*Their takedown sucks. Give me a lever.
Fairly standard for many handguns. Doesn't take up much space, hard to engage without intent. Usable with familiarity.
*The trigger is ehh
Fairly standard for a striker-fired handgun. Sounds like you prefer SAO.
*No match grade anything as standard
Still shoots better than you do. Chances are it either simply doesn't fit your hand well, or you aren't comfortable/familiar with the platform and its traits.
*the grip is ehh
*Only the trigger safety (I like a grip safety)
*Sights are plastic
*The plastic is soft and scratches
*that stupid proprietary rail
Subjective preference. I'm not sure if Glock offers customer options for this, but they certainly should.
*it doesn't grip the hand well / is slippery
Subjective. They fit my hands fine.
*The sight picture is BARF
*Don't get good grip on the slide
*Better options available at that price point or lower
Your use of "Better" makes this so subjective it's not even worth discussing.
*seen way too many failures on the range with them (group of 50 people, roughly 35+ glocks in the group, ~2000 rounds, at least 15 major failures of the weapon including a brand new gen 4 (when they were brand new) whose ejector popped off sending pieces everywhere
With that many firearms in one place, of the same type, you're likely to see failures regardless of the type of firearm, especially with experience being a factor. Could very well be an issue with glocks given your sample size, and at the same time the design has been proven to work under a variety of stressful and unoptimal situations, given user proficiency. Would we have seen that many failures had EVERYONE been given something like an XD or M&P? I wouldn't doubt it.