# Palins Divorce **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 1, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palins-divorce/505000 "2009-08-01T20:54:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 332
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2009, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palins-divorce/505000/332 "2009-08-11T21:39:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Well there are a couple of things wrong with this. First, we’ve seen that the Alaska-Russia thing preceded the Kos-Trig post, and secondly, it’s not true that there really ever WERE any “Trig is not her baby” attacks outside of a small, and short-lived internet fringe. Almost none of the people ridiculing her for “I can see Russia” ever bought into the Trig rumor. Discussions here din’t reject the idea out of hand, did they? > [@The Palin Baby Rumor - Proven False?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/79): > > > [@John Carter of Mars](#): > > > > Try this for an idea: If Bristol is now five months pregnant, as has been stated, it’s impossible that the four month-old Trig is her baby. > > As I keep saying, we only have Sarah Palin’s word that Bristol is that far along. > [@The Palin Baby Rumor - Proven False?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-palin-baby-rumor-proven-false/461766/89): > > There is a birth certificate and prenatal records. Those documents would answer a lot of questions. > . > . > . > You mean there has been no evidence presented to dispute it. The evidence is there. She just chooses not to share it with anyone. That’s her choice. But it doesn’t mean the questions have been answered adequately. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > > [@elkin477](#): > > > > You don’t think they realize people might catch on if the baby due late December isn’t born until late February or early March? > > Sure, but by then the election will have been over for some time. > [@begbert2](#): > > And as far as I can see the notion that the kid isn’t hers hasn’t been disproven at all. Assertions that seem to fly in the face of the evidence mean little. And trying to whitewash all these questions with accusations of rumormongering seems like a slimy evasion tactic to me. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > The thing that I find so puzzling about this issue is how incredibly defensive the pro-Palin side is, and how they seem so wounded by this vicious, vicious smear. > > But what’s so vicious about the smear? As others have pointed out, there’s something somewhat noble about a woman, at the age of 44, taking responsibility for a special-needs baby that her 17-year-old-daughter bore, and trying to make it possible for that daughter to continue to live a normal life while at the same time providing as good a life as possible for the baby. . > . > . > In any case, as far as I can tell the rumor has NOT been proven false. It’s a rumor, and (unlike someone just making up “Obama’s children aren’t his”) it has a fair amount of circumstantial evidence for it. But there’s no proof of it. (And, unlike “Obama is a muslim” rumors, it’s a rumor about medical fact, not someone’s inner beliefs, and it could be easily and quite conclusively disproven in a number of different ways… the fact that it hasn’t been is, itself, somewhat odd.) So I see no reason not to just leave it as an unproven rumor. But, true or not, it is NOT relevant to whether or not Palin should be the next vice president (she should not). --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palins-divorce/505000)._