Civil war: Whose side are you on?

I've been dismayed to see the inexorable steroids we seem to be taking to civil war. With Texas eagerly sending their troops to Illinois and Oregon,I find myself wondering: If/when the Civil War comes, what states might line up with whom?
I figure on the Maga side we definitely have:
Florida
Texas
Mississippi
Louisiana
Alabama
North Carolina
South Carolina
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wyoming
Kansas
Idaho
Ohio
Indiana
West Virginia
Kentucky
Tennessee
Missouri
Alaska

And on the non-Maga side:
New York
California
Illinois
Oregon
Washington
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New Hampshire
Maine
Vermont
New Jersey
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Colorado
New Mexico
Hawaii

The rest I think would be a toss-up. Virginia, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada.
Although some states I think might split up like Virginia / West Virginia.

Any thoughts?

If Maine became a Canadian province, I wouldn't even care.

I think a new Civil War would be much uglier. It wouldn't be simply a matter of red states vs. blue states. Most states have sizeable minorities of the side out of power.

While a few states might cleanly break away, in many there would be insurgencies and counter-insurgencies. And that would create a massive amount of chaos and terror.

So, what are your thoughts on secession? Not cool if either side breaks away?

This. Texas and Florida each had more people vote for Harris than New York did and she still lost both states.

Personally, I prefer fighting to secession. And I think cities that are having out-of-state troops forced on them have good reason to fight.

There will be no civil war. There are tactical divisions within the ruling class but they're basically united, despite this. And there are no other forces that are coherent enough to challenge them.

So much for that Irish underdog rebellion spirit!

Rick- DOOOOOM!!!

This is the perfect time to open up my Frogurt stand.

CA sends support to OR against TX.
Trump declares them in insurrection, WA joins them in forming the West Coast States. The three governors form a triumvirate.
The first thing to go would be any ground routes through the mountains to help isolate them. Figuring air defenses would make flyovers too risky... USMAGA would try to force their way through Canada and Mexican routes (seizing resources along the way)... would that activate NATO? The UN? Both? We'd be forced to allow it or risk Ontario to PQ getting occupied as well.

We can presume Russia would land in Alaska in a week.

New York and the NE would probably follow suit in seceding together quickly as well.

After that's all over, there's probably a map redrawing that looks something like Man in the High Castle. The post CW2 west coast would become a cultural corridor between English and Spanish speakers as trade between Mexico and Canada increases. Depending how Alaska ends up, I could see BC leaving Canada and creating a contiguous coastal nation. The biggest issue would be redefining trade and sea access.

I'd imagine the whole thing will end quickly over factionalism like a red/blue map. There're two existing natural blocs already, and others like Texas and the South East would likely just absorb and expand into neighbours, maybe unite?

Nobody remind him Nebraska exists.

Who are the leaders of the anti-Trump faction in this purported civil war?

Gosh, how could I forget?

Militarily or politically?
There's probably loads of generals who'd oppose Trump.
Politically we've got people like Pritzker, AOC, Sanders, etc.

my thoughts are that trump would be 100 percent at faulty for destroying the country the bastard is setting it up with the NG in ONLY democrat cities and you are to big of a shit to admit that YOU are the ones CLAMPING down on society MAGA MAKE AMERICA A GULAG ASSHOLE

Democratic. Don't let Trump's rhetorical strategy of changing how they're referred to win.

I can't imagine any of those in open revolt, or carrying the list of states in the OP with them if they were.

While I do believe a lot of people have been conditioned to accept authoritarianism in the name of preserving the status quo, never underestimate the American ability to fight back out of sheer spite against assholes. We've done it before, and we'll do it again. There might even be one or two Republican politicians who see where the wind is blowing and decide that bowing and scraping to Trump just isn't worth it. Not the hardcore MAGA types, but the ones who are more tacitly Republican and see Trump as someone who wants to destroy the America they believe should exist.

Do they exist? I hope so. Even if they don't, there are a lot of people who are already active, many aren't on the radar, which is good, they should stay off the radar. Leaders do tend to emerge during such hardship, so even if we're not seeing anyone coalesce around someone yet, there is still opportunity. Don't count us out yet.

Get to it.

It's funny how "liberals" are simultaneously spineless cowards and yet also so dangerous that martial law is required to clamp down on them.

It's funny how these things work out.
Who steps up to the plate is impossible to predict.

Nowhere here has martial law been declared.

And it's interesting that liberals will take my freedoms because of violence in their cities, but won't allow the violence in their cities to be directly opposed.

Yes, asking you to register your firearms and get proper training to openly carry them is "taking your freedom".
Definitely a 1:1 comparison to this:

Glad to hear that bans and carry restrictions are now off the table.

well dang for the lack of an 'ic'

If it were solely up to me, I'd ban every type of firearm.
But it's not. And it's not a realistic option, either.
So compromise.
But I'd absolutely support a ban on military-grade weaponry. No need for UMPs or AKs or AR15s.
Id also heartily endorse carry restrictions of anything over a 10-round pistol.

The east side of Washington state is red. It might combine with Idaho and Montana- which I didn't see on your list, but I'll look again.

As a gun owner, I am in complete agreement.

If I’m Hawaii I’m just gonna let it play out

It does feel increasingly likely that there will be a situation with different states militias facing off against each other, but if civil war happens I don't think it will be as clear-cut as different states joining different sides to the extent that the first US Civil War was. The amount of movement of both people and communication now blurs those distinctions a little.

No-one should be hoping for it though, will be messy, hurt a lot of people, and tank the global economy.

In the aftermath I would expect us to be on the side of some post-USA collection of West Coast states. Geographically we both border the Pacific, and culturally we have more in common with them than the rest of the US.

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not hoping for it.
But Trump seems intent on making it happen.