Thread: Conspiracy Theory About Bristol Palin Being Trig's Mother?

Just a question.

I don't necessarily believe the conspiracy theory about Bristol Palin being Trig's mother, but I'm sick of them acting like a cover-up is so impossible.

They have adamantly stated that the date on which Trig was delivered and Bristol's due date cancel each other out so Bristol couldn't possibly be the mother--but doesn't this assume that the Palins are telling the truth about when Bristol's new baby is due? And what kind of coincidence is it that Bristol was removed from school for five whole months for mono?

Like I said, I'm not really interested in Bristol and what she does with her life does not matter to me--I'm not one to judge. What does matter is her mom's honesty in her handling of serious issues.

So in terms of logic, doesn't using the delivery date of Trig and the mentioned due date of the next baby assume that the Palins are telling the truth? (This is more a question about logic than morality, so don't get so fired up.)

I already told you, this isn't about smearing anyone, and saying it is is just a way for you to change the subject because you have no real logic to offer me.
Um, it would be hard for Sarah to feign a pregnancy now that everyone's paying close attention to Bristol and her. Back when no one knew who she was, it would have been easier.
No--because that assumes that the Palins are telling the truth, which is the root of the question that obviously no one is trying to answer.

Well, I am very tired of this topic, but here's some additional logic for you--

Down's syndrome is much more common in older mothers and is extremely rare in young moms and first pregnancies. I don't have the exact stats but I do know that after 35 the probability drops sharply to less than 1 in 100 births. It's much more likely that Trig is Sarah's baby for this fact alone.

Speaking of alone, leave the poor kids alone--this campaign should not be about them.

Thats what I thought when I saw that baby!