how is one not to interpret this thread as trolling?

What an idiotic question.

Why?

Because they're not.
Most of your bullet points are silly.

Only the downtown dome really stood out as silly.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that the Wirtzes and whoever goes on to own the Bulls would maintain the same opposition in the name of protecting summer United Center dates? That's what it was about with Reinsdorf, right?

I wouldn't want the Sox playing under a roof because the roof would almost certainly be closed all the time. Toronto and Milwaukee close their roofs if a cloud passes by.

no we don't

Wouldn't it stand to reason that the Wirtzes and whoever goes on to own the Bulls would maintain the same opposition in the name of protecting summer United Center dates? That's what it was about with Reinsdorf, right?

I wouldn't want the Sox playing under a roof because the roof would almost certainly be closed all the time. Toronto and Milwaukee close their roofs if a cloud passes by.

And in the postseason, the league would require it to be closed.

Sure we do. Go look and see what Indy gets that we don't and Indy sucks and no one wants to go there for anything.
I'm sure they would get opposition to it but it's becoming more and more obvious that retractable roof stadiums are more beneficial than other types of stadiums especially in a place like Chicago.

It most certainly would not be. I'm pretty sure all domed stadiums (football and baseball) are closed way more than they're open. And in the postseason, the league would require it to be closed.

How would it not be open May through September except for rain?

Keep in mind, the Sox already lost two games due to rain. There are upsides to having a dome to get those games in.

It's possible. What are the Sox fans expectations of when they'll be competitive again?

A domed baseball stadium is a waste of money. No events are drawn to a domed baseball stadium over an arena. Absolute waste of money.

A domed football stadium will draw events but not enough to justify the cost.

Keep in mind, the Sox already lost two games due to rain. There are upsides to having a dome to get those games in.

Right, and who is going to pay for it? And what will it do other than sit empty the other 280 days of the year.

Right, and who is going to pay for it? And what will it do other than sit empty the other 280 days of the year.

Paying for stadiums is always a controversial topic. That aside, consider the two scenarios when a new stadium needs to be built:

1) Traditional open air stadium like Guaranteed Rate
2) Retractable Dome like Miller

Now run the cost/benefits of each. As you say, the upfront dome costs are higher, but so are the revenue streams. For instance, how much higher would attendance be because you are always playing in good weather? Personally, I stopped going to April game due to the weather. I suspect others feel the same way. How much longer would you stay at a game if the climate was perfect? That means more concessions. And finally, you have the ability to host events all year in the dome.

New Comiskey is nowhere near obsolete. It was built in 1990 and heavily renovated through the 2000s. They should be able to get at least another twenty years out of it. If some new Sox owner wants a domed stadium, he is welcome to finance one himself. This state has no business spending at least a billion dollars on a sports venue. That's first-rate corporate welfare.