Perhaps unwisely, I'm going to ignore the political context of the question.
However, do note that politics carried out on Twitter is worlds away from formal propositional reasoning. In particular, it is important to be aware of the unstated assumptions that back up a tweet. It is necessary to accurately understand those assumptions and engage with them to make a meaningful contribution to a discussion.
Anyway, there's a few subtly different ways to read the tweet.
- "Since Trump is thinking the same way that Kaepernick is thinking
and Kaepernick is right, then Trump is wrong [to disagree with
That isn't actually saying anything about whether either of them is correct in the topic at hand, it's more of a moral jab at Trump's perceived unfair treatment of Kaepernick.
- "Since Trump is thinking about A the same way that Kaepernick is
thinking about B
, and Kaepernick is right, then Trump [is
either mistaken about B or about A]."
That does touch on the truth of the claims. Again it doesn't claim that Kaepernick was right, only that Trump cannot be right in both cases.
- "Since Trump is (assumed correctly) acknowledging C in the context of
A and Kaepernick argued that C implies B then Trump should
acknowledge Kaepernick is right about B."
This assumes that the premises they both work from are in fact correct.
- "Since Kaepernick argued that C implies B and Trump (assumed
correctly) denied B, he cannot now claim or rely on C (in support of
From the tone of the tweet, this is probably not the claim being made. However it's an acceptable claim to make from the logical form. It's the sort of logic you might use if you replace Kaepernick with a clear bad guy: "Bro, that was basically Hitler's whole point."
Note that the one thing that cannot be drawn out of this argument is that Trump is wrong about both A and B. I suspect that may be where your confusion came from: because there are multiple claims being made by Trump, "Trump is wrong" doesn't help clarify much! With the divisions made on who is wrong about what, the senses of the arguments can be clarified.
However, as I mentioned above, political claims tend to be too big and too full of assumptions to get a handle on formally. The implication of that is that the details may completely destroy any of the above variants. Consider:
Alex, party kid to mates about going out and getting drunk "There's no point in having this money just sitting in our wallets."
Bob, Alex's Dad about the importance of investment: "There's no point in having this money just sitting in our wallets."
Alex might respond with "Ah, I'm glad you agree with me! I'll take a taxi because there's no way I'll be legal to drive at the end of the evening."
However, it seems clear that, even though the sentence is word for word the same, there are many things different in what they're claiming and how their claims interact with money in wallets. It is possible for Bob to be right and Alex to be wrong, or Alex to be right and Bob to be wrong.