Meanwhile the MSM virtually ignores any in depth probing of Bernie's history. Erstwhile hippie, undying revolutionary, lifetime politician, a "working class hero" who never held a steady job. He is never hounded about his past.

It's a shame that people choose to have a highly selective memory about the actual history of this and other subjects, because in fact you are correct, we were otherwise facing a very real threat from the right to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to mandate that marriage was between one man and one woman.

Had Clinton vetoed DOMA, Congress would have overridden. In 1996, polls showed that over 70% of the country opposed same-sex marriage, and that number quite obviously included lots of Democrats. Hawaii was literally Ground Zero in this battle and was its catalyst, so I'm very familiar with the subject.

Voltaire was famous for saying 'if you would speak with me first define your terms'.  In this case our disagreement may be due to us not using the same definition of the terms.

I define Trump's position as being in favor of fair trade, which can include free trade.  NAFTA was suppose to have provisions for things like what I will call fair labor standards like no sweatshops and such.  NAFTA was suppose to have provisions for environmental standards as well.  Both of these things make products more expensive and are ignored by many trade partners that undercut US produced goods.  Not to mention some trade barriers that increase the price of US produced goods in some countries.  Another area of concern is intellectual property theft.  It is true stealing intellectual property can lower the cost of goods and services.  It also reduces profits to those who created the property, which often turns out to be US companies.  A lot of the provisions of NAFTA and TPP were not drafted by congress, rather hammered out in secret talks by folks with motives favored by those who contributed to established pols.  So is Trump/Sanders position on what I will call free/fair trade to the right or left of establishment pols who want more government intrusion in trade.

I would point out the trade pacts (possibly by their very nature) have to be very long and complicated.  This makes it a problem for a single person to completely understand the trade pact.  I would posit that huge hard to understand legislation is more to the left than the right, but would understand those who take the opposite position.