Where did you read there was no payment? That's not true, the US is not Russia. Not yet at least.

This was in the “truth” posted by Trump on his social media announcing the deal:

> It is my Great Honor to report that the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future. I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan, the Highly Respected Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL. Building leading edge Semiconductors and Chips, which is what INTEL does, is fundamental to the future of our Nation. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Thank you for your attention to this matter.

“The United States paid nothing for these Shares”

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1150744446179...

▲

bilekas a day ago | parent [-]

> The United States paid nothing for these Shares

The president has been known to not know all the facts or exaggerate about what is known. Personally, and sadly, his tweets are worthless than my fortune cookies.

> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-everybody-eggs-now...

▲

QuadmasterXLII a day ago | parent | next [-]

There is an important difference between these scenarios:

1) A member of the opposition party tweets "The president stabbed a kid" without any proof. I go on facebook and post "WTF why did the president stab a kid? He is so evil."

2) The president tweets "I just stabbed a kid" without any proof. I go on facebook and post "WTF why did the president stab a kid? He is so evil."

	▲	surajrmal a day ago \| parent [-]
		Right now I'm more likely to believe #1 than #2.

▲

_heimdall a day ago | parent | prev [-]

In general its a good rule to avoid using any politician's quote as fact. Especially at the federal level, they've all made a career of exaggerating and telling partial truths to earn media coverage and votes.

▲

macintux a day ago | parent | next [-]

Let’s not “both sides” his behavior. This president lies about everything, and actively causes harm by lying maliciously about people he would like his followers to target.

	▲	_heimdall a day ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not "both sides"-ing it. Presidents all lie frequently, I'd argue they lie about most things. Without knowing what the truth actually is we would have no way of knowing who lies more, and at the end of the day my concern is with them lying at all rather than to what degree they lie to the public.

▲

johannes1234321 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

There is quite a difference between. exaggeration and blunt lies.

Also most exaggeration happens during campaigns for getting votes, but rarely the result is a strong enough mandate to push all things through, thus one has to compromise ... but campaigning on "well, realistically my options will be limited" doesn't really work, especially as the campaign promises form the negotiation base lateron.

But in that regard Trump is special, also.

	▲	_heimdall a day ago \| parent [-]
		What you point to is an odd reversal for sure. Trump is actually doing many of the things he campaigned on while most candidates lie during the campaign. Trump now lies about seemingly obvious or unimportant things now in office, where many presidents either wouldn't waste a lie on something unimportant or wouldn't bother acknowledging the topic at all. They all still lie though. Whether a particular lie can be considered an exaggeration boils down to how strict a line one draws around what a lie is. To me, if a president speaks only a partial truth or a misrepresentation if information they very much have access to, its a lie.