this is a heresy, in that it contradicts a core tenet of Christian doctrine: the exclusivity of Christ

I suspect this issue can be side-stepped if you point to some "pluralist (neo)-Hinduism" that makes Jesus an avatar of Vishnu.

it's bad for presidents to threaten people with guns

They do this indirectly all the time. This is the basis of all laws of the federal government. Yes, I think it's bad, but I don't think it'd be fundamentally any worse for Trump to point a gun at Pence than for, say, an FBI agent (acting under the aegis of the Executive Branch, i.e., the President) to point a gun at a drug dealer.

But I agree it'd have been a stupid thing to do for many reasons: the threat wouldn't be credible, he'd get removed from office even if it works, people he needs to govern would turn on him, voters will switch to supporting Democrats, … that's not winning.

Edit: This is also the basis of my criticism of the rabble-rousing on January 6. It's primarily a matter of aesthetics.

Arguing matters of law regarding transfers of power in the highest echelons of government is … misguided. It's like arguing with Reddit mods about what their rules say when they ban you. Or more classically, paraphrasing Pompey (via Plutarch), "Stop quoting laws at us. We have the swords." What the laws/rules literally say doesn't mean anything; how they're enforced is all that matters ^[1].

(I suppose if one were religious, one could consider the letter of the the Law sacred in some way, not to be profaned regardless of consequence or enforcement, but I am not.) 

If you win, there are many ways it can be made legal.  For example, the Supreme Court rules on what the law says, they say the Constitution overrides all federal laws, and the Constitution says the President has the "Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons," so he pardons himself and everyone involved ^[2].

The strategy Trump tried (or one very similar) worked in 1876. I consider that extremely relevant, though as I said earlier, the plan was unlikely to work in 2020. The Electoral Count Act passed in the interim mattered insofar as its threat was sufficient to dissuade Mike Pence (and probably several state governors) from coöperating, so I guess it did its job.

I don't know what you mean by "fine." I would have preferred Trump win. Some reasons for which I listed on my top-level comment.

I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "legal," (according to whom?) but no, not in the slightest.

1. ^{^}

   Is it even worth listing examples of times politically powerful members of the ruling class flouted laws they would have enforced harshly against commoners? Just look at the many instances during the "covid" lockdowns, for a start. 

2. ^{^}

   You could say their actions would still be illegal even if the law can't be enforced against them, but I consider that a distinction without a difference.

passed the ITT

@Pazzaz That's the Ideological Turing Test. I agree that really ought have been written out in full. 

I reject the premises of this blatantly loaded question.

The strategy Trump attempted to win the election using alternative electors to keep Biden from getting a majority so that Congress would decide the Presidency, reprising the similar (successful) strategy employed by Hayes in 1876, was unlikely to succeed from the outset, and poorly executed to boot. So yeah, I think it was "bad" in that sense, but probably not what you mean. Do I think it was an insurrection or a putsch, or a threat to "our democracy," or anything like that? No, no more than this appeal to electors in 2016 to change their votes was a foiled plot to overthrow the government. 

Would it be a restriction on freedom of speech to fire every civil servant and replace them with "our people"? I think it would.

Why does your argument about how the government is free to allocate funding however it wishes in the context of  NSF grants not apply to civil servant salaries? About personal loyalty to Trump over the Constitution^[1] or whatever,

you can disagree if that should be a factor, and maybe you think it's stupid to have as a requirement, but just because they have different priorities/beliefs than you doesn't mean they're stifling freedom of speech.

…

But this doesn't really impact freedom of speech, it just means they prioritize [not being critical of Trump] differently than you would. The government thinks [party loyalty] should affect [civil service positions]. You don't. Someone will always feel left out when [civil service hiring] is allocated, and feel "forced" to act in some ways to receive [employment]. But I don't see that as a restriction on "freedom of speech".

1. ^{^}

   This dovetails nicely with your other argument, about him "trying to steal the last election."

Meme about the experience of using StackExchange: link.

failure to enforce copyright endangers that copyright

I believe that's true of trademarks, but not copyright.

Hacking and bio capabilities and so forth are generally more like carjacking than torture.

According to whom? The relevant question is which concept are they closer to in the training data, and I suspect they're more "movie" activities, so they'd be classed with those. In that vein, I'd expect carjacking to be classed with murder, rape, shoplifting, drug use, digital piracy, etc. as the more "mundane" crimes.