Actually, for every text to be translated there is a kind of translation that's very suitable for that text. For example, scientific texts should be semantically translated because the accuracy of meaning in such a case is of top priority.Literary Texts, on the other hand, can be communicatively managed. In other words, the meaning in this case is not of top priority but it goes hand in hand with the form which is very important too.
It could be added that political discourse is characterized by a lot of playing on words' meanings. In other words, politicians, in most situations, try to use certain words and expressions with opposite meanings. Such being the case, the pragmatic approach should be depended on when it comes to rendering political discourse.
Any discourse and all texts can be translated, as Neil says. There is word play in all linguistic expressions, and all expressions have contexts around their meanings. The genre of jokes is a liminal case, when their expressions are part of their content (technically : when the signifier signifies that it only signifies what it signifies by being this particular expression). - There are metaphors in all linguistic utterances. Metaphors and other tropes are often specific to linguistic cultures and therefore have to be represented by different metaphors or tropes. There is a huge literature on this subject, Waleed. May I suggest Reuben Brower's anthology "On Translation" ,OUP 1966 — with an excellent essay by the Russian linguist Roman Jakobson. Translation makes the world go 'round.
Such things as alliteration, assonance, and even rhyme, which are not limited to poetry, would seem to present more of a challenge than metaphor; they show that phonology can be as important as semantics for capturing the pragmatics of political discourse. Allusions are another challenge, since interpreting them depends on knowledge of specific previous utterances. (For example, in the 2016 US presidential election, Donald Trump led his audiences at rallies in chants of "Lock her up," referring to his opponent Hillary Clinton; this was to imply that Clinton was a criminal. In 2019, some anti-Trump rallies have featured chants of "Lock him up," where "him" is Trump.
Lock X up — Make Y great again — Z first — etc. The new media stimulate such micro-formulae, just like Arbeit Macht Frei, or Blood, Sweet and Tears, earlier, but now much more intensely, and tend to transform political discourse from prose to a sort of laconic and militant poetry. Therefore, phonetics, rhythm, shortness itself, become new foregrounded values. Rhetoric, in the classical sense, is now far too complicated for practical use.
There is a characteristic difference between two genres of translation: literary and commercial. Literary translation tries to stay very close to the original, even when the result sounds odd; and especially if the source text already sounds odd! Thereby literary translation contributes to the development of the target language. Commercial translation is pragmatic, in the sense that the result must be a text that works for the receiver; therefore, the translator can feel free to write around the source text's special tricks and just use other trick to seduce the targeted reader. In philosophical translation, we can observe a certain navigation between the two genres (Heidegger's translators navigate wildly). Some translators do not know the difference — beware of those.
The visual aspects translate very well. There are subtleties in the text that make translation difficult. Here is a PowerPoint about "Political Humor." Let me know how much of this is translatable. Thanks.
Ooooops. I forgot to add this PowerPoint about "Humor and Politics."