Read between the lines? You just equated buying and selling stocks with birth and death. Do I really need to go into details about how ridiculous that is?
No, I was making a correlation between a running a political campaign and purchasing stocks. You said nothing in between buying and selling really matters much, and why should that be any different than life? Your living life in between those moments in time of purchase and sale, and are paying attention to those stocks so you know when to sell in case they start to tank. Who buys then forgets and just magically knows when to sell? People don't have unlimited money or time and can't just allow the stock to tank and lose big. Google isn't too big to fail, and even if they were bailed out, the stock holders can't rely on the Gov.
There is no correlation though.
When you purchase stocks you own something and that thing will remain yours until the day you sell it or give it to somebody else. Also, people don't need to sell stocks to make money. You can just continue to own them and earn money from the dividends instead, and considering alphabet just made a profit of over 6 billion dollars (despite what some liars may claim) there's surely going to be some pretty good dividends being paid out still. And they aren't going to fail, anybody who thinks that seriously needs to get their head examined. A company that makes 6 billion dollars in 3 months isn't just going to go bankrupt all of a sudden, don't talk such tosh.
When you run a political campaign you lose money. You always lose money, unless you're in a massively corrupt country where you can steal loads of taxpayer money after getting elected, but otherwise it's a guaranteed loss of money win or lose. You're not doing it to make a profit though, you're doing it to get into a political office. Completely different reason for doing it, completely different method, completely different outcome. It's an atrocious comparison.