

I see you simply skimmed through my comment and commented without actually reading it.
Yes oh my god some of them were children
As I said in my comment, that is a horrible thing. Please read the comment and then reply again. It is ridiculed that you just randomly accuse people of being heartless without bothering to read what they actually think about the matter.
Also, you can be sad without being very very horrified. Those children were brought to death by their own parents. Why would that not feel bad?
that doesn’t mean they deserve to die in a plane crash!
True. I completely agree with you regarding this. As I wrote in that comment. Please, just read it. If somebody is robbing a bank and gets shot in the process, that is a bad thing, because it’s a dead human. A bank robber does not deserve death, because nobody deserves death. But, I won’t expressly explain that I’m very sad about a robber dying, because the robbery does decrease my sadness. And even if the robber also kills their own child during the robbery, it of course makes me angry at that horrible parent, and sad about a child dying, but it doesn’t make me actively write that I’m angry and sad. Because there are other thingsore relevant about the event.
Arguing against a really bad argument does not make the arguer’s “empathy is conditioned on where somebody comes from.”
If you now read my comment, you will notice that I’m saying my empathy is conditioned on what somebody has done. (And, to clarify: absolutely regardless of where they are from! It tells a lot about you that you even end up assuming it might be because of where that someone is from! That looks a lot like projecting.)
Furthermore: how have you successfully managed to completely skip the connection to the extreme suffering in Ukrainian homes? Based on you apparently projecting there, it’s hard to not notice how you’re voicing your compete apathy to the death and suffering of innocent civilians in the terror attacks the Russia is now committing on an almost hourly basis.
Such an exemption would be moot: The tariff income goes to the US federal budget, and in this case, the extra costs caused by the import tariffs are paid from the US federal budget. It’s ±0 all the same with the import tariffs. However, there will also be import tariffs in the other direction, and those need to be paid to EU. Anything that needs to be brought from USA to EU in order to be processed there into an F35 component causes extra money to go to EU.
he US federal budget doesn’t really win or lose anything through the import tariffs alone, but the opposing import tariffs go to foreign countries in the EU and there’s no reason why the US federal administration would exempt from those tariffs.
Of course, when EU countries are buying F35 planes, it matters more: There the components being brought from EU to USA are subject to import tariffs paid to the US federal budget, and are money lost from the perspective of EU. But at the same time, how is the price of the F35 agreed upon? If the price is already fixed, then Lockheed Martin has to pay the EU import tariffs from its own pockets and might get the US import tariffs compensated as federal subsidies. But, if the agreements say that the variance in prices are covered by the buyer, then the US import tariffs actually benefit the US.