KID defence is for attacking players against d4 , which one for positional players? d4

Also without knowing your opponents (their repertoire ) and playing higher rated opponents OTB (fast time controls, rapid or blitz) CM - strong FM's is it better to: 

Go sharp and attacking lines , tactical battles  

OR 

Go slow and sturdy, positional, maneuvering type of battle 

?

I'm also interested in defence, which is closed , positional, maneuvering set up type of agaisnt d4 of course.

There is no answer to your question.

The Kings Indian does not always end up a tactical, aggressive battle.  Can just as easily end up extremely positional (i.e.Fianchetto Variation, Exchange Variation).  I have seen very wild QGD, Slav, and Nimzo-Indian battles and very positional or early arrival at endgame positions in the Kings Indian, Grunfeld, Benoni, etc.

There is no cookie cutter approach to chess.  Play what you understand best whether you face a 1200 or a 2600.

What about Queens indian defence, I've heard it's solid and positional.

If I have time to learn just one defence against d4 against higher rated players and just to use one to suit every single game , which one to lean? Which one to go all in on? 

It's like pizza : so many different types and everyone prefers different kind, but if you want to choose all around or the best one to increase your chances so everyone likes it it MUST be SUPREME.

The Queens Indian cannot be a standalone defense.  1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3, you have time for 3...b6 as the point is to prevent e4.  3.Nf3 poses no threat of 4.e4, but 3.Nc3 does, so then 3...b6 is bad.  3...d5 and 3...Bb4 both prevent e4 while 3...c5 distracts e4 via attacking d4.  Other moves are bad.

QID is fine as long as you have the Nimzo, QGD, or Benoni to go with it.

Traditional wisdom I read in books for playing a better player is to either play:

1. What you know or like the best. This should give you an opportunity to learn from a better player.

or

2. Play the most sharp, trappy, craziest, game you can come up with, hoping they make a mistake in a complicated position. If you play a slow, positional game they will just grind you down.

+1

If you play a simul against masters, play aggressive and wild!

When you say "positional", what do you mean? From what I understand, are you looking for some positions e.g. Isolated pawn, closed center, open center etc? If that is what you mean, I think all defences would qualify. But for example, you are looking for an isolated pawn, Tarrasch defence is one

If you don't want QGD, what about Queen's Indian + Nimzo?

Indeed. Don't believe the hype. As a KID player myself, like the Sicilian (guess which variation I love to play) it is a "fighting" defense ~as in fighting for the center, flank control & the initiative. "Aggressive" is always a misleading term for newbies. The only thing you really need to know, as far as defense goes: Equalize first, THEN "fish" for something. Knowing this absolute fact, it whittles down which defense is "aggressive " or "positional" to any one individual. Because to my mind, I dont think of any one opening in those colloquial terms: just those which fit into my Chess Philosophy, my Harmony. Aggressive, Prophylactic or Submissive or whatever. That guys is the Truth you all have find; through experience, study & practice. Not in these types of "debates". Just play, man. Because playin's always the thing with me. And it should be for the lot of you too. Best wishes and Happy Holidays🤙🏼

I agree with those suggesting Nimzo & QID. (You can also try a classical QGD since few likely know it these days.) If by 'positional' you mean that you'd like to push the conflict deeper into the middle game you could try the aggressive stonewall Dutch.