"I simply cannot vote for a president who claims the power to have American citizens executed without due process."

Everything here.  Twice.  And in bold.  Forever and ever.  Amen.

The Heart of the Matter: You Can Vote For Anyone You Like. As Long As It's The Duopoly

"I supported Obama and voted for him in 2008. His rhetoric and specific promises were inspiring. But he's betrayed so much of that rhetoric, and so many of those promises, that I think it would be a mistake to reward him with a second term. I'm not talking about being disappointed with a president who fails to fulfill his lofty promises, or who tries but fails to implement various changes because of an obstructionist Congressional opposition (the usual excuses trotted out for what isn't really the problem). I'm talking about being outraged at a president who has in numerous key areas done the extreme opposite of what he promised. Who promised a reversal of the Bush-era extremism and instead has deliberately entrenched and extended it.

Maybe, on balance, some of it I could live with, in exchange for other things. But Obama has gone too far. I simply cannot vote for a president who claims the power to have American citizens executed without due process. It's not a question of lesser evils, of the other candidate being even worse. I just can't imagine a more un-American, more unconstitutional, more tyrannical power than the power to have citizens executed without due process. The power to have people imprisoned forever without charge, trial, or conviction would be up there, I guess, but of course Obama claims that, too.

So this unconstitutional assassination power is, for me, a political deal breaker... Now, you can argue that the power to have citizens executed is being used rarely and judiciously. But that just means you're okay with the president assuming tyrannical powers as long as he uses them only rarely and judiciously. And that's just crazy. Not least because, if Romney wins on Tuesday, those powers will be his, and what are you going to do at that point, argue that Democrats you like have the power to assassinate American citizens but Republicans you don't like don't?

I know it seems peculiar to a lot of people, but I just can't vote for a president who claims -- and who has exercised -- what strikes me as the ultimate tyrannical power, just because he seems like a nice fellow and after all, has only used that power a few times, and always only against brown people anyway. I can't. It's too much. There has to be a line, and if it's not "The president can order citizens killed if he thinks they need killing," I don't know what it is.

...My own attitude? "I don't care who you threaten to turn over the country to. Cross certain lines, and I won't vote for you no matter what." It's the same as a negotiation. If you're not willing to walk away, and especially if you demonstrate that unwillingness to the other party, you will be taken for a long, unpleasant ride.

...How many people who voted for Obama four years ago because they hoped for a better future will vote for him now because they're afraid of a worse one? Do you think that's progress? Who is to blame for that change? And should the politician to blame be rewarded? What would such a reward signal to other politicians about how seriously they need to take the concerns of their base?

If you demonstrate to a politician that you'll vote for him no matter what, you'll get… no matter what. And Obama has taken "no matter what" to previously unheard-of levels for progressives. If they reward him at the polls, the next "progressive" politician can be counted on to offer a double helping.

I recommend voting for something better. Either Jill Stein of the Green Party, or Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party.

Don't let the duopoly make you believe you have no choice. You do. Unless you convince yourself you don't."