Not true at all. You can do a custom build and leave out things you don't need. You can even leave out stuff you DO need and replace with your own simpler shim. See the README file.
The APIs seem to be designed with the assumption that all your code will be using jQuery. For example converting a wrapped node to a native DOM node requires an extra call that, in my opinion, is ugly: $('.something').get(0); and could be considered to be an anti-pattern.
I don't think this is a bad thing. jQuery does a good job at providing a DSL that replaces native DOM access. But if you want a library instead of a framework its strongly opinionated style can be off-putting.
Again, not true. For example, the `this` in an event handler is the actual DOM element, not a jQuery object. Whether you handle that directly with DOM methods or wrap it with `$(this)` is up to you. Many people prefer the latter but the former is often smaller and prettier.
> For example converting a wrapped node to a native DOM node requires an extra call that, in my opinion, is ugly: $('.something').get(0); and could be considered to be an anti-pattern.
How common is that, really? Your example assumes a single element with that class name. Why not chain a jQuery method behind it and handle the 0 or N cases as well?
Just because jQuery is loaded doesn't mean you have to use it for everything on the page.