...And yet it has served in actual combat with the US, UK, and Israel.

Do you really think that an aircraft not meant to do something would be fielded by those nations and used to do that very thing?

And of course the program has political goals, every defense acquisition program does, to pretend otherwise would be silly.

did it engage in dog fights, or only bombing missions?

No where in my comment did I say it was not capable of combat at all, but it certainly has not lived up to the billed goal of the program nor will be be effective in its billed role of "Fighter jet to replace all Fighter Jets"

It is mediocre in all roles for which was designed to replace. It is not as good at dog-fighting as its counter parts, it is not as good at close air support as its counter parts, it does not have as good of stealth has it counter parts.

It is a 1 Trillion+ Dollar "ok" fighter jet, which is not what we were sold

Not sure who bills it as "fighter jet to replace all fighter jets" but that's certainly not what the Operational Requirements Document for F-35 says.

Not in those words no, but yes the operational requirement of the F-35 was soo vast is was to be the Joint Strike Fighter to fill all the roles for all the branches of military

It was to replace almost all of the jetfighter platforms from the A-10 to the F15 and to replace some of the bomber platforms

The F-35 is to replace some F-15Cs, the legacy Hornet (F-18 A/B/C/D) and the A-10.

The F-15Cs are all pushing 40, Hornets are 30+ and because they're used by the Navy they're used hard, the A-10 is totally obsolete, and no bomber is being replaced by the F-35.

Was it really sold to the taxpayers? Were taxpayers ever really asked whether they want it?

Well it was certainly sold to the tax payer representatives via the appropriations process as a Joint Strike Fighter that would replace all other Fighter jets....