Assume he's a populist and it makes sense. Regulations, in general, are unpopular with much of the electorate. But in this case, with the once-dismantled AT&T becoming big again, people may see the merger as hostile to their interests. If reddit is any indication it's fairly unpopular.
People probably feel like regulations only apply to the little guy because the big players just weasel out of them. So reducing regulation in general while blocking a deal like this isn't inconsistent with a populist viewpoint.
Did you understand that he will literally never add any regulations? Why on earth would you assume that?
Could you explain your thoughts on how those two ideas are necessarily inconsistent with each other?
Well, one is removing a thing, and the other is adding the same thing.
QED _inconsistent_.
You'll first have to prove your premise that he is all about removing regulations (no matter what regulations), because that assertion is hardly an axiom.
He said that if any new regulations are passed, 2 must be removed.
That's not counter to regulation - add a regulation about large company mergers, remove regulations on CO2 and NOx producers. Done.
Same class of thing, sure. But definitely not the same thing...
Doesn't the decision base on the context ? It's not a black or white world.