Who should you vote for?   Which politician - which politicians - will be the best choice for running the country?   Which politicians will work to make sure the law of the land is the best it can be?   What kind of a place to live will America be as a result, if each politician were to have his way?
The short answer is, the more a politician is for freedom, the better.   The more a politician is for your "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", the better.
The more a politician is for some kind of control, the worse.   If he wants to take something from you, that is control; that is the actions of one of the bad guys.   It does not matter what he wants to take - your money in taxes, your guns, your choices of what to buy and own, what you can do with your life - control is the signal key word.   The bad guys want control - control of you.
The good guys work for your freedom.   The good guys work to protect your freedom.   That means not only reducing impositions - not only working to reduce the restraints of laws against what you can do, but also working to protect you from anyone - government or criminal - who would be a bad guy - who would steal from you, or hurt you.   All are would-be criminals.
In other words, the good guys are in favor of the rule of law, which protects your freedom.   Freedom includes the laws against criminal acts - stealing, hurting people, or any way of imposing on your ability to act on your own behalf.
One hallmark of which type of person you are seeing is whether they work in favor of some group's "rights".   When a politician starts talking about "gay rights", "native American rights", "women's rights", "immigrants' rights", "poor people's rights", "diversity" - any group; it matters not which one - he is not being in favor of anyone.   He is being deliberately divisive.   He is trying to make you feel like you have to jump on a particular bandwagon - that you should be for or against that group - because people who see themselves as being in a particular group are easier to control.   They are easier to convince that the politician should implement laws dictating what people must do - control in the name of protecting some group's "rights".
But the key word is control.   Once you let a politician be in control, then he has you where he wants you.   Control granted is control taken, and each step of more control is a step towards greater power - towards his will, and not yours - towards dictatorship.   And each new control is soon followed by calls for additional controls, in a never-ending strangulation of your freedom.
The smallest group is the "group" of one - of the single person.   Freedom is the right of the ultimate minority - of each single person - to act in the way he thinks is best, without anyone - government or another person - taking action against him for doing so.   Freedom does not care what group you are a part of - or if you are a part of no group at all.   Freedom means that in either case - in any case - you are free to live your life as you choose to make it.
Who are the politicians most in favor of control today?   Clearly, that list begins with people like Obama, and Hillary.   It includes the most vocal Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives - with Nancy Pelosi, the four members of the "Squad", and Adam Schiff currently being the most prominent.   But the list also includes a number of Republicans, with ex-President George W. Bush and 2012 Presidential candidate Mitt Romney being the leading figures in that group.
Who are the politicians most in favor of freedom today?   There is one major standout - President Trump.   With his abrasive New Yorker personality, he is a hard man to like.   Nevertheless, let his actions speak louder than his words.   By every measure, President Trump has worked vigorously - and in the face of tremendous adversity and battering, virtually violent opposition by those who want control - to remove controls, and to limit the assaults on individual freedom.
What else should be a warning sign of politicians seeking control?   The answer is: what kind of judges does a politician want to see appointed to the judiciary?   Does he want judges who will protect the rule of law, or does he want judges who will make the law more flexible?   Flexible laws allow the politician to have more control - to make laws that increase his power to act in whatever way he sees fit.
Flexible laws allow politicians to act against your freedom.   The good guys do not need flexible laws - and they do not want them.
What single thing stands in the way of "flexible" laws?   That single thing is the greatest political document ever written - the United States Constitution.
For a politician who wants control, the Constitution is the biggest impediment standing in his way - the single thing foiling his yearning and drive for power.
The easiest way to destroy the Constitution is to appoint judges who will make legal decisions contrary to the intent of the Constitution - to water down the rule of law; to slowly erode the power of the rule of law, and to make it possible for politicians to have greater control.
Efforts to appoint judges in the name of "progressive laws" and "modern interpretations" of the Constitution are the hallmark of politicians whose end goal is to dismantle the Constitution, to negate it; to end its blockade of their own ambition.   Labels like "progressive" and "modern interpretations" and "living Constitution" are the facades of their efforts to achieve political control - the loss of freedom.
Perhaps President Trump's greatest achievement has been his appointments to Federal judgeships.   His two Supreme Court justices and the more than 150 Federal judges whom he has appointed to date are uniformly pro-Constitution.   In doing so, President Trump has foiled the plans of politicians seeking to erode freedoms and achieve control via the judiciary, for a generation.   Congresses and Presidents to come will be much more limited in how easily they can disregard and dismantle the Constitution and its protection of our freedom.
That freedom is something no "rights" of particular special groups can help preserve - because the rights of that ultimate minority - the minority of the individual - take precedence over that of any "group", as well as precedence over the efforts of any politician.
"Group rights" - The "rights" of any group - is just a con:   the seduction of one group of voters by a politician, at the expense of another group.   "Group rights" are a means to pit one group of people against another - something which only erodes the rights of all voters, and only benefits the politicians seeking power.
The respect, support, protection, and preservation of the U.S. Constitution - of the rights of every individual - is the measure of every politician.   How consistently a politician acts in that regard tells you what his intentions mean to you, and to your freedom.