it". That's as good as it's gonna get at this level. Dan Dicks seems to know where to draw the line. That's why Bernier even agreed to meet. No other politician would dare get near what Dan would ask them. Keep it up.

I've never cared too much for Canadian politics.  But this is a big deal for you Dan, so I like that very much ;).  Congrats my dude!

So amazing that you got this interview. Congrats.

**Sorry Dan. Love your work over the years but I really think you dropped the ball on this one.**

![dropped-the-ball.jpg](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmVFb6hrz34e7BwoXtUrCkLCiNG2bbGxVZaYzgqLKHDkvR/dropped-the-ball.jpg)

The questions were way to soft/restrained/conservative and were more on the "mainstream" spectrum. Therefore, it was nearly impossible to get a real grasp on the guy. After the interview, I am still clueless about *who* he is and *what* he stands for. (and I'm a 51 year old Canadian who has seen a lot).

A simple follow-up question regarding the Deep State could so easily have been: 

>**Do you believe there is a Deep State in the US?**

This question alone would have given a great opportunity to see just how clueless/useless the guy is or not. Such a missed opportunity!

This politician appears run-of-the-mill sweet talking type. 

Sad.