Reading is fundamental: I clarified the state of Trump's campaign, with respect to the commonly held belief (a byproduct of Trump's own campaign, as cited in the article) that he is "self-funded." Having clarified that, I segued to point out that Sander's campaign is the actual voter, small donation campaign. Sanders has over 2,500,000 donors, which makes Trump's 73,942 "small donors" orders of magnitude smaller and, by comparison, insignificant (For reference, that 3.7MM pales in comparison to the 20MM+ that is being spent/raised by each candidate, EACH QUARTER). Trump's MEDIA budget for the quarter was actually 20MM (in the article I linked), which vastly outstrips the donations raised. Clearly, he is getting in-kind donations and "money from big donors," as there was one explicitly cited in the article I linked (I'm starting to sense a patter here.).

Let's talk about the RNC and DNC and the donors' willingness to transition to other candidates...have you been following the election at all? Did you somehow miss how News Corp., CNN, and MSNBC have skewed coverage TO other candidates and AWAY FROM Sanders and Trump? This has been going on for months, and they have favored the candidates with the most PAC/donor endorsement and contributions. I'm not sure if you think that big, established donors have been approaching him constantly, after the party and WH made it a point to call out their lack of endorsement several times. Before we belabor campaign financing any further, please do a search and read up on current candidate financing and endorsement. The RNC has been pushing Bush for a LONG time now.

As an aside, I don't think we disagree, in principle, on Trump's current sources of funding.

Have YOU been watching the election at all?  You post a link and have ABSOLUTELY no clue what you are talking about.  You quote something from an article that you probably just read moments before replying to my post.  I honestly do not care that he has less donors that other candidates such as Bernie Sanders.  You try to twist a positive into a negative any way that you can.  He has small donors...this is a FACT. He does not accept money from big donors...this is a FACT. The fact that he has less small donors to Bernie Sanders signifies that he has needed/spent less money then their opponents.  I mean is this that hard to understand? You are probably the only person on the face of this Earth that tries to twist that Trump has less small donors than Bernie Sanders into a negative.

This is the part that I am almost sure you haven't been paying attention to the election because Donald Trump has stated that he is ramping up his campaign as the Iowa caucus draws near.  He has stated that he will spend 2 million dollars of his own money each week, or roughly 20 million in total on political ads.  Could that be the 20 million on MEDIA coverage that was stated in the article?  The first political ad, that was part of this 2 million a week spending, was just released.  Or did you miss that as well?

But instead of actually knowing what is going on, you just blurt out that he must be getting this money from big donors without actually knowing for sure.  You then later find out, by someone like me, that this is his own money.  Again, first read, then think, then type, mkay?

No we do disagree on his sources for funding.  I mention that his campagin is funded by small donations and not big donations.  You then blurt out that he isn't self-funded, as if you are trying to do a "got you there" type moment.  I then point out that this is in fact small donations by showing you that it was an average of 50 dollars per person, to which you then backpedal and try to sweep it under the rug.  You then try to make it SEEM like he has big donors by pointing to this 20 million dollars on MEDIA, but I then point out that this is his own money.  Let me guess, you are going to try to twist this into a negative when everything I have stated is a positive.  

Edit: Pst...by the way.  The RNC isn't pushing Bush, but rather Marco Rubio.  This again shows that you aren't paying attention to the election at all. I am sure it must be hard to follow the democratic debates when the last one aired during the Saturday before Christmas during a football game and the next one will air on the 17th (sunday) during two football games (playoffs).  Man, the democratic party has some unfortunate luck on their scheduling.  Who knew football games would be played at these times/days (sarcasm).  

Assuming that you can even kick out 12 million Mexicans without any resistance and loss of money - Economic power of US right now is nowhere enough to hold 'the world' hostage. Honestly, I would be amused to see deportation happening because I just know how fast they will change the tone once they realize workers who don't work tends to not steal jobs.

Economically, Canada will just do fine until US invasion, for that matter, what international agreement US broke? You mean ones that US decided to not sign because they wanted to have their little empire? It isn't that they broke them, they intentionally avoid from signing anything, but TPP is already signed regardless how toxic it is.

Also, I don't think you understand how modern war works. There is no such thing as 'too strong to be held accountable.' If a war is declared between a major powers, they both lose the moment they start them. Unless you think war is free, or you sincerely believe that active use of nuclear weapons won't end in world war.

The US makes up a 5th of the global economy, it holds the global reserve currency which is enormous power, it funds most international instituions. Canada in particular is hugely dependent on the US economy - close off their exports and they collapse . Look at the global collapse a US housing market bubble lead to. The US military is stronger than the next 7 combined. It's nearly half of the worlds military power with bases everywhere. No one will declare war on us for forcing Mexico to pay for a wall. You think China and Russia care? They're going to risk war, civil unrest and economic disaster over MEXICO? It will never happen, we could literally occupy Mexico and no one would do anything but lip service.

Sigh.

They won't go in to the war obviously, they have more insight than Trump. Housing bubble led to depression because world economy is connected deeply. EU, China, hell, even Japan could do similar. It just that they're not idiotic enough to allow burning money into the thin air.

Next 7 combined military force isn't going to help fighting Mexico, just like it didn't help fighting in Iraq. Only thing rest of the world will do is to pick up the pieces fallen off to stuff themselves and push US out of global politics. As US deal with Urban warfare and resistance. Or they could use H Bomb and risk WW3.

Again, war isn't free.

US economy is larger than china and Japan combined. No other country controls the global economy like the US and we're not even talking about the enormous power of having the world reserve currency yet as well as by far the largest domestic market on the planet which, if we had to, gives us enormous sway over corporations. And regarding IRAQ btw, we killed oveer a million there - I'm pretty sure Mexico would start paying for that wall if we got to just 10% of that number in a war with them