I see a lot of answers people are having through a firm libertarian and 1776 doctrinal-founded stance for those young democrats who went to Clinton's side through badgering and beating into not wanting to be labeled 'extremists' (racists).
Gays banned from being with their partners in hospitals since they aren't recognized? Pursuit of happiness, quit fucking with them and let be happy.
Tired of being represented by other interests far away from where you live and where most of you agree something should be different through multiple layers of self government. Let the states decide on a whole myriad of issues.
Large DoD and militarized police force that encumbers the budget? Decrease the standing Army.
Even open borders is in certain republican Libertarian thought..ones that decrease the importance of national identity which I argue against, but welcome arguments against.
The main issues that would need to be reconciled is gun control and environmental regulations.
Given I would elevate environment concerns my friends espouse to the status of national security concern (forced migrations of people who do not like America, natural disasters destabilizing the economy), it would make since for Libertarian minded people to ask for the social contract to be placed into 'war mode' to tackle that threat on that specific issue...unless of course it's not really that much of a threat, and/or people don't want to take the necessary sacrifices via rationing to curb it and just want to bitch and whine about something.
Ironically Trump's policies are grounded along these lines by and large, and his main area of reconciliation he needs to make is, in accordance with his 60 minutes interview, having federal law 'trump' state law on gun control. I would argue a strict constitutional stance as to federal jurisdiction over such an issue (enforcement of the 2nd amendment and the supreme court rulings broadening it to cover private firearm use), while the implied rights become jurisdiction of the states, gay civil unions...notice not marriage as it's religious and would be covered by the 1st amendment. then it would be up to congress to do it's job and make new amendments to bring issues under federal control.
Trump will end up helping these guys out more than the current Dem party will by strengthening their voice and they will attempt to vote him out in 4 years. A true leader raises even his detractors to a higher status than before, and increased political voice is the most pure way of raising someone's power in our form of government.
Had a very interesting conversation with a gay lady this weekend, friend of a friend. Safety clip and everything. The only thing I couldn't come to any sort of agreement on was kicking illegals out. she took the moralistic 'feelings' stance, I took the 'rule of law' stance. There is no middle ground and that's our primary issue in the justice system today. try to fix bad guys, or punish them? everything else there was a ton of common ground. I don't fault for someone for thinking with their heart and caring about them to the point of wanting to make an exception, but I'm concerned with down stream effects of making exceptions and the lack of proper enforcement of borders (national identity). The main thing I made clear to her is no government should be the arbiter of extremist thought, as she being down with other girls is extremist in some areas which is improper, as the issue becomes 'mandated morality' or 'free will morality'...well we're the land of the free, right? so I vote for that one. so, don't start telling others they are extremist as you are opening yourself to attack. we're all extremist in one way or another and it's up for society to discuss and form conclusions on what is right or wrong (good for society), not take the cheap route and point to the government and say 'well they said so, so it must be true!'