They're not disingenuous comparisons, they're exactly what you're asking for. You're asking for a system where certain people are prevented from even being allowed to run for a political position based on their opinions on certian matters. You're asking for a discriminatory system, one that's inherently un-democratic. Nobody should have the right to determine who can and can't run, that makes them far too powerful and the system far too easy to manipulate.

Not on opinions, on actions they will take aka dismantling democracy just like I keep saying putin and orban and erdogan and modhi did or doing. It is a discriminatory system. It discriminates against those wanting to destroy it. The system is not undemocratic, but a specific action is. My point is democracy can't survive without discriminating against bad faith actors. So ultimately the point is, do you want to feel better about purity or do you want a system that will survive for a long time and that is resilient to real world opponents of democracy. Preventing someone from killing others is restricting their freedom but for a free society, you need to stop actions that end their freedom. Your freedom ends where another's begins. And you are taking democracy away from others by trying to get an anti democratic force into power.

Democracy is a system that protects itself. Your argument is, that in order to protect democracy, we'd need to abolish it. If people want to ditch it, then democracy happens.

USA don't have far left

Far left would be something akin to a revolutionary socialist party

I know them because there are a couple of them in my country



USA have one far right country (Republicans)
And a center party (Dems)

There is not left wing party in US, maybe left wing individuals like Bernie

Even socialists aren't far left. Communists and anarchists are far left.

This is what the political spectrum looks like.

Anarcho-communists/syndicalists like Emma Goldman and Noam Chomsky are on the far left. 

The far right includes ultra-nationalists and neo-feudalists.

The left-right spectrum is about less hierarchy vs. more hierarchy. That is what it was based on when it originated in the French Revolution, and it still very much means that today.

Revolutionary socialists are far left

Depends on how you use that term I guess. But the farthest left socialists I can think of are libertarian socialists and syndacalists, anarchists and communists outflank them on the left.

Personally I see "socialist" as an umbrella term which refers to anyone who wants to resolve the labor problem. 

Communists, cooperativists, communalists, anarchists, syndicalists, guild socialists, etc are all subsets of socialist.

Some socialists wants to solve the labor problem through the so-called liberal-"democratic" state, while others want there to be a social revolution, while others are agnostic of method.

How many of those people ran their campaign on the basis of eventually becoming a dictator? And even if they did, if they win then that's literally democracy in action (unless the vote was rigged of course).

Democracy is a shit system, you may not like some of those shitty parts, but they are still undoubtedly a part of democracy.